Vol. 84 Wednesday, No. 219 November 13, 2019

Pages 60883–61516

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER

VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\13NOWS.LOC 13NOWS II Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019

The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) Subscriptions: and the regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Government Publishing Office, is the exclusive distributor of the official edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general (Toll-Free) applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published FEDERAL AGENCIES by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public Subscriptions: interest. Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions: Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the Email [email protected] issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents Phone 202–741–6000 currently on file for public inspection, see www.federalregister.gov. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration The Federal Register Printing Savings Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115- authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication 120) placed restrictions on distribution of official printed copies established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, of the daily Federal Register to members of Congress and Federal the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. offices. Under this Act, the Director of the Government Publishing The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. Office may not provide printed copies of the daily Federal Register It is also available online at no charge at www.govinfo.gov, a unless a Member or other Federal office requests a specific issue service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office. or a subscription to the print edition. For more information on how to subscribe use the following website link: https:// The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the www.gpo.gov/frsubs. authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6:00 a.m. each day the Federal Register is published and includes both text and graphics from Volume 1, 1 (March 14, 1936) forward. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800 or 866-512- 1800 (toll free). E-mail, gpocusthelp.com. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $860 plus postage, or $929, for a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $330, plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied to orders according to the delivery method requested. The price of a single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage, is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containing less than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages; and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issues of the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy, including postage. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover. Mail to: U.S. Government Publishing Office—New Orders, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000; or call toll free 1-866-512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. Government Online Bookstore site, see bookstore.gpo.gov. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 84 FR 12345. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Federal Register, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received.

.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\13NOWS.LOC 13NOWS III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 219

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Agriculture Department NOTICES See Rural Business-Cooperative Service Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals, 61604 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61594 Education Department Antitrust Division See National Assessment Governing Board NOTICES PROPOSED RULES Changes under National Cooperative Research and Proposed Priority and Requirements––Technical Assistance Production Act: on State Data Collection––Individuals with Disabilities National Spectrum Consortium, 61657 Education Act Data Management Center, 61585–61591 United States et al. v. Deutsche Telekom AG; T-Mobile US, Inc.; SoftBank Group Corp.; and Sprint Corp., 61640– Energy Department 61657 See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Army Department Meetings: NOTICES Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Committee, 61607–61608 Submissions, and Approvals, 61602–61604 Environmental Management Advisory Board, 61606– Census Bureau 61607 NOTICES Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Board, Hanford, 61609 Submissions, and Approvals, 61595 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada, 61608 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Petroleum Council, 61608 NOTICES Medicare Program: Environmental Protection Agency CY 2020 Inpatient Hospital Deductible and Hospital and RULES Extended Care Services Coinsurance Amounts, 61619–61622 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and CY 2020 Part A Premiums for the Uninsured Aged and Promulgations: for Certain Disabled Individuals Who Have Massachusetts; Transport Element for the 2010 Sulfur Exhausted Other Entitlement, 61622–61625 Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, Medicare Part B Monthly Actuarial Rates, Premium Rates, 61560–61563 and Annual Deductible Beginning January 1, 2020, Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression 61625–61633 Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, 61563–61568 PROPOSED RULES Coast Guard Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and PROPOSED RULES Promulgations: Safety Zones: Pennsylvania; Allegheny County Administrative Port Valdez, Valdez, AK, 61583–61585 Revisions to Definitions, Remedies, and Enforcement Orders Sections and Incorporation by Reference, Commerce Department 61592–61593 See Census Bureau National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: See Foreign-Trade Zones Board Lead and Copper Rule Revisions, 61684–61774 See Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Meetings: See Patent and Trademark Office National Drinking Water Advisory Council, 61615–61616

Comptroller of the Currency RULES Federal Aviation Administration Regulatory Capital Rule: RULES Capital Simplification for Qualifying Community Banking Airworthiness Directives: Organizations, 61776–61804 Airbus SAS Airplanes, 61517–61519, 61523–61529 Simplifications to the Capital Rule Pursuant to the Aviointeriors S.p.A. Centaurus Passenger Seats, 61520– Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork 61523 Reduction Act of 1996; Revised Effective Date, Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 61529–61533 61804–61808 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 61533–61537 Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, and Defense Department Establishment of Class E Airspace: See Army Department Spokane, WA, 61537–61538

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\13NOCN.SGM 13NOCN IV Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Contents

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, RULES Submissions, and Approvals: Regulatory Capital Rule: Proposal to Lease Space, and Lessor’s Annual Cost Capital Simplification for Qualifying Community Banking Statement, 61617–61618 Organizations, 61776–61804 Meetings: Simplifications to the Capital Rule Pursuant to the Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commission, 61618–61619 Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996; Revised Effective Date, Health and Human Services Department 61804–61808 See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See National Institutes of Health See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Administration NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Meetings: Submissions, and Approvals: National Clinical Care Commission, 61633–61634 Requests For Emergency Extensions, 61614 Application: Homeland Security Department ANR Pipeline Co., 61613 See Coast Guard Combined Filings, 61609–61611 Declaratory Order: Industry and Security Bureau Marion County Solar Farm I, LLC, Marion County Solar RULES Farm II, LLC, Taylor County Solar, LLC, et al., Addition of Entities to the Entity List, Revision of an Entry 61614–61615 on the Entity List, and Removal of Entities from the Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Entity List, 61538–61546 Bushton to Clifton A-line Abandonment Project; Northern Natural Gas Co., 61611–61613 Interior Department City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department, 61614 See Reclamation Bureau Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for NOTICES Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Draft Restoration Plan 1.3 and Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Environmental Assessment: Kimball Wind, LLC, 61609 Rabbit Island Restoration and Shoreline Protection at Jean Lafitte Historical National Park and Preserve; Federal Highway Administration Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group, 61636– NOTICES 61638 Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program: Ohio Department of Transportation Audit Report, 61677– Internal Revenue Service 61680 RULES Utah Department of Transportation Audit Report, 61680– Electronic Filing of the Report of Health Insurance Provider 61682 Information, 61547–61548 International Trade Commission Federal Reserve System NOTICES RULES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, Regulatory Capital Rule: etc.: Capital Simplification for Qualifying Community Banking Certain Foldable Reusable Drinking Straws and Organizations, 61776–61804 Components and Accessories Thereof, 61639–61640 Simplifications to the Capital Rule Pursuant to the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Justice Department Reduction Act of 1996; Revised Effective Date, See Antitrust Division 61804–61808 NOTICES Labor Department Change in Bank Control: See Workers Compensation Programs Office Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 61616 National Assessment Governing Board Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank NOTICES Holding Companies, 61616 Meetings, 61604–61606

Foreign-Trade Zones Board National Institutes of Health NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Approval of Subzone Status: Center for Scientific Review, 61634–61635 Patterson Pump Co.; Toccoa, GA, 61595 Proposed Production Activity: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Flextronics America, LLC (Automated Data Processing RULES Machines) Austin, TX; Foreign-Trade Zone 183, Clarification of Procedures for the Sanctuary Nomination Austin, TX, 61595–61596 Process, 61546 Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico General Services Administration and Atlantic Region: NOTICES 2019–2020 Commercial Quota Reduction for King 2020 Presidential Transition Directory, 61616 Mackerel Run-Around Gillnet Fishery, 61568–61569

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\13NOCN.SGM 13NOCN Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Contents V

Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Securities and Exchange Commission Jonah Crab Fishery; Interstate Fishery Management Plan NOTICES for Jonah Crab, 61569–61582 Charter Renewal: NOTICES Fixed Income Market Structure Advisory Committee, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, 61670 Submissions, and Approvals: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Alaska Region Gear Identification Requirements, 61598– Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 61660–61670 61599 The Depository Trust Co., 61670–61673 Meetings: Fisheries of the Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, Small Business Administration and Review, 61596 NOTICES Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Major Disaster Declaration: Assessment, and Review, 61597–61598 South Carolina, 61673 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 61598 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 61596–61597 State Department NOTICES Patent and Trademark Office Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Evaluation of the Professional Fellows Program, 61673– Submissions, and Approvals: 61674 Post Allowance and Refiling, 61600–61602 Pro Bono Survey, 61599–61600 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES NOTICES Meetings, 61635 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Meetings: Submissions, and Approvals: Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Annual Reporting (Form 5500 Series), 61658–61659 Committee, 61635–61636

Postal Regulatory Commission Trade Representative, Office of United States RULES NOTICES Update to Product Lists, 61552–61560 Product Exclusions: NOTICES China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Initiating Docket(s) for Recent Postal Service Negotiated Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Service Agreement Filings, 61659–61660 Innovation, 61674–61676

Postal Service Transportation Department NOTICES See Federal Aviation Administration Product Change: See Federal Highway Administration Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 61660 Treasury Department Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 61660 See Comptroller of the Currency See Internal Revenue Service

Presidential Documents Veterans Affairs Department PROCLAMATIONS RULES Special Observances: Veterans Healing Veterans Medical Access and Scholarship Veterans Day (Proc. 9963), 61809–61812 Program, 61548–61552 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Iran; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of Workers Compensation Programs Office November 12, 2019), 61813–61815 NOTICES Weapons of Mass Destruction; Continuation of National Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Emergency With Respect to Proliferation (Notice of Submissions, and Approvals: November 12, 2019), 61817 Request for State or Federal Workers’ Compensation Information, 61657–61658 Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Separate Parts In This Issue Eastern North Dakota Alternate Water Supply Project, Burleigh, Kidder, Sheridan, and Wells Counties, ND, Part II 61638–61639 Environmental Protection Agency, 61684–61774

Rural Business-Cooperative Service Part III NOTICES Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 61776–61808 Requests for Applications: Federal Reserve System, 61776–61808 Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Programs Treasury Department, Comptroller of the Currency, 61776– for Fiscal Year 2020, 61594–61595 61808

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\13NOCN.SGM 13NOCN VI Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Contents

Part IV Reader Aids Presidential Documents, 61809–61812 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. Part V To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents Presidential Documents, 61813–61815, 61817 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\13NOCN.SGM 13NOCN Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Contents VII

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

3 CFR Proclamations: 9963...... 61811 Administrative Orders: Notices: Notice of November 12, 2019 ...... 61815 Notice of November 12, 2019 ...... 61817 12 CFR 1...... 61776 3 (2 documents) ...... 61776, 61804 5...... 61776 6...... 61776 23...... 61776 24...... 61776 32...... 61776 34...... 61776 160...... 61776 192...... 61776 206...... 61776 208...... 61776 211...... 61776 215...... 61776 217 (2 documents) ...... 61776, 61804 223...... 61776 225...... 61776 238...... 61776 251...... 61776 303...... 61776 324 (2 documents) ...... 61776, 61804 337...... 61776 347...... 61776 362...... 61776 365...... 61776 390...... 61776 14 CFR 39 (6 documents) ...... 61517, 61520, 61523, 61526, 61529, 61533 71...... 61537 15 CFR 744...... 61538 922...... 61546 26 CFR 57...... 61547 33 CFR Proposed Rules: 165...... 61583 34 CFR Proposed Rules: Ch. III ...... 61585 38 CFR 17...... 61548 39 CFR 3020...... 61552 40 CFR 52...... 61560 60...... 61563 Proposed Rules: 52...... 61592 141...... 61684 142...... 61684 50 CFR 622...... 61568 648...... 61569

VerDate Sep 11 2014 20:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\13NOLS.LOC 13NOLS 61517

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 219

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 1000; email [email protected]; caused material degradation in the contains regulatory documents having general internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may rearmost section of the TRU beam at applicability and legal effect, most of which find this IBR material on the EASA certain latches. The NPRM proposed to are keyed to and codified in the Code of website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. require an inspection for heat damage of Federal Regulations, which is published under You may view this IBR material at the each left-hand and right-hand TRU 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 beam. The NPRM also proposed to The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For require, depending on the findings, the Superintendent of Documents. information on the availability of this inspections of the TRU beam latches, material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. the TRU beam clevises, and the thrust It is also available in the AD docket on reverser outer fixed structure rear area; DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the internet at https:// corrective actions; and replacement of www.regulations.gov by searching for TRU beams. Federal Aviation Administration and locating Docket No. FAA–2019– The FAA is issuing this AD to address 0485. degradation of TRU beams, which could 14 CFR Part 39 lead to disconnection of the TRU from Examining the AD Docket [Docket No. FAA–2019–0485; Product the engine, causing possible damage to Identifier 2019–NM–064–AD; Amendment You may examine the AD docket on the engine adjacent structure and 39–19757; AD 2019–20–04] the internet at https:// controls and possible damage to the airplane. See the MCAI for additional RIN 2120–AA64 www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2019– background information. Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS 0485; or in person at Docket Operations Comments Airplanes between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The FAA gave the public the AGENCY: Federal Aviation The AD docket contains this final rule, opportunity to participate in developing Administration (FAA), Department of the regulatory evaluation, any this final rule. The following presents Transportation (DOT). comments received, and other the comments received on the NPRM ACTION: Final rule. information. The address for Docket and the FAA’s response to each Operations is U.S. Department of comment. Patrick Imperatrice expressed SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new Transportation, Docket Operations, support for the NPRM. airworthiness directive (AD) for all M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Request To Allow Certain Substitutions Airbus SAS Model A330–243, A330– Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey American Airlines identified several 243F, A330–341, A330–342, and A330– Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 343 airplanes. This AD was prompted errors in the service information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: referenced in EASA AD 2018–0148R1, by reports of thrust reverser unit (TRU) Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, beams found with evidence of thermally and requested correction of the errors International Section, Transport through allowing certain substitutions. caused material degradation in the Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South rearmost section of the TRU beam at The commenter noted that the proposed 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; AD requires compliance with EASA AD certain latches. This AD requires an telephone and fax 206–231–3229. inspection for heat damage of each left- 2018–0148R1, which in turn references SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: hand and right-hand TRU beam as service information from Airbus, Rolls specified in a European Union Aviation Discussion Royce, and Safran. The commenter stated that the applicable service Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is The EASA, which is the Technical incorporated by reference. Depending information contains several errors Agent for the Member States of the when referring to part numbers, on findings, this AD might also require European Union, has issued EASA AD inspections of the TRU beam latches, documents, and the order in which 2018–0148R1, dated April 5, 2019 certain steps are to be done. The the TRU beam clevises, and the thrust (‘‘EASA AD 2018–0148R1’’) (also reverser outer fixed structure rear area; commenter added that Safran verified referred to as the Mandatory Continuing these errors. Specifically, the corrective actions; and replacement of Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the TRU beams. The FAA is issuing this AD commenter requested that the proposed MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition AD be revised to allow the following to address the unsafe condition on these for all Airbus SAS Model A330–243, products. substitutions: A330–243F, A330–341, A330–342, and • The installation of NAS1149 series DATES: This AD is effective December A330–343 airplanes. washers in lieu of AN960 washers. 18, 2019. The FAA issued a notice of proposed • The installation of NAS6303U4 The Director of the Federal Register rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR bolts in lieu of NAS6303U04 bolts. approved the incorporation by reference part 39 by adding an AD that would • The use of NSA5050–4C nuts in of a certain publication listed in this AD apply to all Airbus SAS Model A330– lieu of NAS5050–4C nuts. as of December 18, 2019. 243, A330–243F, A330–341, A330–342, • The reference to ‘‘Airbus SRM 51– ADDRESSES: For the material and A330–343 airplanes. The NPRM 75’’ in lieu of ‘‘Rolls Royce SRM 54–02– incorporated by reference (IBR) in this published in the Federal Register on 04’’ for paint restoration. AD, contact the EASA, Konrad- June 26, 2019 (84 FR 30052). The NPRM • The reference to ‘‘CMM 78–30–20 Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, was prompted by reports of TRU beams Figure 39 Graphic 78–30–20–991–839– Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 found with evidence of thermally A01’’ in lieu of ‘‘CMM 78–30–20 Figure

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61518 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

38 Graphic 78–30–20–991–838–A01’’ public interest require adopting this latches for bush migration and cracks or for replacement of damaged right-hand final rule with the changes described deformation, detailed inspections of the thrust reverser latch covers and previously and minor editorial changes. TRU beam clevises for cracks and hardware. The FAA has determined that these deformation, ultrasonic inspections of • The allowance to de-energize the minor changes: the thrust reverser outer fixed structure ground service network, as specified in • Are consistent with the intent that rear area for delamination, replacement aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) was proposed in the NPRM for of TRU beams, and corrective actions. 24–42–00, after closing the fan cowl addressing the unsafe condition; and Corrective actions include restoring • doors in lieu of de-energizing the Do not add any additional burden paint, repairing delaminated areas, and ground service network before closing upon the public than was already measuring latch pin hole fitting the fan cowl doors. proposed in the NPRM. diameters near migrated bushes. This The FAA acknowledges the The FAA also determined that these material is reasonably available because referenced errors and agrees with the changes will not increase the economic the interested parties have access to it burden on any operator or increase the commenter’s request. The FAA has through their normal course of business scope of this final rule. added paragraphs (h)(3) through (8) to or by the means identified in the this AD to include exceptions allowing Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR part ADDRESSES section. the substitutions requested by the 51 commenter. Costs of Compliance EASA AD 2018–0148R1 describes Conclusion procedures for a special detailed The FAA estimates that this AD The FAA reviewed the relevant data, inspection for heat damage of each left- affects 51 airplanes of U.S. registry. The considered the comments received, and hand and right-hand TRU beam, FAA estimates the following costs to determined that air safety and the detailed inspections of the TRU beam comply with this AD:

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

Cost per Cost on U.S. Labor cost Parts cost product operators

1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ...... $0 $85 $4,335

The FAA estimates the following the results of any required actions. The number of aircraft that might need these costs to do any necessary on-condition FAA has no way of determining the on-condition actions: actions that would be required based on

ESTIMATED COSTS OF ON-CONDITION ACTIONS *

Cost per Labor cost Parts cost product

2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 ...... $0 $170 * The table only includes the costs for on-condition inspections. The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency to pro- vide cost estimates for the on-condition corrective actions and replacement specified in this AD.

According to the manufacturer, some with promoting safe flight of civil Regulatory Findings or all of the costs of this AD may be aircraft in air commerce by prescribing covered under warranty, thereby regulations for practices, methods, and This AD will not have federalism reducing the cost impact on affected procedures the Administrator finds implications under Executive Order individuals. The FAA does not control necessary for safety in air commerce. 13132. This AD will not have a warranty coverage for affected This regulation is within the scope of substantial direct effect on the States, on individuals. As a result, the FAA has that authority because it addresses an the relationship between the national included all known costs in our cost unsafe condition that is likely to exist or government and the States, or on the estimate. develop on products identified in this distribution of power and rulemaking action. responsibilities among the various Authority for This Rulemaking This AD is issued in accordance with levels of government. Title 49 of the United States Code authority delegated by the Executive For the reasons discussed above, I specifies the FAA’s authority to issue Director, Aircraft Certification Service, rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. certify that this AD: section 106, describes the authority of In accordance with that order, issuance (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: of ADs is normally a function of the action’’ under Executive Order 12866, Aviation Programs, describes in more Compliance and Airworthiness (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation detail the scope of the Agency’s Division, but during this transition in Alaska, and authority. period, the Executive Director has The FAA is issuing this rulemaking delegated the authority to issue ADs (3) Will not have a significant under the authority described in applicable to transport category economic impact, positive or negative, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section airplanes and associated appliances to on a substantial number of small entities 44701: ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under the Director of the System Oversight under the criteria of the Regulatory that section, Congress charges the FAA Division. Flexibility Act.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61519

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 (2) The ‘‘Remarks’’ section of EASA AD Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, 2018–0148R1 does not apply to this AD. the approval must include the DOA- Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation (3) Where the service information authorized signature. safety, Incorporation by reference, referenced in EASA AD 2018–0148R1 (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any Safety. specifies the installation of AN960 washers, service information referenced in EASA AD Adoption of the Amendment this AD allows the installation of NAS1149 2018–0148R1 that contains RC procedures series washers. and tests: Except as required by paragraph Accordingly, under the authority (4) Where the service information (j)(2) of this AD, RC procedures and tests delegated to me by the Administrator, referenced in EASA AD 2018–0148R1 must be done to comply with this AD; any the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as specifies the installation of NAS6303U04 procedures or tests that are not identified as follows: bolts, this AD allows the installation of RC are recommended. Those procedures and NAS6303U4 bolts. tests that are not identified as RC may be PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS (5) Where the service information deviated from using accepted methods in DIRECTIVES referenced in EASA AD 2018–0148R1 accordance with the operator’s maintenance specifies the use of NAS5050–4C nuts, this or inspection program without obtaining AD allows the use of NSA5050–4C nuts. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 approval of an AMOC, provided the (6) Where the service information continues to read as follows: procedures and tests identified as RC can be referenced in EASA AD 2018–0148R1 refers done and the airplane can be put back in an Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. to ‘‘Rolls Royce SRM 54–02–04’’ for paint restoration, for this AD replace the phrase airworthy condition. Any substitutions or § 39.13 [Amended] ‘‘Rolls Royce SRM 54–02–04’’ with ‘‘Airbus changes to procedures or tests identified as ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding SRM 51–75.’’ RC require approval of an AMOC. the following new airworthiness (7) Where the service information (k) Related Information referenced in EASA AD 2018–0148R1 refers directive (AD): For more information about this AD, to ‘‘CMM 78–30–20 Figure 38 Graphic 78– 2019–20–04 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39– 30–20–991–838–A01’’ for replacement of contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace 19757; Docket No. FAA–2019–0485; damaged right-hand thrust reverser latch Engineer, International Section, Transport Product Identifier 2019–NM–064–AD. covers and hardware, for this AD replace the Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and (a) Effective Date phrase ‘‘CMM 78–30–20 Figure 38 Graphic fax 206–231–3229. This AD is effective December 18, 2019. 78–30–20–991–838–A01’’ with ‘‘CMM 78– 30–20 Figure 39 Graphic 78–30–20–991– (l) Material Incorporated by Reference (b) Affected ADs 839–A01.’’ (1) The Director of the Federal Register None. (8) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018–0148R1 approved the incorporation by reference (c) Applicability specifies to de-energize the ground service (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model network, as specified in aircraft maintenance A330–243, A330–243F, A330–341, A330– manual (AMM) 24–42–00, before closing the part 51. 342, and A330–343 airplanes, certificated in fan cowl doors, this AD allows de-energizing (2) You must use this service information any category. the ground service network after closing the as applicable to do the actions required by fan cowl doors. this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. (d) Subject (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency Air Transport Association (ATA) of (i) No Reporting Requirement (EASA) AD 2018–0148R1, dated April 5, America Code 78, Engine exhaust. Although the service information 2019. referenced in EASA AD 2018–0148R1 (ii) [Reserved] (e) Reason specifies to submit certain information to the (3) For information about EASA AD 2018– This AD was prompted by reports of thrust manufacturer, this AD does not include that 0148R1, contact the EASA, Konrad- reverser unit (TRU) beams found with requirement. Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; evidence of thermally caused material telephone +49 221 89990 6017; email ADs@ (j) Other FAA AD Provisions degradation in the rearmost section of the easa.europa.eu; internet TRU beam at certain latches. The FAA is The following provisions also apply to this www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this issuing this AD to address degradation of AD: EASA AD on the EASA website at https:// TRU beams, which could lead to (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance ad.easa.europa.eu. disconnection of the TRU from the engine, (AMOCs): The Manager, International (4) You may view this material at the FAA, causing possible damage to the engine Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South adjacent structure and controls and possible has the authority to approve AMOCs for this damage to the airplane. 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information AD, if requested using the procedures found on the availability of this material at the (f) Compliance in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR FAA, call 206–231–3195. This material may 39.19, send your request to your principal be found in the AD docket on the internet at Comply with this AD within the inspector or local Flight Standards District compliance times specified, unless already https://www.regulations.gov by searching for Office, as appropriate. If sending information done. and locating Docket No. FAA–2019–0485. directly to the International Section, send it (5) You may view this material that is to the attention of the person identified in (g) Requirements incorporated by reference at the National paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this Archives and Records Administration emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@ AD: Comply with all required actions and (NARA). For information on the availability faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC, compliance times specified in, and in of this material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@ notify your appropriate principal inspector, accordance with, European Union Aviation nara.gov, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/ or lacking a principal inspector, the manager Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018–0148R1, federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. dated April 5, 2019 (‘‘EASA AD 2018– of the local flight standards district office/ 0148R1’’). certificate holding district office. Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any September 27, 2019. (h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2018–0148R1 requirement in this AD to obtain instructions Michael Kaszycki, (1) Where EASA AD 2018–0148R1 refers to from a manufacturer, the instructions must Acting Director, System Oversight Division, its effective date, or July 27, 2018 (the be accomplished using a method approved Aircraft Certification Service. effective date of EASA AD 2018–0148, dated by the Manager, International Section, July 13, 2018), this AD requires using the Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; [FR Doc. 2019–24502 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] effective date of this AD. or Airbus SAS’s EASA Design Organization BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61520 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday include updated instructions for installing an through Friday, except Federal holidays. affected pouch. Federal Aviation Administration The AD docket contains this final rule, For the reason described above, EASA the mandatory continuing airworthiness issued AD 2018–0264, requiring inspection 14 CFR Part 39 of the affected seats and, depending on information (MCAI), the regulatory findings, accomplishment of applicable [Docket No. FAA–2019–0557; Product evaluation, any comments received, and corrective action(s). Identifier 2019–NE–17–AD; Amendment 39– other information. The address for Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was 19775; AD 2019–21–09] Docket Operations is U.S. Department of determined that affected seats may have Transportation, Docket Operations, M– received an additional P/N related to the RIN 2120–AA64 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room aircraft modification addressing the installation of the seats. This [EASA] AD is Airworthiness Directives; Aviointeriors W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. revised to clarify the Applicability by S.p.A. Centaurus Passenger Seats inserting Note 1 into Appendix 1 of this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [EASA] AD. AGENCY: Federal Aviation Dorie Resnik, Aerospace Engineer, Administration (FAA), DOT. Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District You may obtain further information ACTION: Final rule. Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: by examining the MCAI in the AD 781–238–7693; fax: 781–238–7199; docket on the internet at https:// SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new email: [email protected]. www.regulations.gov by searching for airworthiness directive (AD) for certain SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and locating Docket No. FAA–2019– Aviointeriors S.p.A. (Aviointeriors) 0557. Centaurus passenger seats with a Discussion Comments specific life vest pouch assembly The FAA issued a notice of proposed installed. This AD was prompted by rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR The FAA gave the public the reports of life vest pouches that were part 39 by adding an AD that would opportunity to participate in developing installed incorrectly on certain seats. apply to certain Aviointeriors S.p.A. this final rule. The FAA received no This AD requires inspection of the life (Aviointeriors) Centaurus passenger comments on the NPRM or on the vest pouch assembly and, depending on seats with a specific life vest pouch determination of the cost to the public. the results of the inspection, assembly installed. The NPRM Conclusion replacement of the life vest pouch published in the Federal Register on assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD August 15, 2019 (84 FR 41664). The The FAA reviewed the relevant data to address the unsafe condition on these NPRM was prompted by reports of life and determined that air safety and the products. vest pouches that were installed public interest require adopting this DATES: This AD is effective December incorrectly on certain seats. The NPRM final rule as proposed. 18, 2019. proposed to require inspection of the Related Service Information Under 1 The Director of the Federal Register life vest pouch assembly and, CFR Part 51 approved the incorporation by reference depending on the results of the of certain publications listed in this AD inspection, replacement of the life vest The FAA reviewed Aviointeriors as of December 18, 2019. pouch assembly. The FAA is issuing Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. ADDRESSES: For service information this AD to address the unsafe condition 16/18, Rev. 1, dated October 11, 2018, identified in this final rule, contact on these products. and Aviointeriors Optional Service Aviointeriors S.p.A., Customer Support, The European Union Aviation Safety Bulletin (OSB) No. 18/18, Rev. 2, dated Via Appia Km. 66,4; 04013 Latina, Italy; Agency (EASA), which is the Technical March 11, 2019. The MSB describes phone: +39 0773 6891; fax: +39 0773 Agent for the Member States of the procedures for inspection and 631546; email: customer-support@ European Community, has issued EASA horizontal installation of the life vest aviointeriors.it; internet: http:// AD No. 2018–0264R1, dated April 4, pouch assembly. The OSB describes www.aviointeriors.it. You may view this 2019 (referred to after this as ‘‘the procedures for an alternative (vertical) service information at the FAA, Engine MCAI’’), to address the unsafe condition inspection and installation of the life and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 on these products. The MCAI states: vest pouch assembly. This service information is reasonably available District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Incorrect installation of the affected pouch For information on the availability of was found on certain affected seats. because the interested parties have this material at the FAA, call 781–238– Subsequent investigation determined that access to it through their normal course 7759. It is also available on the internet those pouches have been (re)installed in of business or by the means identified at https://www.regulations.gov by service. This condition, if not detected and in the ADDRESSES section. corrected, could prevent extraction of the life searching for and locating Docket No. Costs of Compliance FAA–2019–0557. vest from the pouch, leading to evacuation of the aeroplane without a life vest, possibly The FAA estimates that this AD Examining the AD Docket resulting in injury to passengers. affects an unknown number of To address this potential unsafe condition, passenger seats installed on, but not You may examine the AD docket on Aviointeriors issued the SB to provide the internet at https:// inspection instructions and the modification limited to, Boeing 777–200 and 777–300 www.regulations.gov by searching for SB to provide instructions to modify the airplanes of U.S. registry. and locating Docket No. FAA–2019– affected seats. Aviointeriors also revised the The FAA estimates the following 0557; or in person at Docket Operations Component Maintenance Manuals (CMM) to costs to comply with this AD:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61521

ESTIMATED COSTS

Cost per Action Labor cost Parts cost product

Inspect life vest pouch assembly ...... 0.2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $17 ...... $0 $17 Replace life vest pouch assembly ...... 0.1 work-hours × $85 per hour = $8.50 ...... 172 180.50

Authority for This Rulemaking applicable to engines, propellers, and the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as Title 49 of the United States Code associated appliances to the Manager, follows: specifies the FAA’s authority to issue Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Policy and Innovation Division. PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES section 106, describes the authority of Regulatory Findings the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: This AD will not have federalism Aviation Programs, describes in more ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 implications under Executive Order detail the scope of the Agency’s continues to read as follows: 13132. This AD will not have a authority. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. The FAA is issuing this rulemaking substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national under the authority described in § 39.13 [Amended] Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section government and the States, or on the 44701: ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under distribution of power and ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding that section, Congress charges the FAA responsibilities among the various the following new airworthiness with promoting safe flight of civil levels of government. directive (AD): For the reasons discussed above, I aircraft in air commerce by prescribing certify this AD: 2019–21–09 Aviointeriors S.p.A.: regulations for practices, methods, and (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Amendment 39–19775; Docket No. procedures the Administrator finds action’’ under Executive Order 12866, FAA–2019–0557; Product Identifier necessary for safety in air commerce. (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation 2019–NE–17–AD. This regulation is within the scope of in Alaska, and (a) Effective Date that authority because it addresses an (3) Will not have a significant unsafe condition that is likely to exist or economic impact, positive or negative, This AD is effective December 18, 2019. develop on products identified in this on a substantial number of small entities (b) Affected ADs rulemaking action. under the criteria of the Regulatory None. This AD is issued in accordance with Flexibility Act. authority delegated by the Executive (c) Applicability Director, Aircraft Certification Service, List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 (1) This AD applies to Aviointeriors S.p.A. as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation (Aviointeriors) Centaurus Economy Class In accordance with that order, issuance safety, Incorporation by reference, 13E, 13H, and 13K passenger seats with a of ADs is normally a function of the Safety. Compliance and Airworthiness seat part number (P/N) listed in Figure 1 to Division, but during this transition Adoption of the Amendment paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, with life vest period, the Executive Director has Accordingly, under the authority pouch, P/N 313907100004, installed. delegated the authority to issue ADs delegated to me by the Administrator, BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61522 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 16/18, Rev. 1, (h) Installation Prohibition (2) These appliances are installed on, but dated October 11, 2018, or Paragraph 2, Life After the effective date of this AD, do not not limited to, Boeing 777–200 and 777–300 Vest Pouches Inspection, Aviointeriors airplanes. install an Aviointeriors Centaurus Economy Optional SB (OSB) No. 18/18, Rev. 2, dated Class passenger seat with a P/N identified in (d) Subject March 11, 2019. paragraph (c) of this AD unless the affected Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) (2) If, during the inspection required by seat life vest pouch assembly has been Code 2561, Life Jacket. paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, a life vest pouch inspected in accordance with paragraph velcro strip is found damaged or worn, before (g)(1) of this AD, and depending on the (e) Unsafe Condition further flight, remove the life vest pouch finding, replaced with a part eligible for This AD was prompted by reports of life from service and replace it with a part installation. vest pouches installed incorrectly on certain eligible for installation using Paragraphs 3 (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance seats. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent through 5, inclusive, of Aviointeriors MSB the life vest from failing to extract from the (AMOCs) No. 16/18, Rev. 1, dated October 11, 2018, or pouch during an emergency. The unsafe Aviointeriors OSB No. 18/18, Rev. 2, dated (1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, condition, if not addressed, could result in FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs March 11, 2019. having to evacuate the airplane without a life for this AD, if requested using the procedures (3) If, during the inspection required by vest, possibly resulting in injury or death to found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, a life vest pouch passengers. 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your installation is not found acceptable, as (f) Compliance principal inspector or local Flight Standards defined in Paragraph 2 of Aviointeriors MSB Comply with this AD within the District Office, as appropriate. If sending No. 16/18, Rev. 1, dated October 11, 2018, or information directly to the manager of the compliance times specified, unless already Aviointeriors OSB No. 18/18, Rev. 2, dated done. ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the March 11, 2019, before further flight, remove person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this (g) Required Actions the life vest pouch from service and replace AD. (1) Within three months or 600 flight hours it with a part eligible for installation using (2) Before using any approved AMOC, after the effective date of this AD, whichever Paragraphs 3 through 5, inclusive, of notify your appropriate principal inspector, occurs first, inspect the affected seat life vest Aviointeriors MSB No. 16/18, Rev. 1, dated or lacking a principal inspector, the manager pouch assembly using Paragraph 2, Life Vest October 11, 2018, or Aviointeriors OSB No. of the local flight standards district office/ Inspection, of Aviointeriors Mandatory 18/18, Rev. 2, dated March 11, 2019. certificate holding district office.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 ER13NO19.001 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61523

(j) Related Information DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION www.regulations.gov by searching for (1) For more information about this AD, and locating Docket No. FAA–2019– contact Dorie Resnik, Aerospace Engineer, Federal Aviation Administration 0439; or in person at Docket Operations Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781– 14 CFR Part 39 through Friday, except Federal holidays. 238–7693; fax: 781–238–7199; email: [Docket No. FAA–2019–0439; Product The AD docket contains this final rule, [email protected]. Identifier 2019–NM–037–AD; Amendment the regulatory evaluation, any (2) Refer to European Union Aviation 39–19779; AD 2019–21–13] comments received, and other Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018–0264R1, information. The address for Docket RIN 2120–AA64 dated April 4, 2019, for more information. Operations is U.S. Department of You may examine the EASA AD in the AD Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room docket on the internet at https:// Airplanes www.regulations.gov by searching for and W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, locating it in Docket No. FAA–2019–0557. AGENCY: Federal Aviation Washington, DC 20590. Administration (FAA), Department of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (k) Material Incorporated by Reference Transportation (DOT). Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, (1) The Director of the Federal Register ACTION: Final rule. International Section, Transport approved the incorporation by reference Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South (IBR) of the service information listed in this SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012–22– telephone and fax 206–231–3229. part 51. 18, which applied to all Airbus SAS SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (2) You must use this service information Model A330–243, –243F, –341, –342, as applicable to do the actions required by and –343 airplanes. AD 2012–22–18 Discussion this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. required repetitive inspections of the The EASA, which is the Technical (i) Aviointeriors Mandatory Service three inner acoustic panels of both Agent for the Member States of the Bulletin No. 16/18, Rev. 1, dated October 11, engine air inlet (intake) cowls to detect European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018, and disbonding, and corrective actions, if 2019–0042, dated February 27, 2019 (ii) Aviointeriors Optional Service Bulletin necessary. This AD continues to require (‘‘EASA AD 2019–0042’’) (also referred No. 18/18, Rev. 2, dated March 11, 2019. all actions required by AD 2012–22–18, to as the Mandatory Continuing (3) For Aviointeriors service information with a reduced initial compliance time Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the identified in this AD, contact Aviointeriors and reduced repetitive inspection MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition S.p.A., Customer Support, Via Appia Km. intervals. These actions are specified in for all Airbus SAS Model A330–243, 66,4; 04013 Latina, Italy; phone: +39 0773 a European Union Aviation Safety –243F, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes, 6891; fax: +39 0773 631546; email: customer- Agency (EASA) AD, which is certificated in any category. [email protected]; internet: http:// incorporated by reference. This AD was The FAA issued a notice of proposed www.aviointeriors.it. rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR (4) You may view this service information prompted by additional reports of engine air inlet cowl collapse. The FAA part 39 to supersede AD 2012–22–18, at FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Amendment 39–17256 (77 FR 70366, Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. November 26, 2012) (‘‘AD 2012–22– MA 01803. For information on the 18’’). AD 2012–22–18 applied to all DATES: This AD is effective December availability of this material at the FAA, call Airbus SAS Model A330–243, –243F, 18, 2019. 781–238–7759. –341, –342, and –343 airplanes. The The Director of the Federal Register (5) You may view this service information NPRM published in the Federal approved the incorporation by reference that is incorporated by reference at the Register on June 19, 2019 (84 FR 28431). of a certain publication listed in this AD National Archives and Records The NPRM was prompted by additional Administration (NARA). For information on as of December 18, 2019. reports of engine air inlet cowl collapse the availability of this material at NARA, ADDRESSES: For the material since AD 2012–22–18 was issued. The email: [email protected], or go to: incorporated by reference (IBR) in this NPRM proposed to continue to require https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ AD, contact the EASA, Konrad- repetitive inspections of the three inner ibr-locations.html. Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, acoustic panels of both engine air inlet Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 cowls to detect disbonding, and October 24, 2019. 1000; email [email protected]; corrective actions if necessary, with a Karen M. Grant, internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may reduced initial compliance time and find this IBR material on the EASA Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller reduced repetitive inspection intervals. Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. The NPRM also proposed an optional Service. You may view this referenced service modification that would be terminating information at the FAA, Transport [FR Doc. 2019–24512 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] action for the repetitive inspections. The Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., FAA is issuing this AD to address BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Des Moines, WA. For information on the disbonding, which could result in availability of this material at the FAA, detachment of the engine air inlet cowl call 206–231–3195. It is also available in from the engine, leading to ingestion of the AD docket on the internet at https:// parts, which could cause failure of the www.regulations.gov by searching for engine, and possible injury to persons and locating Docket No. FAA–2019– on the ground. See the MCAI for 0439. additional background information. Examining the AD Docket Comments You may examine the AD docket on The FAA gave the public the the internet at https:// opportunity to participate in developing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61524 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

this final rule. The following presents except for localized areas of missing (‘‘Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin No. the comments received on the NPRM wire mesh. RB.211–71–AG419, Revision 3’’). Rolls- and the FAA’s response to each The FAA acknowledges the Royce Service Bulletin No. RB.211–71– comment. commenter’s observation that AG419, Revision 3, refers to Bombardier Bombardier Service Bulletin RB211– Service Bulletin RB211–NAC–71–018, Support for the NPRM NAC–71–018, Revision 3, specifies that Revision 3, for the inspection Patrick Imperatrice indicated his the tap tool can be purchased or procedures. support for the NPRM. manufactured, should be made of mild Operators may request to use tap tools steel or brass rod, and that the use of an other than those identified in Request To Allow Alternative Tooling aluminum tap tool is prohibited. Bombardier Service Bulletin RB211– American Airlines (AAL) requested However, the FAA does not agree NAC–71–018, Revision 3, by utilizing that operators be allowed to use with the commenter’s request to revise the alternative methods of compliance aerospace industry standard tap check this AD to allow operators to use any (AMOCs) provision provided in tools for the inspection of the engine air aviation industry standard tap check paragraph (j)(1) of this AD and inlet cowl acoustic panels instead of the tool, including those made of submitting sufficient data to aluminum, for the inspection of the tap check tools specified in Bombardier substantiate that the alternative tools engine air inlet cowl acoustic panels. Service Bulletin RB211–NAC–71–018, would provide an acceptable level of The FAA received additional Revision 3, dated December 5, 2018 safety. The FAA has not revised this AD information from Bombardier stating (‘‘Bombardier Service Bulletin RB211– in regard to this issue. that Bombardier performed numerous NAC–71–018, Revision 3’’). The tests on acoustic panels using tap tools Conclusion commenter stated that the tooling manufactured from various materials. paragraph in Bombardier Service The FAA reviewed the relevant data, Bombardier concluded that a better Bulletin RB211–NAC–71–018, Revision considered the comments received, and tonal response was received for both 3, unnecessarily restricts operators’ determined that air safety and the disbond and non-disbond areas when a choices of tap tools with respect to public interest require adopting this heavier tap tool made from steel or brass final rule as proposed, except for minor industry standard practices, and places material was used, which resulted in editorial changes. The FAA has an undue burden on operators with more reliable detection of panel regards to maintaining compliance determined that these minor changes: disbond. • procedures. The commenter noted that This AD refers to EASA AD 2019– Are consistent with the intent that the previous revision level of 0042 for a description of the procedures was proposed in the NPRM for Bombardier Service Bulletin RB211– for repetitive inspections of the engine addressing the unsafe condition; and • NAC–71–018 provided a more general air inlet cowls having a certain part Do not add any additional burden description of the tap tool and did not number, repair or replacement of any upon the public than was already prohibit the use of an aluminum tap engine air inlet cowl that has disbond, proposed. tool. The commenter noted that it has and an optional modification that successfully detected disbonding using Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part terminated the need for the repetitive 51 a variety of standard industry tap tools inspections. In turn, EASA AD 2019– made of corrosion resistant steel (CRES), 0042 refers to Airbus Service Bulletin EASA AD 2019–0042 describes mild steel, brass, and aluminum on A330–71–3024, Revision 04, dated procedures for repetitive inspections of similar nacelle component thin-skinned December 17, 2018 (‘‘Airbus Service engine air inlet cowls having certain carbon fiber/honeycomb sandwich Bulletin A330–71–3024, Revision 04’’), part numbers, repair or replacement of panels, with and without wire mesh on for information regarding the inspection any engine air inlet cowl that has them, without any negative effects, such procedures for the engine air inlet cowl. disbonding, and an optional as galvanic corrosion. The commenter Paragraphs 3.C. and 3.D. of the modification that terminates the need stated that it considers tools similar to Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus for the repetitive inspections. This or as described in aviation industry Service Bulletin A330–71–3024, material is reasonably available because manuals, made from any of the typical Revision 04, are considered ‘‘required the interested parties have access to it listed materials, to have an equivalent for compliance’’ (RC) and must be done through their normal course of business level of safety and performance as the to comply with the requirements of this or by the means identified in the tool specified in Bombardier Service AD. ADDRESSES section. Bulletin RB211–NAC–71–018, Revision Paragraph 3.C. of Airbus Service Costs of Compliance 3. The commenter also advised that, Bulletin A330–71–3024, Revision 04, although not a concern from its states that the tap test must be done The FAA estimates that this AD experience, any aluminum tool would using the procedures in Rolls-Royce affects 47 airplanes of U.S. registry. The be contacting the stainless steel wire Service Bulletin No. RB.211–71–AG419, FAA estimates the following costs to mesh on the carbon fiber panel surface Revision 3, dated December 7, 2018 comply with this AD:

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

Cost per Cost on U.S. Action Labor cost Parts cost product operators

Retained actions from AD 2012–22–18 ...... Up to 20 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up to $0 $1,700 Up to $79,900. $1,700.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61525

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR OPTIONAL ACTIONS

Cost per Labor cost Parts cost product

Up to 154 work hours × $85 per hour = Up to $13,090 ...... (*) Up to $13,090.* * The FAA has received no definitive data on the parts costs for the optional actions.

The FAA estimates the following the results of any required actions. The number of aircraft that might need this costs to do any necessary on-condition FAA has no way of determining the on-condition action: action that would be required based on

ESTIMATED COSTS OF ON-CONDITION ACTIONS

Cost per Labor cost Parts cost product

Up to 34 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up to $2,890 ...... (*) Up to $2,890.* * The FAA has received no definitive data on the parts costs for the on-condition actions.

The new requirements of this AD add Regulatory Findings 2019–21–13 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39– no additional economic burden. 19779; Docket No. FAA–2019–0439; This AD will not have federalism Product Identifier 2019–NM–037–AD. However, the optional modification, if implications under Executive Order done, would result in additional costs as 13132. This AD will not have a (a) Effective Date specified in the ‘‘Estimate costs for substantial direct effect on the States, on This AD is effective December 18, 2019. optional actions’’ table. the relationship between the national (b) Affected ADs government and the States, or on the Authority for This Rulemaking This AD replaces 2012–22–18, Amendment distribution of power and 39–17256 (77 FR 70366, November 26, 2012) Title 49 of the United States Code responsibilities among the various (‘‘AD 2012–22–18’’). specifies the FAA’s authority to issue levels of government. rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, For the reasons discussed above, I (c) Applicability section 106, describes the authority of certify that this AD: This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory A330–243, –243F, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes, certificated in any category. Aviation Programs, describes in more action’’ under Executive Order 12866, detail the scope of the Agency’s (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation (d) Subject authority. in Alaska, and Air Transport Association (ATA) of The FAA is issuing this rulemaking (3) Will not have a significant America Code 71, Powerplant. under the authority described in economic impact, positive or negative, (e) Reason Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section on a substantial number of small entities This AD was prompted by reports of 44701: ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under under the criteria of the Regulatory extensive damage to engine air inlet (intake) that section, Congress charges the FAA Flexibility Act. cowls as a result of acoustic panel collapse with promoting safe flight of civil List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 and by additional reports of engine air inlet aircraft in air commerce by prescribing cowl collapse since AD 2012–22–18 was regulations for practices, methods, and Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation issued. The FAA is issuing this AD to address disbonding, which could result in procedures the Administrator finds safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. detachment of the engine air inlet cowl from necessary for safety in air commerce. the engine, leading to ingestion of parts, This regulation is within the scope of Adoption of the Amendment which could cause failure of the engine, and that authority because it addresses an possible injury to persons on the ground. unsafe condition that is likely to exist or Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, (f) Compliance develop on products identified in this the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as Comply with this AD within the rulemaking action. follows: compliance times specified, unless already This AD is issued in accordance with done. PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS authority delegated by the Executive (g) Requirements Director, Aircraft Certification Service, DIRECTIVES Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 AD: Comply with all required actions and In accordance with that order, issuance compliance times specified in, and in of ADs is normally a function of the continues to read as follows: accordance with, European Union Aviation Compliance and Airworthiness Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019–0042, dated Division, but during this transition February 27, 2019 (‘‘EASA AD 2019–0042’’). § 39.13 [Amended] period, the Executive Director has (h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019–0042 delegated the authority to issue ADs ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by (1) Where EASA AD 2019–0042 refers to its applicable to transport category removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) effective date, this AD requires using the airplanes and associated appliances to 2012–22–18, Amendment 39–17256 (77 effective date of this AD. the Director of the System Oversight FR 70366, November 26, 2012), and (2) The ‘‘Remarks’’ section of EASA AD Division. adding the following new AD: 2019–0042 does not apply to this AD.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61526 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

(i) No Reporting Requirement (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency European Aviation Safety Agency Although the service information (EASA) AD 2019–0042, dated February 27, (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by referenced in EASA AD 2019–0042 specifies 2019. reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to submit certain information to the (ii) [Reserved] to address the unsafe condition on these (4) For information about EASA AD 2019– manufacturer, this AD does not include that products. requirement. 0042, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer- Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone DATES: This AD is effective December (j) Other FAA AD Provisions +49 221 89990 6017; email ADs@ 18, 2019. The following provisions also apply to this easa.europa.eu; internet The Director of the Federal Register AD: www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this approved the incorporation by reference (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance EASA AD on the EASA website at https:// of a certain publication listed in this AD (AMOCs): The Manager, International ad.easa.europa.eu. as of December 18, 2019. Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, (5) You may view this material at the FAA, ADDRESSES: For the material has the authority to approve AMOCs for this Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South AD, if requested using the procedures found 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information incorporated by reference (IBR) in this in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR on the availability of this material at the AD, contact the EASA, Konrad- 39.19, send your request to your principal FAA, call 206–231–3195. This material may Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, inspector or local Flight Standards District be found in the AD docket on the internet at Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 Office, as appropriate. If sending information https://www.regulations.gov by searching for 1000; email [email protected]; directly to the International Section, send it and locating Docket No. FAA–2019–0439. internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may to the attention of the person identified in (6) You may view this service information find this IBR material on the EASA paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be that is incorporated by reference at the website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@ National Archives and Records faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC, Administration (NARA). For information on You may view this IBR material at the notify your appropriate principal inspector, the availability of this material at NARA, call FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 202–741–6030, or go to: https:// South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For of the local flight standards district office/ www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr- information on the availability of this certificate holding district office. locations.html. material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on It is also available in the AD docket on requirement in this AD to obtain instructions October 28, 2019. the internet at https:// from a manufacturer, the instructions must Michael Kaszycki, www.regulations.gov by searching for be accomplished using a method approved and locating Docket No. FAA–2019– by the Manager, International Section, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; Aircraft Certification Service. 0254. or Airbus SAS’s EASA Design Organization [FR Doc. 2019–24507 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Examining the AD Docket Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, BILLING CODE 4910–13–P the approval must include the DOA- You may examine the AD docket on authorized signature. the internet at https:// (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION www.regulations.gov by searching for service information referenced in EASA AD and locating Docket No. FAA–2019– 2019–0042 that contains RC procedures and Federal Aviation Administration 0254; or in person at Docket Operations tests: Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday of this AD, RC procedures and tests must be 14 CFR Part 39 through Friday, except Federal holidays. done to comply with this AD; any procedures The AD docket contains this final rule, or tests that are not identified as RC are [Docket No. FAA–2019–0254; Product recommended. Those procedures and tests the regulatory evaluation, any Identifier 2019–NM–011–AD; Amendment comments received, and other that are not identified as RC may be deviated 39–19763; AD 2019–20–10] from using accepted methods in accordance information. The address for Docket with the operator’s maintenance or RIN 2120–AA64 Operations is U.S. Department of inspection program without obtaining Transportation, Docket Operations, M– approval of an AMOC, provided the Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room procedures and tests identified as RC can be Airplanes W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, done and the airplane can be put back in an Washington, DC 20590. airworthy condition. Any substitutions or AGENCY: Federal Aviation changes to procedures or tests identified as Administration (FAA), Department of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RC require approval of an AMOC. Transportation (DOT). Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, ACTION: Final rule. International Section, Transport (k) Related Information Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South For more information about this AD, SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace airworthiness directive (AD) for certain telephone and fax 206–231–3223. Engineer, International Section, Transport Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: series airplanes, Model A320–211, –212, St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and Discussion fax 206–231–3229. –214, –216, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes, and Model A321–111, –112, The FAA issued a notice of proposed (l) Material Incorporated by Reference –131, –211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR (1) The Director of the Federal Register airplanes. This AD was prompted by a part 39 by adding an AD that would approved the incorporation by reference report that cracks were detected on apply to certain Airbus SAS Model (IBR) of the service information listed in this frame (FR) 16 and FR 20 web holes and A318 and A319 series airplanes, Model paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR passenger door intercostal fitting holes A320–211, –212, –214, –216, –231, part 51. (2) You must use this service information at the door stop fitting locations. This –232, and –233 airplanes, and Model as applicable to do the actions required by AD requires repetitive rototest A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. inspections of the holes at the door stop –213, –231, and –232 airplanes. The (3) The following service information was fittings for any cracking, and corrective NPRM published in the Federal approved for IBR on December 18, 2019. actions if necessary, as specified in a Register on May 8, 2019 (84 FR 20054).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61527

The NPRM was prompted by a report proposed AD should be revised to show EASA AD 2018–0289. All provisions, that cracks were detected on FR 16 and that it affects AD 2018–25–02, and it including credit and terminating action FR 20 web holes and passenger door should also provide relief to the specified in EASA AD 2018–0289 also intercostal fitting holes at the door stop requirement to include these two ALI apply to this AD. The FAA has not fitting locations. The NPRM proposed to tasks in an operator’s maintenance or changed this AD in this regard. require repetitive rototest inspections of inspection program. Allegiant Air Request To Revise the Compliance the holes at the door stop fittings for any further commented that EASA AD Time cracking, and corrective actions if 2018–0289 states that Airbus Service necessary. Bulletin A320–53–1330 is a terminating United Airlines (UAL) requested that The FAA is issuing this AD to address action for the inspections required by ALI task 531103–01–2 be carried over in such cracking, which could affect the ALI task 531103, which EASA AD the proposed AD with a compliance structural integrity of the airplane. 2018–0289 indicates will be deleted. time of up to 120 days from the effective The EASA, which is the Technical The FAA agrees to clarify. This AD date of the AD or until the ALI is Agent for the Member States of the does not supersede or terminate AD deleted, whichever occurs later. UAL European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018–25–02. However, ALI tasks commented that EASA AD 2018–0289 2018–0289, dated December 21, 2018 531103–01–2 and 531103–01–3, which specifies that ALI tasks 531103–01–2 (‘‘EASA AD 2018–0289’’) (referred to were incorporated into the maintenance and 531103–01–3 will be deleted by after this as the Mandatory Continuing or inspection program as part of the Airbus at the next airworthiness Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the revision required by AD 2018–25–02, limitations section revision opportunity; MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition are affected. This AD allows those tasks therefore, there is no reason the ALI task for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 and to be terminated as specified in the cannot be carried over because ALI task A319 series airplanes, Model A320–211, provisions of EASA 2018–0289. 531103–01–2 and Airbus Service –212, –214, –216, –231, –232, and –233 • As specified in paragraph (5) of Bulletin A320–53–1339 describe airplanes, and Model A321–111, –112, EASA AD 2018–0289, the inspection procedures for the same open hole –131, –211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 requirements for ALI task 531103 are rotating probe high frequency eddy airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD cancelled for an airplane if the optional current inspection. UAL stated that the to address cracking of FR 16 and FR 20 terminating action specified in ALI task and the service information web holes and passenger door paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2018–0289 is have the same inspection threshold and intercostal fitting holes at the door stop done. intervals. UAL stated that this will fitting locations. Such cracking could • As specified in paragraph (6) of allow operators’ maintenance program affect the structural integrity of the EASA AD 2018–0289, the inspection and engineering departments adequate airplane. See the MCAI for additional requirements for ALI task 531103 are time to transition internal task cards background information. cancelled at repaired door stop locations and/or engineering orders from the ALI You may examine the MCAI in the if the optional terminating action task to the service information AD docket on the internet at https:// specified in paragraphs (6) of EASA AD instructions; transitioning internal www.regulations.gov by searching for 2018–0289 is done. documents immediately after and locating Docket No. FAA–2019– • As specified in paragraph (7) of publication of the proposed AD is not 0254. EASA AD 2018–0289, the inspection feasible. requirements for ALI task 531103 are The FAA disagrees with the Comments cancelled if the applicable actions commenter’s request. For clarification, The FAA gave the public the required by paragraphs (1) through (4) of EASA AD 2018–0289 is replacing the opportunity to participate in developing EASA AD 2018–0289 are done. requirements imposed by ALI tasks this final rule. The following presents The FAA has not changed this AD in 531103–01–2 and 531103–01–3. This the comments received on the NPRM this regard. AD, as specified in paragraphs (5), (6), and the FAA’s response to each and (7) of EASA AD 2018–0289, allows Request To Retain Certain comment. for the termination of the ALI tasks if Requirements the conditions stated in the applicable Request To Provide Relief to An anonymous commenter requested Requirements in an Affected AD paragraph are met. Operators have the that the proposed AD and paragraphs (5) option to perform the repetitive Allegiant Air commented that the and (6) of EASA AD 2018–0289, dated inspections (no change to ALI tasks), or proposed AD states that no AD would December 21, 2018, be ‘‘retained in any terminate the repetitive inspections by be affected; however, it believes that AD FAA AD.’’ The commenter also complying with the provisions specified 2018–25–02 would be affected by the requested that modification using in paragraphs (5), (6), or (7) of EASA AD proposed AD. Allegiant Air stated that Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1330 2018–0289. The FAA may issue separate paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2018–25–02 be counted as a terminating action to rulemaking in the future that will requires a revision to the existing any FAA AD, and if this is not possible, require tasks that will replace the maintenance or inspection program, as then the commenter requested that the applicable existing ALI tasks. The FAA applicable, to incorporate Airbus A318/ FAA retain the same requirements of has not revised this AD in this regard. A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2018–0289. Limitation Section Part 2—Damage The FAA infers that the commenter Request To Use a Certain Repair Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items wants to ensure that the proposed Drawing (DT–ALI), Variation 6.3, dated October requirements and provisions are carried UAL requested that the FAA allow 24, 2017. Allegiant Air commented that over into the final rule. For clarification, repair drawing R53113118 to be used for this variation includes ALI tasks paragraphs (2), (5), and (6) of EASA AD repair instructions as an alternative to 531103–01–2 and 531103–01–3, which 2018–0289 are included in the the corrective action specified in EASA AD 2018–0289 indicated will be requirements of paragraph (g) of this paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2018–0289. deleted from Airworthiness Limitation AD, which requires compliance with all The FAA disagrees with the Section Part 2. Allegiant Air stated that required actions and compliance times commenter’s request. The repair if the NPRM becomes an AD, the specified in, and in accordance with, drawing will vary based on the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61528 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

configuration of the airplane and the final rule as proposed, except for minor inspections of the holes at the door stop extent of the findings during the editorial changes. The FAA has fittings for any cracking, and corrective inspection. However, any person may determined that these minor changes: actions if necessary. This material is request approval of an alternative • Are consistent with the intent that reasonably available because the method of compliance (AMOC) under was proposed in the NPRM for interested parties have access to it the provisions of paragraph (i) of this addressing the unsafe condition; and through their normal course of business AD. The FAA has not changed this AD • Do not add any additional burden or by the means identified in the in this regard. upon the public than was already ADDRESSES section. proposed in the NPRM. Conclusion Costs of Compliance The FAA reviewed the relevant data, Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part The FAA estimates that this AD considered the comments received, and 51 affects 1,229 airplanes of U.S. registry. determined that air safety and the EASA AD 2018–0289 describes The FAA estimates the following costs public interest require adopting this procedures for repetitive rototest to comply with this AD:

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

Cost per Cost on U.S. Labor cost Parts cost product operators

33 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,805 ...... $0 $2,805 $3,447,345

The FAA estimates the following the results of any required actions. The number of aircraft that might need this costs to do any necessary on-condition FAA has no way of determining the on-condition action: actions that would be required based on

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ON-CONDITION ACTIONS

Cost per Labor cost Parts cost product

51 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,335 ...... $350 $4,685

The FAA has received no definitive of ADs is normally a function of the List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 data that would enable the agency to Compliance and Airworthiness Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation provide cost estimates for the on- Division, but during this transition safety, Incorporation by reference, condition repairs specified in this AD. period, the Executive Director has Safety. Authority for This Rulemaking delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category Adoption of the Amendment Title 49 of the United States Code airplanes and associated appliances to Accordingly, under the authority specifies the FAA’s authority to issue the Director of the System Oversight delegated to me by the Administrator, rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Division. the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as section 106, describes the authority of follows: the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Regulatory Findings Aviation Programs, describes in more PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS detail the scope of the Agency’s This AD will not have federalism DIRECTIVES authority. implications under Executive Order ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 The FAA is issuing this rulemaking 13132. This AD will not have a continues to read as follows: under the authority described in substantial direct effect on the States, on Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section the relationship between the national Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. government and the States, or on the 44701: ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under § 39.13 [Amended] that section, Congress charges the FAA distribution of power and ■ with promoting safe flight of civil responsibilities among the various 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding aircraft in air commerce by prescribing levels of government. the following new airworthiness directive (AD): regulations for practices, methods, and For the reasons discussed above, I procedures the Administrator finds certify that this AD: 2019–20–10 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39– necessary for safety in air commerce. 19763; Docket No. FAA–2019–0254; (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory This regulation is within the scope of Product Identifier 2019–NM–011–AD. action’’ under Executive Order 12866, that authority because it addresses an (a) Effective Date unsafe condition that is likely to exist or (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation This AD is effective December 18, 2019. develop on products identified in this in Alaska, and (b) Affected ADs rulemaking action. (3) Will not have a significant This AD is issued in accordance with economic impact, positive or negative, None. authority delegated by the Executive on a substantial number of small entities (c) Applicability Director, Aircraft Certification Service, under the criteria of the Regulatory This AD applies to the Airbus SAS as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. Flexibility Act. airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) In accordance with that order, issuance through (4) of this AD, certificated in any

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61529

category, as identified in European Aviation or Airbus SAS’s EASA Design Organization DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018–0289, dated Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, December 21, 2018 (‘‘EASA AD 2018–0289’’). the approval must include the DOA- Federal Aviation Administration (1) Model A318–111, –112, –121, and –122 authorized signature. airplanes. (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any 14 CFR Part 39 (2) Model A319–111, –112, –113, –114, service information referenced in EASA AD –115, –131, –132, and –133 airplanes. 2018–0289 that contains RC procedures and [Docket No. FAA–2019–0582; Product (3) Model A320–211, –212, –214, –216, tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) Identifier 2019–NM–034–AD; Amendment –231, –232, and –233 airplanes. of this AD, RC procedures and tests must be 39–19769; AD 2019–21–03] (4) Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, done to comply with this AD; any procedures RIN 2120–AA64 –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes. or tests that are not identified as RC are (d) Subject recommended. Those procedures and tests Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, that are not identified as RC may be deviated Air Transport Association (ATA) of from using accepted methods in accordance Inc., Airplanes America Code 53, Fuselage. with the operator’s maintenance or AGENCY: Federal Aviation (e) Reason inspection program without obtaining Administration (FAA), Department of approval of an AMOC, provided the This AD was prompted by a report that Transportation (DOT). cracks were detected on frame (FR) 16 and procedures and tests identified as RC can be ACTION: Final rule. FR 20 web holes and passenger door done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or intercostal fitting holes at the door stop SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new fitting locations. The FAA is issuing this AD changes to procedures or tests identified as to address such cracking, which could affect RC require approval of an AMOC. airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL–600–1A11 the structural integrity of the airplane. (j) Related Information (600), CL–600–2A12 (601), and CL–600– (f) Compliance For more information about this AD, 2B16 (601–3A and 601–3R Variants) Comply with this AD within the contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, airplanes. This AD was prompted by International Section, Transport Standards compliance times specified, unless already reports of the loss of all air data system done. Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206– information provided to the flightcrew, (g) Requirements 231–3223. which was caused by icing at high Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this altitudes. This AD requires revising the (k) Material Incorporated by Reference AD: Comply with all required actions and existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to compliance times specified in, and in (1) The Director of the Federal Register provide the flightcrew with procedures accordance with, EASA AD 2018–0289. approved the incorporation by reference for ‘‘Unreliable Airspeed’’ that stabilize (IBR) of the service information listed in this (h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2018–0289 the airplane’s airspeed and attitude. The paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR FAA is issuing this AD to address the (1) For purposes of determining part 51. compliance with the requirements of this AD: (2) You must use this service information unsafe condition on these products. Where EASA AD 2018–0289 refers to its as applicable to do the actions required by DATES: This AD is effective December effective date, this AD requires using the this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. 18, 2019. effective date of this AD. (i) European Aviation Safety Agency The Director of the Federal Register (2) The ‘‘Remarks’’ section of EASA AD (EASA) AD 2018–0289, dated December 21, approved the incorporation by reference 2018–0289 does not apply to this AD. 2018. of certain publications listed in this AD (3) Where Table 1 of EASA AD 2018–0289 (ii) [Reserved] as of December 18, 2019. refers to a compliance time ‘‘after 31 May (3) For EASA AD 2018–0289, contact the 2017,’’ this AD requires using a compliance EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 ADDRESSES: For service information time after May 31, 2018 (the effective date of Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 identified in this final rule, contact task 531103–01–1 in ‘‘ALS Part 2 rev. 6’’). 6017; email [email protected]; Internet Bombardier, Inc., 200 Coˆte-Vertu Road (i) Other FAA AD Provisions www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this West, Dorval, Que´bec H4S 2A3, Canada; EASA AD on the EASA website at https:// North America toll-free telephone The following provisions also apply to this ad.easa.europa.eu. AD: 1–866–538–1247 or direct-dial (4) You may view this material at the FAA, (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance telephone 1–514–855–2999; email Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South (AMOCs): The Manager, International [email protected]; internet 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, https://www.bombardier.com. You may on the availability of this material at the has the authority to approve AMOCs for this FAA, call 206–231–3195. EASA AD 2018– view this service information at the AD, if requested using the procedures found FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 0289 may be found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 39.19, send your request to your principal information on the availability of this inspector or local Flight Standards District searching for and locating Docket No. FAA– Office, as appropriate. If sending information 2019–0254. material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. directly to the International Section, send it (5) You may view this material that is It is also available on the internet at to the attention of the person identified in incorporated by reference at the National https://www.regulations.gov by paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be Archives and Records Administration searching for and locating Docket No. emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@ (NARA). For information on the availability FAA–2019–0582. faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC, of this material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@ notify your appropriate principal inspector, nara.gov, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/ Examining the AD Docket federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. or lacking a principal inspector, the manager You may examine the AD docket on of the local flight standards district office/ Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on the internet at https:// certificate holding district office. October 18, 2019. www.regulations.gov by searching for (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any Michael Kaszycki, requirement in this AD to obtain instructions and locating Docket No. FAA–2019– Acting Director, System Oversight Division, from a manufacturer, the instructions must 0582; or in person at Docket Operations Aircraft Certification Service. be accomplished using a method approved between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday by the Manager, International Section, [FR Doc. 2019–24508 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] through Friday, except Federal holidays. Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; BILLING CODE 4910–13–P The AD docket contains this final rule,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61530 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

the regulatory evaluation, any caused by icing at high altitudes. The Related Service Information Under 1 comments received, and other NPRM proposed to require revising the CFR Part 51 information. The address for Docket existing AFM to provide the flightcrew Bombardier has issued the Operations is U.S. Department of with procedures for ‘‘Unreliable ‘‘Unreliable Airspeed Procedure,’’ Transportation, Docket Operations, Airspeed’’ that stabilize the airplane’s specified in Unreliable Airspeed, in the M–30, West Building Ground Floor, airspeed and attitude. The FAA is Emergency Procedures section of the Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey issuing this AD to address the loss of all applicable AFM. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. air data system information provided to • Canadair Challenger CL–600–1A11 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the flightcrew. If not addressed, this AFM, RAG–600–101, Issue 2, Product Thomas Niczky, Aerospace Engineer, condition may adversely affect Publication 600, Revision A111, dated Avionics and Electrical Systems continued safe flight and landing. See August 31, 2018. Services Section, FAA, New York ACO the MCAI for additional background • Canadair Challenger CL–600–1A11 Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite information. (Winglets) AFM, RAG–600–101, Issue 2, 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone Comments Product Support Publication (PSP) 600– 516–228–7347; fax 516–794–5531; email 1, Revision 103, dated August 31, 2018. [email protected]. The FAA gave the public the • opportunity to participate in developing Canadair Challenger CL–600–2A12 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: this final rule. The FAA received no AFM, PSP 601–1A, Revision 120, dated August 31, 2018. Discussion comments on the NPRM or on the • determination of the cost to the public. Canadair Challenger CL–600–2A12 Transport Canada Civil Aviation AFM, PSP 601–1A–1, Revision 79, (TCCA), which is the aviation authority Explanation of Change to Format of dated August 31, 2018. for Canada, has issued Canadian AD Paragraph Designation References • Canadair Challenger CL–600–2A12 CF–2018–36, dated December 27, 2018 The FAA has revised the format the AFM, PSP 601–1B, Revision 83, dated (‘‘Canadian AD CF–2018–36’’) (also agency uses for referring to paragraph August 31, 2018. referred to as the Mandatory Continuing designations throughout this AD. This • Canadair Challenger CL–600–2A12 Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the change is necessary to meet the Office AFM, PSP 601–1B–1, Revision 81, dated MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition of the Federal Register’s drafting August 31, 2018. for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL– requirements. For example, where the • Canadair Challenger CL–600–2B16 600–1A11 (600), CL–600–2A12 (601), FAA previously referred to paragraphs AFM, PSP 601A–1, Revision 103, dated and CL–600–2B16 (601–3A and 601–3R (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, we now refer August 31, 2018. Variants) airplanes. You may examine to paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD. • Canadair Challenger CL–600–2B16 the MCAI in the AD docket on the This change does not affect the AFM, PSP 601A–1–1, Revision 92, internet at https://www.regulations.gov requirements of this AD. dated August 31, 2018. by searching for and locating Docket No. These documents are distinct since FAA–2019–0582. Conclusion they apply to different airplane models The FAA issued a notice of proposed The FAA reviewed the relevant data in different configurations. rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR and determined that air safety and the This service information is reasonably part 39 by adding an AD that would public interest require adopting this available because the interested parties apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model final rule as proposed, except for minor have access to it through their normal CL–600–1A11 (600), CL–600–2A12 editorial changes. The FAA has course of business or by the means (601), and CL–600–2B16 (601–3A and determined that these minor changes: identified in the ADDRESSES section. 601–3R Variants) airplanes. The NPRM • Are consistent with the intent that Costs of Compliance published in the Federal Register on was proposed in the NPRM for August 12, 2019 (84 FR 39778). The addressing the unsafe condition; and The FAA estimates that this AD NPRM was prompted by reports of the • Do not add any additional burden affects 206 airplanes of U.S. registry. loss of all air data system information upon the public than was already The FAA estimates the following costs provided to the flightcrew, which was proposed in the NPRM. to comply with this AD:

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

Cost per Cost on U.S. Labor cost Parts cost product operators

1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ...... $0 $85 $17,510

Authority for This Rulemaking 44701: ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under This AD is issued in accordance with Title 49 of the United States Code that section, Congress charges the FAA authority delegated by the Executive specifies the FAA’s authority to issue with promoting safe flight of civil Director, Aircraft Certification Service, rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, aircraft in air commerce by prescribing as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. section 106, describes the authority of regulations for practices, methods, and In accordance with that order, issuance the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: procedures the Administrator finds of ADs is normally a function of the Aviation Programs, describes in more necessary for safety in air commerce. Compliance and Airworthiness detail the scope of the Agency’s This regulation is within the scope of Division, but during this transition authority. that authority because it addresses an period, the Executive Director has The FAA is issuing this rulemaking unsafe condition that is likely to exist or delegated the authority to issue ADs under the authority described in develop on products identified in this applicable to transport category Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section rulemaking action. airplanes and associated appliances to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61531

the Director of the System Oversight the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as (3) Model CL–600–2B16 (601–3A and 601– Division. follows: 3R Variants), serial numbers 5001 through 5194 inclusive. Regulatory Findings PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS (d) Subject This AD will not have federalism DIRECTIVES implications under Executive Order Air Transport Association (ATA) of 13132. This AD will not have a ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 America Code 34, Navigation. substantial direct effect on the States, on continues to read as follows: (e) Reason the relationship between the national Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. This AD was prompted by reports of the government and the States, or on the loss of all air data system information distribution of power and § 39.13 [Amended] provided to the flightcrew, which was caused responsibilities among the various by icing at high altitudes. The FAA is issuing ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding levels of government. this AD to address the loss of all air data the following new airworthiness For the reasons discussed above, I system information provided to the certify that this AD: directive (AD): flightcrew. If not addressed, this condition (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 2019–21–03 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment may adversely affect continued safe flight action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 39–19769; Docket No. FAA–2019–0582; and landing. (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation Product Identifier 2019–NM–034–AD. in Alaska, and (f) Compliance (a) Effective Date (3) Will not have a significant Comply with this AD within the economic impact, positive or negative, This AD is effective December 18, 2019. compliance times specified, unless already on a substantial number of small entities (b) Affected ADs done. under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. None. (g) Revision of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) (c) Applicability List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Within 30 days after the effective date of This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation airplanes, certificated in any category, this AD: Revise the Emergency Procedures safety, Incorporation by reference, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of section of the existing AFM to include the Safety. this AD. information in the ‘‘Unreliable Airspeed Procedure,’’ specified in Unreliable Airspeed, Adoption of the Amendment (1) Model CL–600–1A11 (600), serial numbers 1001 through 1085 inclusive. of the applicable AFM specified in figure 1 Accordingly, under the authority (2) Model CL–600–2A12 (601), serial to paragraph (g) of this AD. delegated to me by the Administrator, numbers 3001 through 3066 inclusive. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61532 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, (h) Other FAA AD Provisions accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone request to your principal inspector or local 516–228–7300; fax 516–794–5531. Before The following provisions also apply to this AD: Flight Standards District Office, as using any approved AMOC, notify your (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance appropriate. If sending information directly appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO to the manager of the certification office, principal inspector, the manager of the local Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve send it to ATTN: Program Manager, flight standards district office/certificate AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New holding district office.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 ER13NO19.000 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61533

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any Procedures section, of the Canadair inspection area needs to be expanded. requirement in this AD to obtain instructions Challenger CL–600–2B16 AFM, PSP 601A– The FAA is issuing this AD to address from a manufacturer, the instructions must 1–1, Revision 92, dated August 31, 2018. the unsafe condition on these products. be accomplished using a method approved (3) For service information identified in by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 200 Coˆte- DATES: This AD is effective November FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation Vertu Road West, Dorval, Que´bec H4S 2A3, 13, 2019. (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.’s TCCA Design Canada; North America toll-free telephone The Director of the Federal Register Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by 1–866–538–1247 or direct-dial telephone approved the incorporation by reference the DAO, the approval must include the 1–514–855–2999; email ac.yul@ of a certain publication listed in this AD DAO-authorized signature. aero.bombardier.com; internet https:// as of November 13, 2019. www.bombardier.com. (i) Related Information The Director of the Federal Register (4) You may view this service information approved the incorporation by reference (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For of a certain other publication listed in AD CF–2018–36, dated December 27, 2018, information on the availability of this this AD as of October 3, 2019 (84 FR for related information. This MCAI may be material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 52754, October 3, 2019). found in the AD docket on the internet at (5) You may view this service information The FAA must receive any comments http://www.regulations.gov by searching for that is incorporated by reference at the on this AD by December 30, 2019. and locating Docket No. FAA–2019–0582. National Archives and Records ADDRESSES: You may send comments, (2) For more information about this AD, Administration (NARA). For information on contact Thomas Niczky, Aerospace Engineer, the availability of this material at NARA, using the procedures found in 14 CFR Avionics and Electrical Systems Services email [email protected], or go to: https:// 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr- methods: Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY locations.html. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 11590; telephone 516–228–7347; fax 516– Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 794–5531; email [email protected]. instructions for submitting comments. October 18, 2019. • (j) Material Incorporated by Reference Michael Kaszycki, Fax: 202–493–2251. • Mail: U.S. Department of (1) The Director of the Federal Register Acting Director, System Oversight Division, approved the incorporation by reference Aircraft Certification Service. Transportation, Docket Operations, (IBR) of the service information listed in this M–30, West Building Ground Floor, paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR [FR Doc. 2019–24506 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey part 51. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. (2) You must use this service information • Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail as applicable to do the actions required by DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION address above between 9 a.m. and 5 this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. p.m., Monday through Friday, except (i) ‘‘Unreliable Airspeed Procedure,’’ from Unreliable Airspeed, in the Emergency Federal Aviation Administration Federal holidays. Procedures section, of the Canadair For service information identified in Challenger CL–600–1A11 Airplane Flight 14 CFR Part 39 this final rule, contact Boeing Manual (AFM), RAG–600–101, Issue 2, Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Product Publication 600, Revision A111, [Docket No. FAA–2019–0866; Product Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), dated August 31, 2018. Identifier 2019–NM–174–AD; Amendment 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57, 39–19789; AD 2019–22–10] (ii) ‘‘Unreliable Airspeed Procedure,’’ from Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone Unreliable Airspeed, in the Emergency RIN 2120–AA64 562–797–1717; internet https:// Procedures section, of the Canadair www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view Challenger CL–600–1A11 (Winglets) AFM, Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing RAG–600–101, Issue 2, Product Support this service information at the FAA, Publication (PSP) 600–1, Revision 103, dated Company Airplanes Transport Standards Branch, 2200 August 31, 2018. AGENCY: Federal Aviation South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For (iii) ‘‘Unreliable Airspeed Procedure,’’ from Administration (FAA), DOT. information on the availability of this Unreliable Airspeed, in the Emergency material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. Procedures section, of the Canadair ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. It is also available on the internet at Challenger CL–600–2A12 AFM, PSP 601–1A, https://www.regulations.gov by Revision 120, dated August 31, 2018. (iv) ‘‘Unreliable Airspeed Procedure,’’ from SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding searching for and locating Docket No. Unreliable Airspeed, in the Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019–20– FAA–2019–0866. Procedures section, of the Canadair 02, which applied to all The Boeing Examining the AD Docket Challenger CL–600–2A12 AFM, PSP 601– Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, 1A–1, Revision 79, dated August 31, 2018. –800, –900, and –900ER series You may examine the AD docket on (v) ‘‘Unreliable Airspeed Procedure,’’ from airplanes. AD 2019–20–02 required the internet at https:// Unreliable Airspeed, in the Emergency repetitive inspections for cracking of the www.regulations.gov by searching for Procedures section, of the Canadair left- and right-hand side outboard and locating Docket No. FAA–2019– Challenger CL–600–2A12 AFM, PSP 601–1B, 0866; or in person at Docket Operations Revision 83, dated August 31, 2018. chords of frame fittings and failsafe (vi) ‘‘Unreliable Airspeed Procedure,’’ from straps at a certain station around two between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Unreliable Airspeed, in the Emergency fasteners, and repair if any cracking is through Friday, except Federal holidays. Procedures section, of the Canadair found. This AD also requires repetitive The AD docket contains this final rule, Challenger CL–600–2A12 AFM, PSP 601–1B– inspections for cracking of the left- and the regulatory evaluation, any 1, Revision 81, dated August 31, 2018. right-hand side outboard chords of comments received, and other (vii) ‘‘Unreliable Airspeed Procedure,’’ frame fittings and failsafe straps at a information. The street address for from Unreliable Airspeed, in the Emergency certain station, but expands the Docket Operations is listed above. Procedures section, of the Canadair Comments will be available in the AD Challenger CL–600–2B16 AFM, PSP 601A–1, inspection to the area around eight Revision 103, dated August 31, 2018. fasteners, and also requires repair if any docket shortly after receipt. (viii) ‘‘Unreliable Airspeed Procedure,’’ cracking is found. This AD was FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg from Unreliable Airspeed, in the Emergency prompted by a determination that the Rutar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61534 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 repaired before the residual strength Justification for Immediate Adoption South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; capability falls below the minimum and Determination of the Effective Date phone and fax: 206–231–3529; email: residual strength required under Title [email protected]. 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 25.571. U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense Discussion Related Service Information Under 1 with notice and comment procedures The FAA issued AD 2019–20–02, CFR Part 51 for rules when the agency, for ‘‘good Amendment 39–19755 (84 FR 52754, The FAA reviewed Boeing Multi- cause,’’ finds that those procedures are October 3, 2019) (‘‘AD 2019–20–02’’), Operator Message MOM–MOM–19– ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary for all The Boeing Company Model 737– 0623–01B, dated November 5, 2019. to the public interest.’’ Under this 600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, and This service information describes section, an agency, upon finding good –900ER series airplanes. AD 2019–20– procedures for repetitive detailed cause, may issue a final rule without 02 required repetitive inspections for inspections for cracking of the left- and seeking comment prior to the cracking of the left- and right-hand side right-hand side outboard chords of the rulemaking. Similarly, Section 553(d) of outboard chords of frame fittings and station (STA) 663.75 frame fittings and the APA authorizes agencies to make failsafe straps at a certain station around failsafe straps around eight fasteners rules effective in less than thirty days, two fasteners, and repair if any cracking adjacent to the stringer S–18A straps. upon a finding of good cause. is found. AD 2019–20–02 was prompted This AD also requires Boeing Multi- An unsafe condition exists that by reports of cracking in this area found Operator Message MOM–MOM–19– requires the immediate adoption of this on multiple Boeing Model 737–800 0536–01B, dated September 30, 2019, AD without providing an opportunity airplanes during a passenger-to-freighter which the Director of the Federal for public comments prior to adoption. conversion. The FAA issued AD 2019– Register approved for incorporation by The FAA has found that the risk to the 20–02 to address this cracking, which reference as of October 3, 2019 (84 FR flying public justifies forgoing notice could result in failure of a Principal 52754, October 3, 2019). and comment prior to adoption of this Structural Element (PSE) to sustain limit This service information is reasonably rule because cracking in the STA 663.75 load. This condition could adversely available because the interested parties frame fitting outboard chords and affect the structural integrity of the have access to it through their normal failsafe straps around eight fasteners airplane, and result in loss of control of course of business or by the means adjacent to the stringer S–18A straps the airplane. identified in the ADDRESSES section. could result in failure of a PSE to Actions Since AD 2019–20–02 Was FAA’s Determination sustain limit load. This condition could Issued adversely affect the structural integrity The FAA is issuing this AD because of the airplane and result in loss of Since AD 2019–20–02 was issued, the the agency evaluated all the relevant control of the airplane. The compliance FAA has reviewed inspection findings information and determined the unsafe time for the required action is shorter submitted as required by paragraph (h) condition described previously is likely than the time necessary for the public to of AD 2019–20–02. From these findings, to exist or develop in other products of comment and for publication of the final four airplanes have been identified to the same type design. rule. have cracking outside the initial inspection area. Based on these AD Requirements Accordingly, notice and opportunity findings, the FAA has determined that This AD requires repetitive for prior public comment are the inspection area must be expanded inspections for cracking of the left- and impracticable and contrary to the public from the area around two fasteners to right-hand side outboard chords of the interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. the area around eight fasteners on both STA 663.75 frame fittings and failsafe 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the reasons the left- and right-hand sides (which straps around eight fasteners adjacent to stated above, the FAA finds that good includes the area around the two the stringer S–18A straps. This AD also cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) fasteners inspected as required by AD requires repair of all cracking using a for making this amendment effective in 2019–20–02) to adequately address the method approved by the FAA or The less than 30 days. unsafe condition. Boeing Company Organization Comments Invited The FAA has taken all inspection Designation Authorization (ODA). findings into consideration in assessing Accomplishing the initial inspection This AD is a final rule that involves the merits of the existing regulatory required by paragraph (i) of this AD requirements affecting flight safety and action. The findings support that the terminates the inspections originally was not preceded by notice and an initial inspection thresholds are required by AD 2019–20–02 and opportunity for public comment. adequate to ensure fleet safety. All retained in this AD. This AD also However, the FAA invites you to send airplane structure has an initial period requires sending a report of all results any written data, views, or arguments when fatigue cracking is not anticipated. of the initial inspections to Boeing. about this final rule. Send your Beyond this period, structural safety can comments to an address listed under the be maintained with a damage-tolerant Interim Action ADDRESSES section. Include the docket design and inspection program. The The FAA considers this AD interim number FAA–2019–0866 and Product compliance times for the initial and action. The inspection reports that are Identifier 2019–NM–174–AD at the repetitive inspections as specified in required by this AD will enable the beginning of your comments. The FAA paragraph (g) of AD 2019–20–02 were manufacturer to obtain better insight specifically invites comments on the determined using standard damage into the nature, cause, and extent of the overall regulatory, economic, tolerance principles. Residual strength cracking, and eventually to develop environmental, and energy aspects of is the load that damaged (cracked) final action to address the unsafe this final rule. The FAA will consider structure can still carry without failing. condition. Once final action has been all comments received by the closing Structure is damage-tolerant if damage identified, the FAA might consider date and may amend this final rule that may occur can be detected and further rulemaking. because of those comments.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61535

The FAA will post all comments Regulatory Flexibility Act and comment, RFA analysis is not received, without change, to https:// The requirements of the Regulatory required. www.regulations.gov, including any Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when Costs of Compliance personal information you provide. The an agency finds good cause pursuant to FAA will also post a report 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without The FAA estimates that this AD summarizing each substantive verbal prior notice and comment. Because the affects 1,911 airplanes of U.S. registry. contact received about this final rule. FAA has determined that it has good The FAA estimates the following costs cause to adopt this rule without notice to comply with this AD:

ESTIMATED COSTS

Parts Cost per Cost on U.S. Action Labor cost cost product operators

Inspection (retained action from AD 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per $0 $85 per inspection $162,435 per in- 2019–20–02). inspection cycle. cycle. spection cycle. Reporting (retained action from AD 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ...... 0 $85 ...... $162,435. 2019–20–02). Inspection (new action) ...... 1 work-hour(s) × $85 per hour = $85 per 0 $85 per inspection $162,435 per in- inspection cycle. cycle. spection cycle. Reporting (new action) ...... 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ...... 0 $85 ...... $162,435.

The FAA has received no definitive that section, Congress charges the FAA List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 data that would enable the agency to with promoting safe flight of civil provide cost estimates for the on- aircraft in air commerce by prescribing Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation condition actions specified in this AD. regulations for practices, methods, and safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Paperwork Reduction Act procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. Adoption of the Amendment A federal agency may not conduct or This regulation is within the scope of sponsor, and a person is not required to that authority because it addresses an Accordingly, under the authority respond to, nor shall a person be subject unsafe condition that is likely to exist or delegated to me by the Administrator, to penalty for failure to comply with a develop on products identified in this the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as collection of information subject to the rulemaking action. follows: requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of This AD is issued in accordance with PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS information displays a current valid authority delegated by the Executive DIRECTIVES OMB control number. The control Director, Aircraft Certification Service, number for the collection of information as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 required by this AD is 2120–0056. The In accordance with that order, issuance continues to read as follows: paperwork cost associated with this AD of ADs is normally a function of the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance and Airworthiness Compliance section of this document Division, but during this transition § 39.13 [Amended] and includes time for reviewing period, the Executive Director has ■ instructions, as well as completing and delegated the authority to issue ADs 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) reviewing the collection of information. applicable to transport category 2019–20–02, Amendment 39–19755 (84 Therefore, all reporting associated with airplanes and associated appliances to this AD is mandatory. Comments FR 52754, October 3, 2019), and adding the Director of the System Oversight the following new AD: concerning the accuracy of this burden Division. and suggestions for reducing the burden 2019–22–10 The Boeing Company: should be directed to Information Regulatory Findings Amendment 39–19789; Docket No. Collection Clearance Officer, Federal FAA–2019–0866; Product Identifier Aviation Administration, 10101 The FAA has determined that this AD 2019–NM–174–AD. will not have federalism implications Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX (a) Effective Date 76177–1524. under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect This AD is effective November 13, 2019. Authority for This Rulemaking on the States, on the relationship (b) Affected ADs Title 49 of the United States Code between the national government and This AD replaces AD 2019–20–02, specifies the FAA’s authority to issue the States, or on the distribution of Amendment 39–19755 (84 FR 52754, October rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, power and responsibilities among the 3, 2019) (‘‘AD 2019–20–02’’). Section 106, describes the authority of various levels of government. (c) Applicability the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, For the reasons discussed above, I This AD applies to all The Boeing Aviation Programs, describes in more certify that this AD: detail the scope of the Agency’s Company Model 737–600, –700, –700C, authority. (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory –800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category. The FAA is issuing this rulemaking action’’ under Executive Order 12866, under the authority described in and (d) Subject Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation Air Transport Association (ATA) of 44701, ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under in Alaska. America Code 53, Fuselage.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61536 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

(e) Unsafe Condition specified in Table 1 of ‘‘Ref F’’ of Boeing of information. All responses to this This AD was prompted by reports of Multi-Operator Message MOM–MOM–19– collection of information are mandatory as cracking discovered in the left- and right- 0623–01B, dated November 5, 2019, do a required by this AD; the nature and extent of hand side outboard chords of the station detailed inspection of the left- and right-hand confidentiality to be provided, if any. Send (STA) 663.75 frame fittings and failsafe straps side outboard chords of the STA 663.75 comments regarding this burden estimate or adjacent to the stringer S–18A straps and a frame fittings and failsafe straps around eight any other aspect of this collection of determination that the area inspected by AD fasteners adjacent to the stringer S–18A information, including suggestions for 2019–20–02 needs to be expanded. The FAA straps, in accordance with Boeing Multi- reducing this burden to Information is issuing this AD to address cracking in the Operator Message MOM–MOM–19–0623– Collection Clearance Officer, Federal STA 663.75 frame fitting outboard chords 01B, dated November 5, 2019. If any crack is Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood and failsafe straps adjacent to the stringer S– found, repair before further flight using a Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177–1524. 18A straps, which could result in failure of method approved in accordance with the (n) Alternative Methods of Compliance procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this a Principal Structural Element (PSE) to (AMOCs) sustain limit load. This condition could AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the adversely affect the structural integrity of the intervals specified in Table 1 of ‘‘Ref F’’ of (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, airplane and result in loss of control of the Boeing Multi-Operator Message MOM– FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs airplane. MOM–19–0623–01B, dated November 5, for this AD, if requested using the procedures 2019. Accomplishing the initial inspection found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with (f) Compliance required by this paragraph terminates the 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your Comply with this AD within the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this principal inspector or local Flight Standards compliance times specified, unless already AD. District Office, as appropriate. If sending done. information directly to the manager of the (j) Exception to Service Information certification office, send it to the attention of (g) Retained Inspection and Corrective Specifications the person identified in paragraph (o) of this Action, With No Changes Where Table 1 of ‘‘Ref F’’ of Boeing Multi- AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM- This paragraph restates the requirements of Operator Message MOM–MOM–19–0623– [email protected]. paragraph (g) of AD 2019–20–02, with no 01B, dated November 5, 2019, uses the (2) Before using any approved AMOC, changes. At the earlier of the times specified phrase ‘‘the original issue date of MOM– notify your appropriate principal inspector, in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD: Do a MOM–19–0623–01B,’’ this AD requires using or lacking a principal inspector, the manager detailed inspection for cracking of the left- ‘‘the effective date of this AD.’’ of the local flight standards district office/ and right-hand side outboard chords of the certificate holding district office. STA 663.75 frame fittings and failsafe straps (k) New Reporting Requirement (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable adjacent to the stringer S–18A straps, in At the applicable time specified in level of safety may be used for any repair, accordance with Boeing Multi-Operator paragraph (k)(1) or (2) of this AD, submit a modification, or alteration required by this Message MOM–MOM–19–0536–01B, dated report of all findings, positive and negative, AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company September 30, 2019. If any crack is found, of the initial inspection required by Organization Designation Authorization repair before further flight using a method paragraph (i) of this AD. Submit the report (ODA) that has been authorized by the approved in accordance with the procedures in accordance with Boeing Multi-Operator Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make specified in paragraph (n) of this AD. Repeat Message MOM–MOM–19–0623–01B, dated those findings. To be approved, the repair the inspection thereafter at intervals not to November 5, 2019. method, modification deviation, or alteration exceed 3,500 flight cycles until the initial (1) If the inspection was done on or after deviation must meet the certification basis of inspection required by paragraph (i) of this the effective date of this AD: Submit the the airplane, and the approval must AD is done. report within 3 days after the inspection. specifically refer to this AD. (1) Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 (2) If the inspection was done before the (4) AMOCs approved previously for AD total flight cycles, or within 7 days after effective date of this AD: Submit the report 2019–20–02 are approved as AMOCs for the October 3, 2019 (the effective date of AD within 3 days after the effective date of this corresponding provisions of this AD. 2019–20–02), whichever occurs later. AD. (o) Related Information (2) Prior to the accumulation of 22,600 (l) Special Flight Permit total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight For more information about this AD, cycles after October 3, 2019 (the effective Special flight permits may be issued in contact Greg Rutar, Aerospace Engineer, date of AD 2019–20–02), whichever occurs accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, later. to operate the airplane to a location where 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA the airplane can be repaired if any crack is 98198; phone and fax: 206–231–3529; email: (h) Retained Reporting Requirement With found, provided the Manager, Seattle ACO [email protected]. No Changes Branch, FAA, concurs with issuance of the (p) Material Incorporated by Reference This paragraph restates the requirements of special flight permit. Send requests for paragraph (h) of AD 2019–20–02, with no concurrence by email to 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO- (1) The Director of the Federal Register changes. At the applicable time specified in [email protected]. approved the incorporation by reference paragraph (h)(1) or (2) of this AD, submit a (IBR) of the service information listed in this (m) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden report of all findings, positive and negative, paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Statement of the initial inspection required by part 51. paragraph (g) of this AD. Submit the report A federal agency may not conduct or (2) You must use this service information in accordance with Boeing Multi-Operator sponsor, and a person is not required to as applicable to do the actions required by Message MOM–MOM–19–0536–01B, dated respond to, nor shall a person be subject to this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. September 30, 2019. a penalty for failure to comply with a (3) The following service information was (1) If the inspection was done on or after collection of information subject to the approved for IBR on November 13, 2019. October 3, 3019 (the effective date of AD requirements of the Paperwork Reduction (i) Boeing Multi-Operator Message MOM– 2019–20–02): Submit the report within 3 Act unless that collection of information MOM–19–0623–01B, dated November 5, days after the inspection. displays a current valid OMB Control 2019. (2) If the inspection was done before Number. The OMB Control Number for this (ii) [Reserved] October 3, 2019 (the effective date of AD information collection is 2120–0056. Public (4) The following service information was 2019–20–02): Submit the report within 3 reporting for this collection of information is approved for IBR on October 3, 2019 (84 FR days after October 3, 2019. estimated to be approximately 1 hour per 52754, October 3, 2019). response, including the time for reviewing (i) Boeing Multi-Operator Message MOM– (i) New Inspection and Corrective Action instructions, searching existing data sources, MOM–19–0536–01B, dated September 30, Except as specified in paragraph (j) of this gathering and maintaining the data needed, 2019. AD: At the applicable initial compliance time and completing and reviewing the collection (ii) [Reserved]

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61537

(5) For service information identified in DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, January 30, parties were invited to participate in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 2020. The Director of the Federal this rulemaking effort by submitting Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Register approves this incorporation by written comments on the proposal to the Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., FAA. No comments were received. MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; reference action under Title 1 Code of telephone 562–797–1717; internet https:// Federal Regulations part 51, subject to Class D and Class E airspace www.myboeingfleet.com. the annual revision of FAA Order designations are published in paragraph (6) You may view this service information 7400.11 and publication of conforming 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, amendments. FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, 2019 and effective September 15, 2019, information on the availability of this which is incorporated by reference in 14 material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E (7) You may view this service information airspace designations listed in this that is incorporated by reference at the be viewed on line at http:// National Archives and Records www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. document will be published Administration (NARA). For information on For further information, you can contact subsequently in that Order. FAA Order the availability of this material at NARA, the Airspace Policy Group, Federal 7400.11, Airspace Designations and email [email protected], or go to https:// Aviation Administration, 800 Reporting Points, is published yearly www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr- Independence Avenue SW, Washington, and effective on September 15. locations.html. DC, 20591 telephone: (202) 267–8783. Availability and Summary of Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on The Order is also available for Documents for Incorporation by November 7, 2019. inspection at the National Archives and Reference Michael Kaszycki, Records Administration (NARA). For Acting Director, System Oversight Division, This document amends FAA Order information on the availability of FAA 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Aircraft Certification Service. Order 7400.11C at NARA, email [FR Doc. 2019–24716 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, [email protected] or go to https:// and effective September 15, 2019. FAA BILLING CODE 4910–13–P www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ Order 7400.11D is publicly available as ibr-locations.html. listed in the ADDRESSES section of this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, Federal Aviation Administration Administration, Western Service Center, air traffic service routes, and reporting Operations Support Group, 2200 S points. 14 CFR Part 71 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231–2245. The Rule [Docket No. FAA–2018–0686; Airspace SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION The FAA is amending Title 14 Code Docket No. 18–ANM–10] : of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 RIN 2120–AA66 Authority for This Rulemaking by modifying Class D airspace, and The FAA’s authority to issue rules Class E surface area airspace at Felts Amendment of Class D and Class E regarding aviation safety is found in Field Airport, Spokane, WA, by Airspace, and Establishment of Class Title 49 of the United States Code. expanding an area that will extend to E Airspace; Spokane, WA Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the the Spokane International Airport Class AGENCY: Federal Aviation authority of the FAA Administrator. C surface area on the southwest and Administration (FAA), DOT. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, expanded 1.2 miles on the northeast; ACTION: Final rule. describes in more detail the scope of the and Establishing Class E airspace agency’s authority. This rulemaking is extending upward from 700 feet above SUMMARY: This action modifies Class D promulgated under the authority the surface within a 4-mile radius of airspace, Class E surface area airspace, described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Felts Field Airport, Spokane, WA, and and establishes Class E airspace Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that within 1.8 miles each side of the 53° extending upward from 700 feet above section, the FAA is charged with bearing from the airport extending from the surface at Felts Field Airport, prescribing regulations to assign the use the 4-mile radius to 6.5 miles from the Spokane, WA. After a biennial review, of airspace necessary to ensure the airport, and within 3.0 miles each side the FAA found it necessary to amend safety of aircraft and the efficient use of of the 75° bearing from the point in existing airspace and establish new airspace. This regulation is within the space at (lat. 47°37′46″ N, long. controlled airspace for the safety and scope of that authority as it amends 117°26′30″ W), extending 12.6 miles management of Instrument Flight Rules Class D and Class E surface area from the point in space coordinates. (IFR) operations at this airport. This airspace and establishes Class E airspace After a biennial review of the airspace, action makes a minor editorial change to extending upward from 700 feet above the FAA found modification of the the airspace designation and replaces the earth at Felts Field, Spokane, WA, airspace necessary for the safety and the outdated term Airport/Facility to support IFR operations at the airport. management of aircraft departing and Directory with the term Chart History arriving under IFR operations at the Supplement. The Class D and Class E airport. surface areas are extended to the The FAA published a notice of Spokane International Airport Class C proposed rulemaking in the Federal Regulatory Notices and Analyses surface area on the southwest and Register (84 FR 29431; June 24, 2019) The FAA has determined that this expanded 1.2 miles on the northeast. for Docket No. FAA–2018–0686 to regulation only involves an established The Class E airspace extending upward modify Class D airspace and Class E body of technical regulations for which from 700 feet above the surface is surface area airspace and establish Class frequent and routine amendments are established to provide airspace for E airspace extending upward from 700 necessary to keep them operationally aircraft transitioning to and from Felts feet above the surface at Felts Field current, is non-controversial and Field airport. Airport, Spokane, WA. Interested unlikely to result in adverse or negative

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61538 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a within a 4-mile radius of Felts Field Airport Issued in Seattle, Washington, November 4, ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under and that airspace 1.2 miles each side of the 2019. ° Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 53 bearing from the airport extending from Shawn M. Kozica, ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT the 4-mile radius to 5.2 miles from the Felts Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Field airport, and that airspace from a line Service Center. Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 1.5 miles northwest and parallel to a line FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) along the 224° bearing from a point in space [FR Doc. 2019–24574 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] does not warrant preparation of a lat. 47°41′36″ N, long. 117°22′43″ W, to a line BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated 2.1 miles south and parallel to a line along impact is so minimal. Since this is a the 258° bearing from a point in space lat. ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ routine matter that only affects air traffic 47 39 08 N, long. 117 18 46 W, extending DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE procedures and air navigation, it is from the Felts Field’s 4-mile radius to 6.5 certified that this rule, when miles from the Felts Field Airport, excluding Bureau of Industry and Security promulgated, will not have a significant that airspace in the Spokane International Airport Class C surface area. This Class D economic impact on a substantial airspace area is effective during the specific 15 CFR Part 744 number of small entities under the dates and times established in advance by a [Docket No. 191105–0076] criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time RIN 0694–AH85 Environmental Review will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement. The FAA has determined that this Addition of Entities to the Entity List, Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Revision of an Entry on the Entity List, action qualifies for categorical exclusion Designated as Surface Areas. under the National Environmental and Removal of Entities From the Policy Act in accordance with FAA * * * * * Entity List Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental ANM WA E2 Spokane, WA [Amended] AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ Felts Field, WA Security, Commerce. paragraph 5–6.5a. This airspace action (Lat. 47°40′59″ N, long. 117°19′21″ W) ACTION: Final rule. is not expected to cause any potentially Felts Field, Point In Space Coordinates ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ significant environmental impacts, and (Lat. 47 39 08 N, long. 117 18 46 W) SUMMARY: In this rule, the Bureau of no extraordinary circumstances exist Felts Field, Point In Space Coordinates ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ Industry and Security (BIS) amends the that warrant preparation of an (Lat. 47 41 36 N, long. 117 22 43 W) Export Administration Regulations environmental assessment. That airspace extending upward from the (EAR) by adding twenty-two entities, surface within a 4-mile radius of Felts Field under a total of thirty-two entries, to the Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airport and that airspace 1.2 miles each side of the 53° bearing from the airport extending Entity List. These twenty-two entities Airspace, Incorporation by reference, have been determined by the U.S. Navigation (air). from the 4-mile radius to 5.2 miles from the Felts Field airport, and that airspace from a Government to be acting contrary to the Adoption of the Amendment line 1.5 miles northwest and parallel to a line national security or foreign policy along the 224° bearing from a point in space interests of the United States. These In consideration of the foregoing, the lat. 47°41′36″ N, long. 117°22′43″ W, to a line Federal Aviation Administration entities will be listed on the Entity List 2.1 miles south and parallel to a line along under the destinations of Bahrain, amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: the 258° bearing from a point in space lat. ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ France, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, 47 39 08 N, long. 117 18 46 W, extending Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Syria, PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, from the Felts Field’s 4-mile radius to 6.5 B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR miles from the Felts Field Airport, excluding Turkey, the United Arab Emirates TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND that airspace in the Spokane International (U.A.E.) and the United Kingdom (U.K.). REPORTING POINTS Airport Class C surface area. This Class D This rule also modifies one existing airspace area is effective during the specific entry on the Entity List under the ■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 dates and times established in advance by a destination of Pakistan. Finally, this continues to read as follows: Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time rule removes three entities from the will thereafter be continuously published in Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, Entity List; one under the destination of the Chart Supplement. 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, Pakistan, one under the destination of 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Singapore and one under the Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More destination of the U.A.E. The removals § 71.1 [Amended] Above the Surface of the Earth. are made in connection with requests ■ 2. The incorporation by reference in * * * * * for removal that BIS received pursuant 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D, to sections of the EAR used for ANM WA E5 Spokane, WA [New] Airspace Designations and Reporting requesting removal or modification of Points, dated August 8, 2019, and Felts Field, WA ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ an Entity List entry, and the subsequent effective September 15, 2019, is (Lat. 47 40 59 N, long. 117 19 21 W) review by the End-User Review amended as follows: Felts Field, Point In Space Coordinates (Lat. 47°37′46″ N, long. 117°26′30″ W) Committee of the information provided in the requests. Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. That airspace extending upward from 700 * * * * * feet above the ground within a 4-mile radius DATES: This rule is effective November of Felts Field Airport, and that airspace 1.8 13, 2019. ANM WA D Spokane, WA [Amended] miles each side of the 53° bearing from the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felts Field, WA airport extending from the 4-mile radius to Chair, End-User Review Committee, ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ (Lat. 47 40 59 N, long. 117 19 21 W) 6.5 miles from the Felts Field airport, and Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Felts Field, Point In Space Coordinates ° that airspace 3.0 miles each side of the 75 Administration, Bureau of Industry and (Lat. 47°39′08″ N, long. 117°18′46″ W) bearing from point in space at (Lat. 47°37′46″ Felts Field, Point In Space Coordinates N, long. 117°26′30″ W), extending 12.6 miles Security, Department of Commerce, (Lat. 47°41′36″ N, long. 117°22′43″ W) from the point in space, excluding that Phone: (202) 482–5991, Fax: (202) 482– That airspace extending upward from the airspace in the Spokane International Airport 3911, Email: [email protected]. surface to and including 4,500 feet MSL Class C Airspace. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61539

Background Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, List, see 83 FR 44824 (September 4, The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Syria, Turkey, 2018). As discussed further below, part 744 of the Export Administration the U.A.E. and the U.K. The ERC made Technology Links Pvt. Ltd. is being Regulations (EAR)) identifies entities for the decision to add each of the twenty- removed from the Entity List pursuant which there is reasonable cause to two entities described below under the to this rule. believe, based on specific and standard set forth in § 744.11(b) of the Pursuant to § 744.11(b), the ERC articulable facts, that the entities have EAR. determined that the conduct of the been involved, are involved, or pose a The ERC determined to add Dart above-described twenty-two entities significant risk of being or becoming Aviation to the Entity List under the raises sufficient concerns that prior involved in activities contrary to the destinations of France, Iran, Senegal and review of exports, reexports, or transfers national security or foreign policy the U.K., because this entity has (in-country) of all items subject to the interests of the United States. The EAR transshipped U.S.-origin items to EAR involving these entities, and the (15 CFR parts 730–774) impose sanctioned destinations and entities possible imposition of license additional license requirements on, and without the required authorizations. conditions or license denials on The ERC determined to add Safe limit the availability of most license shipments to these entities, will Technical Supply Co., LLC to the Entity exceptions for, exports, reexports, and enhance BIS’s ability to prevent List under the destinations of Oman, transfers (in-country) to listed entities. violations of the EAR. For the twenty- Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as this entity The license review policy for each listed two entities added to the Entity List in has been involved in the proliferation of entity is identified in the ‘‘License this final rule, BIS imposes a license unsafeguarded nuclear activities. review policy’’ column on the Entity requirement for all items subject to the The ERC determined to add Marzoghi, EAR and a license review policy of a List, and the impact on the availability Ltd. and Mohammed Marzoghi to the of license exceptions is described in the presumption of denial. In addition, no Entity List under the destination of license exceptions are available for relevant Federal Register notice adding Bahrain; to also add Mohammed entities to the Entity List. BIS places exports, reexports, or transfers (in- Marzoghi under the destination of the country) to the persons being added to entities on the Entity List pursuant to U.A.E. and to add Abdullah Poor Nagar, part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and the Entity List in this rule. The acronym Al Ras Gate General Trading, Bestway ‘‘a.k.a.’’ (also known as) is used in End-Use Based) and part 746 Line FZCO, and Khaled Al Taher under (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) entries on the Entity List to identify the destination of the U.A.E. as well; aliases, thereby assisting exporters, of the EAR. and to add Eslem Global Pazarlama The End-User Review Committee reexporters, and transferors in Sanayi ve Ticaret and Mehmet Yari (ERC), composed of representatives of identifying entities on the Entity List. under the destination of Turkey. The the Departments of Commerce (Chair), For the reasons described above, this ERC determined that these eight entities State, Defense, Energy and, where final rule adds the following twenty-two knowingly divert U.S. origin items to appropriate, the Treasury, makes all entities, under a total of thirty-two Iran without authorization and are entries, to the Entity List: decisions regarding additions to, therefore unreliable recipients of U.S.- removals from, or other modifications to origin goods and technology. Bahrain the Entity List. The ERC makes all The ERC determined to add to the • Marzoghi, Ltd.; and decisions to add an entry to the Entity Entity List EDO–ELEMED, Elemed • Mohammed Marzoghi. List by majority vote and all decisions Liban, Rahal Corporation for to remove or modify an entry by Technology and Medical Supplies, and France unanimous vote. Rahal Establishment under the • Dart Aviation, including four ERC Entity List Decisions destinations of Lebanon and Syria, and aliases (Dart Aviation Technics, Dart to add The Jordanian Lebanese Aviation Marlbrine S.A.R.L., MBP Additions to the Entity List Company for Laboratory Instruments Trading Ltd., and Sari IEAS). Under § 744.11(b) (Criteria for S.A.L. under the destination of Jordan. Iran revising the Entity List) of the EAR, The ERC determined that these five • entities for which there is reasonable entities have been involved in providing Dart Aviation, including four cause to believe, based on specific and material support to chemical and aliases (Dart Aviation Technics, Dart articulable facts, that the entities have biological weapons activity in Syria. Aviation Marlbrine S.A.R.L., MBP been involved, are involved, or pose a The ERC determined to add Trading Ltd., and Sari IEAS). significant risk of being or becoming Engineering Equipment (Private) Jordan involved in activities that are contrary Limited, Fabcon International, • The Jordanian Lebanese Company to the national security or foreign policy Muhandis Corporation, Paktech for Laboratory Instruments S.A.L. interests of the United States, and those Engineers, and Rohtas Enterprise to the acting on behalf of such entities, may be Entity List under the destination of Lebanon added to the Entity List. Paragraphs Pakistan. The ERC determined these five • EDO–ELEMED, including two (b)(1) through (5) of § 744.11 provide an entities have been involved in aliases (EDO ELEMED and EDO/ illustrative list of activities that could be supporting unsafeguarded nuclear ELEMED); considered contrary to the national activities. • Elemed Liban; security or foreign policy interests of the Finally, the ERC determined to add • Rahal Corporation for Technology United States. Techlink Communications and and Medical Supplies; and This rule implements the decision of Techlinks, which were previously • Rahal Establishment. the ERC to add twenty-two entities, erroneously identified as aliases for under a total of thirty-two entries (i.e., Technology Links Pvt. Ltd., to the Entity Oman some of the entities are identified in List in individual entries under the • Safe Technical Supply Co., LLC, more than one destination), to the Entity destination of Pakistan. For more including three aliases (Safe Technical List. The twenty-two entities being information on the original appearance Equipment Services LLC; Safe added are located in Bahrain, France, of these entities as aliases on the Entity Technical; and SafeTech).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61540 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

Pakistan Control List (CCL) only.’’ In addition, Export Control Reform Act of 2018 • Engineering Equipment (Private) BIS is modifying an existing address for (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801–4852). ECRA Limited; Mushko Electronics Pt. Ltd. to correct provides the legal basis for BIS’s • Fabcon International; the spelling of ‘‘Boulevad’’ to principal authorities and serves as the • Muhandis Corporation; ‘‘Boulevard.’’ authority under which BIS issues this rule. As set forth in Section 1768 of • Paktech Engineers; Removals From the Entity List • Rohtas Enterprises; ECRA, all delegations, rules, • Techlink Communications; and This final rule implements the regulations, orders, determinations, • Techlinks. decision of the ERC to remove from the licenses, or other forms of Entity List the following entities: administrative action that have been Saudi Arabia Technology Links Pvt. Ltd., an entity made, issued, conducted, or allowed to • Safe Technical Supply Co., LLC, located in Pakistan; All Industrial become effective under the Export including three aliases (Safe Technical Manufacturing (AIM) Pte Ltd., an entity Administration Act of 1979 (previously, Equipment Services LLC; Safe located in Singapore; and Eurotech 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) (as in effect prior Technical; and SafeTech). DMCC, an entity located in the U.A.E. to August 13, 2018 and as continued in Technology Links Pvt. Ltd. was added effect pursuant to the International Senegal to the Entity list on September 4, 2018 Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 • Dart Aviation, including four (83 FR 44824); All Industrial U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)) or the Export aliases (Dart Aviation Technics, Dart Manufacturing (AIM) Pte Ltd. was Administration Regulations, and are in Aviation Marlbrine S.A.R.L., MBP added to the Entity List on September effect as of August 13, 2018, shall Trading Ltd., and SARL IEAS). 26, 2018 (83 FR 48534); and Eurotech continue in effect according to their DMCC was added to the Entity List on terms until modified, superseded, set Syria January 26, 2018 (83 FR 3580). The ERC aside, or revoked under the authority of • EDO–ELEMED, including two decided to remove these three entities ECRA. aliases (EDO ELEMED and EDO/ based upon their requests for removal Rulemaking Requirements ELEMED); and the information that BIS received • Elemed Liban; from them as part of their removal 1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 • Rahal Corporation for Technology requests pursuant to § 744.16 of the direct agencies to assess all costs and and Medical Supplies; and EAR, and the subsequent review that the benefits of available regulatory • Rahal Establishment. ERC conducted in accordance with alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory Turkey procedures described in Supplement No. 5 to part 744. approaches that maximize net benefits • Eslem Global Pazarlama Sanayi ve For the reasons described above, this (including potential economic, Ticaret; and final rule implements the decision to environmental, public health and safety • Mehmet Yari. remove the following three entities, effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 United Arab Emirates under the destinations of Pakistan, Singapore and the U.A.E., respectively, emphasizes the importance of • Abdullah Poor Nagar; from the Entity List: quantifying both costs and benefits, of • Al Ras Gate General Trading; reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, • Bestway Line FZCO; Pakistan and of promoting flexibility. This rule • Khaled Al Taher; • Technology Links Pvt. Ltd. has been determined to be not • Mohammed Marzoghi; and significant for purposes of Executive • Safe Technical Supply Co., LLC, Singapore Order 12866. This rule is not an including three aliases (Safe Technical • All Industrial Manufacturing (AIM) Executive Order 13771 regulatory action Equipment Services LLC; Safe Pte Ltd. because this rule is not significant under Technical; and SafeTech). Executive Order 12866. United Arab Emirates 2. Notwithstanding any other United Kingdom • Eurotech DMCC. provision of law, no person is required • Dart Aviation, including four to respond to nor be subject to a penalty aliases (Dart Aviation Technics, Dart Savings Clause for failure to comply with a collection Aviation Marlbrine S.A.R.L., MBP Shipments of items removed from of information, subject to the Trading Ltd., and Sari IEAS). eligibility for a License Exception or requirements of the Paperwork export or reexport without a license Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 Modification to an Entry on the Entity (NLR) as a result of this regulatory et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of List action that were en route aboard a information displays a currently valid This final rule implements the carrier to a port of export or reexport, on Office of Management and Budget decision of the ERC to modify one November 13, 2019, pursuant to actual (OMB) Control Number. This regulation existing entry on the Entity List, under orders for export or reexport to a foreign involves collections previously the destination of Pakistan. Specifically, destination, may proceed to that approved by OMB under control this rule implements the decision of the destination under the previous number 0694–0088, Simplified Network ERC to modify the existing entry for eligibility for a License Exception or Application Processing System, which Mushko Electronics Pvt. Ltd., which export or reexport without a license includes, among other things, license was added to the Entity List under the (NLR). applications and carries a burden destination of Pakistan on March 22, estimate of 42.5 minutes for a manual or 2018 (83 FR 12479). BIS is modifying Export Control Reform Act of 2018 electronic submission. Total burden the existing entry by changing the On August 13, 2018, the President hours associated with the PRA and License Requirement from ‘‘All Items signed into law the John S. McCain OMB control number 0694–0088 are not Subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the National Defense Authorization Act for expected to increase as a result of this EAR)’’ to ‘‘Items on the Commerce Fiscal Year 2019, which included the rule. You may send comments regarding

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61541

the collection of information associated et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR Engineers,’’ ‘‘Rohtas Enterprises,’’ with this rule, including suggestions for 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. ‘‘Techlink Communications,’’ and reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. ‘‘Techlinks’’; and 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Seehra, Office of Management and ■ iv. By removing one Pakistani entity _ _ Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 Budget (OMB), by email to Jasmeet K. CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR ‘‘Technology Links Pvt. Ltd.’’; [email protected], or by fax to (202) 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. ■ h. Under SAUDI ARABIA by adding 395–7285. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. in alphabetical order one Saudi Arabian 3. This rule does not contain policies 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 entity ‘‘Safe Technical Supply Co., with Federalism implications as that Comp., p. 786; Notice of September 19, 2018, LLC’’; term is defined in Executive Order 83 FR 47799 (September 20, 2018); Notice of ■ i. By adding in alphabetical order a November 8, 2018, 83 FR 56253 (November 13132. heading for SENEGAL and one 4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the 9, 2018). Senegalese entity ‘‘Dart Aviation’’; Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 ■ 2. Supplement No. 4 to part 744 is ■ j. Under SINGAPORE by removing U.S.C. 4801–4852), which was included amended: one entity ‘‘All Industrial in the John S. McCain National Defense ■ a. Under BAHRAIN by adding in Manufacturing (AIM) Pte Ltd.’’; Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, alphabetical order two Bahraini entities ■ this action is exempt from the ‘‘Marzoghi, Ltd.’’ and ‘‘Mohammed k. Under SYRIA by adding in Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Marzoghi’’; alphabetical order four Syrian entities 553) requirements for notice of ■ b. Under FRANCE by adding in ‘‘EDO–ELEMED,’’ ‘‘Elemed Liban,’’ proposed rulemaking, opportunity for alphabetical order one French entity ‘‘Rahal Corporation for Technology and public participation, and delay in ‘‘Dart Aviation’’; Medical Supplies,’’ and ‘‘Rahal effective date. ■ c. Under IRAN by adding in Establishment’’; 5. Because a notice of proposed alphabetical order one Iranian entity ■ l. Under TURKEY by adding in rulemaking and an opportunity for ‘‘Dart Aviation’’; alphabetical order two Turkish entities public comment are not required to be ■ d. Under JORDAN by adding in ‘‘Eslem Global Pazarlama Sanayi ve given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or alphabetical order one Jordanian entity Ticaret’’ and ‘‘Mehmet Yari’’; by any other law, the analytical ‘‘The Jordanian Lebanese Company for ■ m. Under UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: requirements of the Regulatory Laboratory Instruments S.A.L’’; ■ i. By adding in alphabetical order Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are ■ e. Under LEBANON by adding in three Emirati entities ‘‘Abdullah Poor not applicable. Accordingly, no alphabetical order four Lebanese entities Nagar,’’ ‘‘Al Ras Gate General Trading,’’ regulatory flexibility analysis is required ‘‘EDO–ELEMED,’’ ‘‘Elemed Liban,’’ and ‘‘Bestway Line FZCO’’; and none has been prepared. ‘‘Rahal Corporation for Technology and ■ ii. By removing one Emirati entity Medical Supplies,’’ and ‘‘Rahal List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744 ‘‘Eurotech DMCC’’; and Establishment’’; ■ Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping ■ f. Under OMAN by adding in iii. By adding in alphabetical order requirements, Terrorism. alphabetical order one Omani entity three Emirati entities ‘‘Khaled Al Taher,’’ ‘‘Mohammed Marzoghi,’’ and Accordingly, part 744 of the Export ‘‘Safe Technical Supply Co., LLC’’; ‘‘Safe Technical Supply Co., LLC’’; and Administration Regulations (15 CFR ■ g. Under PAKISTAN: ■ parts 730–774) is amended as follows: ■ i. By adding in alphabetical order n. Under UNITED KINGDOM by three Pakistani entities ‘‘Engineering adding in alphabetical order one British PART 744—[AMENDED] Equipment (Private) Limited,’’ ‘‘Fabcon entity ‘‘Dart Aviation’’. International,’’ and ‘‘Muhandis The additions and revision read as ■ 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR Corporation’’; follows: part 744 is revised to read as follows: ■ ii. By revising one Pakistani entity Supplement No. 4 to Part 744—Entity ‘‘Mushko Electronics Pvt. Ltd.’’; Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4801–4852; 50 U.S.C. List 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. ■ iii. By adding in alphabetical order 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 four Pakistani entities ‘‘Paktech * * * * *

License License Federal Register Country Entity requirement review policy citation

*******

BAHRAIN ...... ****** Marzoghi Ltd., 12-20 Albaba Building For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE 119 Road 1507, Manama, Bahrain. the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November of the EAR). 13, 2019. Mohammed Marzoghi, 12-20 Albaba For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Building 119 Road 1507, Manama, the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November Bahrain. (See also addresses in the of the EAR). 13, 2019. United Arab (Emirates).

*******

FRANCE ...... ******

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61542 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

License License Federal Register Country Entity requirement review policy citation

Dart Aviation, a.k.a., the following four For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE aliases: the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November —Dart Aviation Technics; of the EAR). 13, 2019. —Dart Aviation Marlbrine S.A.R.L.; —MBP Trading Ltd.; and —Sari IEAS. 3, rue de la Janaie—ZA Yves Burgot 35400 Saint Malo I&V, France. (See also addresses under Iran, Senegal and the United Kingdom).

*******

IRAN ...... ****** Dart Aviation, a.k.a., the following four For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE aliases: the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November —Dart Aviation Technics; of the EAR). 13, 2019. —Dart Aviation Marlbrine S.A.R.L.; —MBP Trading Ltd.; and —Sari IEAS. East Unit, 1st Floor—Building No. 1 Solhparvar Dead—Bimeh 5th Karaj Makhsous Ave. Tehran, Iran. (See also addresses under France, Sen- egal and the United Kingdom).

*******

JORDAN ...... ****** The Jordanian Lebanese Company for For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Laboratory Instruments S.A.L., the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November Shmesani, Bldg. No 16 ground floor, of the EAR). 13, 2019. Amman, 63 Jordan.

*******

LEBANON ...... ****** EDO-ELEMED, A.K.A., the following For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE two aliases: the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November —EDO ELEMED, a.k.a., the following of the EAR). 13, 2019. two aliases: —EDO ELEMED; and —EDO ELEMED St. Nicolas Street, Bldg. #5—Ba’bda, Beirut, Lebanon; and Ashrafiyeh, St. Louis Street, Abou Jawdeh Bldg. 2 Floor, Beirut, Lebanon. (See also ad- dresses under Syria) ****** Elemed Liban, St. Nicolas Street, Bldg. For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE #5—Ba’abda, Beirut, Lebanon. (See the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November also addresses under Syria) of the EAR). 13, 2019. ****** Rahal Corporation for Technology and For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Medical Supplies, St. Nicolas Street, the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November Bldg. #5—Ba’abda, Beirut, Lebanon. of the EAR). 13, 2019. (See also addresses under Syria) Rahal Establishment, St. Nicolas For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Street, Bldg. #5—Ba’abda, Beirut, the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November Lebanon. (See also addresses under of the EAR). 13, 2019. Syria)

*******

OMAN ...... ******

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61543

License License Federal Register Country Entity requirement review policy citation

Safe Technical Supply Co., LLC, a.k.a., For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE the following three aliases: the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November —Safe Technical; and of the EAR). 13, 2019. —Safe Tech. Way # 2926, Al Habib Building #65, Rex Road RUWI, Sultanate of Oman; and P.O. Box: 926, PC 114, Jibroo, Oman. (See also addresses under Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates).

PAKISTAN ...... ****** Engineering Equipment (Private) Lim- For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE ited, 26-D Kashmir Plaza, Jinnah Av- the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November enue, Islamabad, Pakistan. of the EAR). 13, 2019. ****** Fabcon International, 359 G-4, Johar For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Town, Lahore, Pakistan; and 227 the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November Sunder Industrial Estate, Sunder- of the EAR). 13, 2019. Raiwind Road, Lahore, Pakistan and MZ-9 Central Plaza, Barkat Market, Lahore, Pakistan and MZ-9, Central Plaza Barket Market, Pakistan. ****** Muhandis Corporation, No. 283, Kahuta For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Triangle Industrial Area, Islamabad the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November 44000 Pakistan. of the EAR). 13, 2019. Mushko Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Safa For all items on the Com- Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE House Address, Abdullah Haroon merce Control List NUMBER], November Road, Karachi Pakistan; and Victoria (CCL) only. 13, 2019. Chambers, Abdullah Haroon Road, Saddar Town, Karachi, Pakistan; and Office No. 3&8, First Floor, Center Point Plaza, Main Boulevard, Gullberg-III, Lahore, Pakistan; 26-D Kashmir Plaza East, Jinnah Avenue, Blue Area, Islamabad, Pakistan; and 68-W, Sama Plaza, Blue Area Sector G-7, Islamabad, Pakistan. ****** Paktech Engineers, Suite 8-A-2 2nd For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Floor Islam Plaza G-9 Merkaz, the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November Islamabad, Pakistan 44000. of the EAR). 13, 2019. ****** Rohtas Enterprises, Flat No. 8, Third For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Floor, Green Valley Apartments, Be- the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November hind Faiz ul ]slam Complex, of the EAR). 13, 2019. Presumption Faizabad-Rawalpindi, Pakistan. of denial. ****** Techlink Communications, 111B Block For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 83 FR 44824, 9/4/18. No. 2, Mezzanine Floor, Khalid bin the EAR. (See § 744.11 83 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Waleed Road, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi, of the EAR). NUMBER], November Pakistan. 13, 2019. Techlinks, Suite 3, 2nd Floor, Kashmir For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 83 FR 44824, 9/4/18. Center, 632/G-1 Market Johar Town, the EAR. (See § 744.11 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Lahore, Pakistan. of the EAR). NUMBER], November 13, 2019.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61544 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

License License Federal Register Country Entity requirement review policy citation

*******

SAUDI ARABIA Safe Technical Supply Co., LLC, a.k.a., For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE the following three aliases: the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November —Safe Technical Equipment Services of the EAR). 13, 2019. LLC; —Safe Technical; and —SafeTech. Ad Dakhal Mahdud Subdivision, PO Box 30305, Jubail 31951, Saudi Ara- bia. (See also addresses under Oman and the United Arab Emir- ates).

*******

SENEGAL ...... Dart Aviation, a.k.a., the following four For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE aliases: the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November —Dart Aviation Technics; of the EAR). 13, 2019. —Dart Aviation Marlbrine S.A.R.L.; —MBP Trading Ltd.; and —SARL IEAS. CID Ae´roport International Le´opold Sedar Senghor Dakar Yoff Senegal. (See also addresses under France, Iran and the United Kingdom).

*******

SYRIA ...... ****** EDO–ELEMED, a.k.a., the following For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE two aliases: the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November —EDO ELEMED; and of the EAR). 13, 2019. —EDO/ELEMED. 16 Parliament Street—Salhieh, Diab Building, Damascus, Syria; and P.O. Box 8126 Damascus Syria. (See also addresses under Lebanon). ****** Elemed Liban, 16 Parliament Street— For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Salhieh, Diab Building, Damascus, the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November Syria; and P.O. Box 8126 Damascus of the EAR). 13, 2019. Syria. (See also address under Leb- anon). ****** Rahal Corporation for Technology and For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Medical Supplies, 16 Parliament the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November Street—Salhieh, Diab Building, Da- of the EAR). 13, 2019. mascus, Syria; and P.O. Box 8126 Damascus Syria. (See also address under Lebanon) Rahal Establishment, 16 Parliament For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Street—Salhieh, Diab Building, Da- the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November mascus, Syria; and P.O. Box 8126 of the EAR). 13, 2019. Damascus Syria. (See also address under Lebanon)

*******

TURKEY ...... ****** Eslem Global Pazarlama Sanayi ve For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Ticaret, PO Box 34122, Sultanahmet, the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November Fetih, Istanbul, Turkey; and of the EAR). 13, 2019. Divanyolu Caddesi No: 15/408 Sultanahmet Fatih Istanbul, Turkey. ****** Mehmet Yari, P.O. Box 34122, For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Sultanahmet, Fetih, Istanbul, Turkey. the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November of the EAR). 13, 2019.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61545

License License Federal Register Country Entity requirement review policy citation

*******

UNITED ARAB ****** EMIRATES. Abdullah Poor Nagar, P.O. Box 64705, For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Number 20, Al Ras Street, The Gold the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November Sough, Diera, Dubai, U.A.E. of the EAR). 13, 2019. ****** Al Ras Gate General Trading, P.O. Box For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE 64705, Number 20, Al Ras Street, the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November The Gold Sough, Diera, Dubai, of the EAR). 13, 2019. U.A.E. ****** Bestway Line FZCO, TPOFCB– For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE 06WS10, Jebal Ali Free Zone, Dubai, the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November U.A.E. of the EAR). 13, 2019. ****** Khaled Al Taher, TPOFCB–06WS10, For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE Jebal Ali Free Zone, Dubai, U.A.E. the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November of the EAR). 13, 2019. ****** Mohammed Marzoghi, TPOFCB– For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE 06WS10, Jebal Ali Free Zone, Dubai, the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER]. U.A.E.; and C21 Gate No 4, Ajman, of the EAR). U.A.E. (see also address under Bah- rain). ****** Safe Technical Supply Co., LLC, a.k.a., For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE the following three aliases: the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November —Safe Technical Equipment Services of the EAR). 13, 2019]. LLC; —Safe Technical; and —SafeTech. Showroom No. 6, Jadaf Ship Docking Yard, Gate No. 1, Al Khail Road, P.O. Box 4832, Dubai, U.A.E.; and Shed No: 138–A, Dubai Maritime City, Dubai, U.A.E.; and Office No. 3, Mezzanine Floor, Saleh Al Menhali Bldg., Mohammed bin Zayed City, PO Box 30560, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. (See also addresses under Oman and Saudi Arabia).

*******

UNITED KING- ****** DOM. Dart Aviation, a.k.a., the following four For all items subject to Presumption of denial ...... 84 FR [INSERT FR PAGE aliases: the EAR. (See § 744.11 NUMBER], November —Dart Aviation Technics; of the EAR). 13, 2019. —Dart Aviation Marlbrine S.A.R.L.; —MBP Trading Ltd.; and —Sari IEAS. Unit 7 Minton Distribution Park, London Road, Amesbury SP4 7RT Wiltshire, London, United Kingdom; and Martlet House E1, Yeoman Gate Yeoman Way Worthing West Sussex BN13 3QZ. (See also addresses under France, Iran and Senegal). ******

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61546 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: November 6, 2019. inventory of areas that may be management frameworks in the area. In Richard E. Ashooh, considered for future designation as addition, NOAA will assess the level of Assistant Secretary for Export national marine sanctuaries, and community-based support for the Administration. promulgates the regulations necessary nomination from a broad range of [FR Doc. 2019–24635 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] for implementing the nomination interests, and if that support has BILLING CODE 3510–33–P process. increased or decreased since the time of The preamble to the final rule nomination. This information gathering establishing the SNP states that: ‘‘[i]f on any or all of the national significance NOAA takes no designation action on a DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE criteria and management considerations nomination in the inventory, the could take place through a public National Oceanic and Atmospheric nomination will expire after five years Administration from the time it is accepted to the workshop or via a request by NOAA for inventory.’’ 79 FR 33851, 33855. In the written public comments. 15 CFR Part 922 preamble, NOAA also acknowledged 3. NOAA will review the updated that its implementation of the review nomination against the SNP national Clarification of Procedures for the process may evolve over time, in which significance criteria and management Sanctuary Nomination Process case it would notify the public of any considerations to assess if the AGENCY: Office of National Marine such process changes. See 79 FR 33851, nomination is still accurate and Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean 33855. relevant. The intent behind the five-year Service (NOS), National Oceanic and expiration policy was to ensure that the Following this public input and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), inventory contains nominations that internal analysis, ONMS staff will Department of Commerce (DOC). remain relevant based on original provide the ONMS Director with a ACTION: Notification. conditions. As the inventory of recommendation to maintain the nomination in the inventory, or remove SUMMARY: The Office of National Marine sanctuary nominations matures, some of Sanctuaries (ONMS) of the National the nominations may reach the five-year it once the 5-year anniversary is Oceanic and Atmospheric mark from the time they were accepted reached. Whether removing or Administration (NOAA) is clarifying to the inventory without NOAA maintaining the nomination, NOAA procedures for the Sanctuary initiating the designation process. If a would follow the same procedures for Nomination Process (SNP) established nomination remains responsive to the notifying the public as the ones in 2014. Specifically, ONMS informs the SNP criteria and considerations followed when a nomination is public of how it intends to treat described in the final rule after five submitted, including a letter to the nominations that have been accepted to years, NOAA believes it may be nominator, a notice in the Federal the inventory of sites for potential appropriate to allow it to remain on the Register, and posting information on designation as national marine inventory for another five years. ‘‘nominate.noaa.gov’’. To guide NOAA’s determination of sanctuaries and have been on the whether a nomination should remain on NOAA is not nominating or inventory for five years. the inventory after five years, NOAA has designating any new national marine DATES: The procedures for the Sanctuary identified a process by which the sanctuaries with this action. Any Nomination Process set out in this Agency will consider the continuing designations resulting from the document are effective on November 13, viability of nominations that are nearing nomination process would be 2019. the five-year expiration mark. With this conducted by NOAA through a separate ADDRESSES: Jessica Kondel, Policy and document, NOAA is announcing that it process, and within the public Planning Division Chief, 1305 East-West intends to use the following process to participation standards enacted by the Highway, 11th Floor, Silver Spring, evaluate a nomination as it approaches National Marine Sanctuaries Act Maryland 20910; 240–533–0647; its five-year anniversary on the (NMSA) and the National [email protected]. inventory: Environmental Policy Act. NOAA will FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. NOAA will send a letter to the follow all standards and requirements Jessica Kondel, Policy and Planning original nominating individual/party identified in the NMSA and its Division Chief, 240–533–0647, (‘‘nominator’’) at or around the four and implementing regulations when, in the [email protected]. a half-year mark of its time on the future, it considers any nomination for inventory to give the opportunity for the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: designation. nominator to provide updates (such as Background more current nomination information as Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. In 2014, NOAA issued a final rule re- described in the 2014 final rule under John Armor, establishing the process by which ‘‘Step 1: Nomination Development’’ and communities may submit nominations ‘‘Step 2: Nomination Submission’’, and/ Director, Office of National Marine of areas of the marine and Great Lakes or new letters of support if available). Sanctuaries. environment for NOAA to consider for 2. In addition to any response from [FR Doc. 2019–24577 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] designation as national marine the nominator, NOAA will update any BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P sanctuaries (79 FR 33851). The final relevant information on the nomination. rule, which was promulgated at 15 CFR Particular attention will be given to new part 922, subpart B, describes the public and agency/scientific process for submitting nominations, information about the national known as the Sanctuary Nomination significance of natural or cultural Process (SNP), describes the national resources, as well as changes (increases significance criteria and management or decreases) in the threats to the considerations that NOAA applies to resources originally proposed for evaluate nominations for inclusion in an protection, and/or changes to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61547

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY electronically filed. The proposed Office of the Associate Chief Counsel regulations also provided that if a Form (Procedure and Administration). Internal Revenue Service 8963 or corrected Form 8963 is required to be filed electronically, any List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 57 26 CFR Part 57 subsequent Form 8963 filed for the same Health insurance, Reporting and [TD 9881] fee year must also be filed recordkeeping requirements. electronically, even if the subsequently RIN 1545–BN57 filed Form 8963 reports $25 million or Adoption of Amendments to the less in net premiums written. In Regulations Electronic Filing of the Report of addition, the proposed regulations Health Insurance Provider Information provided that a failure to electronically Accordingly, 26 CFR part 57 is amended to read as follows: AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), file would be treated as a failure to file for purposes of section 57.3(b). Treasury. PART 57—HEALTH INSURANCE ACTION: Final regulations. No comments were received in PROVIDERS FEE response to the notice of proposed SUMMARY: This document contains final rulemaking. No public hearing was ■ regulations amending the Health requested or held. This Treasury Paragraph 1. The authority citation Insurance Providers Fee regulations to Decision adopts the proposed for 26 CFR part 57 continues to read in require certain covered entities engaged regulations with no substantive change part as follows: in the business of providing health other than the applicability date. The Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * insurance for United States health risks rationale provided in the Explanation of to electronically file Form 8963, ‘‘Report Provisions section of the notice of ■ Par. 2. Section 57.3 is amended by of Health Insurance Provider proposed rulemaking applies equally to revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as Information.’’ These final regulations these final regulations. The electronic follows: affect those entities. filing requirement will begin in the 2020 § 57.3 Reporting requirements and DATES: Effective Date. These regulations fee year because the fee will not be associated penalties. are effective on November 13, 2019. collected in 2019. (a) * * * FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Special Analyses David Bergman, (202) 317–6845 (not a (2) Manner of reporting—(i) In toll-free number). This regulation is not subject to general. The IRS may provide rules in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: review under section 6(b) of Executive guidance published in the Internal Order 12866 pursuant to the Revenue Bulletin for the manner of Background Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, reporting by a covered entity under this This document contains final 2018) between the Department of the section, including rules for reporting by regulations in Title 26 of the Code of Treasury and the Office of Management a designated entity on behalf of a Federal Regulations under section 9010 and Budget regarding review of tax controlled group that is treated as a of the Patient Protection and Affordable regulations. It is hereby certified that the single covered entity. electronic filing requirement would not Care Act (PPACA), Public Law 111–148, (ii) Electronic Filing Required. Any 124 Stat. 119 (2010), as amended by have a significant economic impact on Form 8963 (including corrected forms) section 10905 of PPACA, and as further a substantial number of small entities filed pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this amended by section 1406 of the Health pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility section and reporting more than $25 Care and Education Reconciliation Act Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6). The rule is million in net premiums written must of 2010, Public Law 111–152 (124 Stat. expected to affect primarily larger be filed electronically in accordance 1029 (2010)) (collectively, the entities because the electronic filing with the instructions to the form. If a Affordable Care Act or ACA). The final requirement is only imposed if the filer Form 8963 or corrected Form 8963 is regulations provide guidance on the must report more than $25 million in required to be filed electronically under annual fee imposed on covered entities net premiums. Small entities are this paragraph (a)(2)(ii), any engaged in the business of providing unlikely to report more than $25 million subsequently filed Form 8963 filed for health insurance for United States in net premiums, and the rule contains health risks, and affect persons engaged a specific exemption from the electronic the same fee year must also be filed in the business of providing health reporting requirement for covered electronically. For purposes of § 57.3(b), insurance for United States health risks. entities that report $25 million or less in any Form 8963 required to be filed On December 9, 2016, the Treasury net premiums written. Accordingly, this electronically under this section will Department and the IRS published a rule will not have a significant not be considered filed unless it is filed notice of proposed rulemaking (REG– economic impact on a substantial electronically. 123829–16) in the Federal Register, 81 number of small entities. * * * * * FR 89020, containing proposed Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the ■ Par. 3. Section 57.10 is amended by regulations that would amend section Internal Revenue Code, the notice of revising the section heading, paragraph 57.3(a)(2) of the Health Insurance proposed rulemaking preceding these (a) and adding paragraph (c) to read as Providers Fee regulations to provide final regulations was submitted to the follows: that a covered entity (including a Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small controlled group) reporting on a Form Business Administration for comment § 57.10 Applicability date. 8963 or corrected Form 8963 more than on the impact on small business, and no $25 million in net premiums written comments were received. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs must electronically file the forms after (b) and (c) of this section, §§ 57.1 Drafting Information December 31, 2017. Forms 8963 through 57.9 apply to any fee that is due reporting $25 million or less in net The principal author of these on or after September 30, 2014. premiums written are not required to be regulations is David Bergman of the * * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61548 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

(c) Section 57.3(a)(2)(ii) applies to medical schools. This is known as the the program to degrees that do not lead Forms 8963, including corrected Forms Veterans Healing Veterans Medical to a medical education. We are not 8963, filed after December 31, 2019. Access and Scholarship Program making any changes based on these (VHVMASP). For the VHVMASP, the comments. Sunita Lough, VA MISSION Act of 2018 sets forth the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Multiple commenters also raised eligibility criteria; the amount and types concerns about the limitation that a Enforcement. of available funding; established terms Approved: October 29, 2019. veteran is only eligible if discharged of an agreement to be entered into by within the past ten years. A commenter David J. Kautter, the participant; as well as, the questioned why the proposed rule Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax consequences for a breach in such stated that the veterans need to have Policy). agreement. This final rule establishes only been out of the military for no [FR Doc. 2019–24671 Filed 11–8–19; 4:15 pm] the regulations needed to carry out the more than ten years. Another BILLING CODE P VHVMASP. Immediately following title commenter suggested that VA should 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations reconsider and drop the within ten-year (CFR) 17.612, we are adding a new requirement because this requirement DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS undesignated center heading titled serves veterans to no benefit except to AFFAIRS ‘‘Veterans Healing Veterans Medical limit and disqualify a number of Access and Scholarship Program’’ and veterans who would be interested in 38 CFR Part 17 add new §§ 17.613 through 17.618. this program. This commenter stated One commenter was in support of the RIN 2900–AQ54 that the program is already extremely proposed rule. The commenter stated limited because it is a pilot program and that they commend the proposition of a Veterans Healing Veterans Medical that there also seems to be no obvious program that allows those who have Access and Scholarship Program benefit to VA except cutting out fought so selflessly for our country the applicants for no good reason. The AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. opportunity to better themselves commenter added that if the limitation through education and then turn around ACTION: Final rule. targeted older veterans less likely to and give back to fellow veterans. The complete the program it might be SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans commenter believes that the rule will justifiable, but a requirement of having Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations not only be immensely powerful for the that govern scholarships to certain veterans that are able to have their to have served within ten years does not health care professionals. This medical education funded, but also for target the age of the applicant. Also, an rulemaking implements the mandates of the large number of veterans that they applicant could have been any age when the VA MISSION Act of 2018 by will be able to help. We make no retiring or being discharged from establishing a pilot program to provide changes based on this comment. service. Lastly, the commenter stated funding for the medical education of Multiple commenters recommended that the limitation does not seem eligible veterans who are enrolled in that the program include more justified and should be reconsidered or covered medical schools. universities. In particular, a commenter VA should consider adding exceptions stated that they understand that the to this portion of the rule. Another DATES: This final rule is effective commenter similarly stated that December 13, 2019. pilot program is in its infancy, but recommends that more universities be narrowing this program down to only FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: included and more scholarships be veterans who have been out of the Marjorie A. Bowman, MD, Chief granted as the program grows and armed forces for a period of no less than Academic Affiliations Officer, Office of progresses. Another commenter ten years is a disservice to thousands of Academic Affiliations (10X1), U.S. similarly stated that there needs to be veterans. Several commenters stated Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 more schools where the VHVMASP is that the current proposal allows a Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC provided since there is not even one veteran out of the military for four years 20420, (202) 461–9490. (This is not a covered school in every state that has a with a general discharge (or perhaps toll-free number.) VA medical facility. This same even a bad conduct discharge) to be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a commenter also stated that this is an eligible for this scholarship while a document published in the Federal amazing idea and maybe some other veteran with an honorable discharge Register on May 21, 2019, VA published types of schooling should be included who has been working as a nurse for ten a proposed rule, which proposed to in the VHVMASP, such as law school years and wishes to take advantage of amend its regulations that govern and drug and alcohol training for this program and go to medical school scholarships to certain health care counseling, as this is a big area of issues would not be eligible. The commenters professionals. 84 FR 22990. VA for veterans. Another commenter also indicated that at a minimum, there provided a 60-day comment period, stated that the program should not be should be an exception to the ten-year which ended on July 22, 2019. We limited to these six schools, but should rule for honorably discharged veterans received 7 comments on the proposed be allowed to be available at any or veterans should not be allowed to rule. accredited medical school, for example, count time using the GI Bill or On June 6, 2018, section 304 of Public Harvard, Wisconsin, or the University of Vocational Rehabilitation against them Law 115–182, the John S. McCain III, California at San Francisco. VA (i.e.: if a veteran has been out of the Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson understands that the VHVMASP is military for 12 years but five years of VA Maintaining Internal Systems and limited. Section 304 of the VA MISSION that was spent using GI Bill or Strengthening Integrated Outside Act of 2018 limits the VHVMASP to the Vocational Rehabilitation, for this Networks Act of 2018, or the VA nine covered medical schools and to program VA should allow the veteran to MISSION Act of 2018, established a provide funding specifically for medical subtract those five years from the 12). A pilot program that would provide education. VA does not have the commenter added that given that this funding for medical education to 18 authority to expand the program to scholarship is limited to two students eligible veterans who enroll in covered additional medical schools or to expand per school, there is no burden to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61549

removing the ten-year requirement, VA medical education under this section however, section 304(b)(3) of the VA saves no money capping it out at ten- shall enter into an agreement with the MISSION Act 2018, as amended by years. A commenter stated that the ten- Secretary that provides that the veteran section 211(b)(7) of the Department of year limitation should be extended to at agree to serve as a full-time clinical Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities least 15 years. The commenter indicated practice employee in the Veterans Act of 2018, specified that the that someone who leaves the military at Health Administration for a period of VHVMASP would only be for the 24 could be engaged in graduate four years, after completion of medical entering class of 2020. In addition, VA education at 39 and contribute to a school and post-graduate training. We has other scholarship programs that are supply of veteran physicians. stated this requirement in proposed available for individuals who are VA acknowledges that the VHVMASP § 17.617(a)(4). We also stated in enrolled in education courses that lead has limitations, however, VA does not § 17.617(b)(1) that an eligible veteran’s to degrees in various health care have the authority to amend the obligated service will begin on the date professions, such as the HPSP, the selection criteria for the VHVMASP. on which the eligible veteran begins Visual Impairment and Orientation and Section 304 of the VA MISSION Act of full-time permanent employment with Mobility Professional Scholarship 2018 sets out the eligibility criteria for VA as a clinical practice employee. As Program, and the Employee Incentive veterans to be eligible to receive the a full-time permanent VA employee, the Scholarship Program. VA may award VHVMASP. The first criterion is that the participant will receive pay as well as these other scholarships to veterans who veteran shall have been discharged from be entitled to any other benefit afforded meet the eligibility criteria for these the Armed Forces not more than 10 to full-time clinical VA employees. We other scholarship programs. We are not years before the date of application for are not making any changes based on making any changes based on this admission to a covered medical school. this comment. comment. VA does not have the authority to Another commenter suggested that A commenter was concerned that VA amend this criterion. Also, section VA include the cost of the United States would not afford some flexibility for 211(b)(7) of the Department of Veterans Medical Licensing Examination, Step 1 participants who fail to meet the terms Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2018 and Step 2 exams, as part of the covered of the acceptance agreement due to clarified that a veteran may not costs for the participants of the extenuating circumstances, such as life concurrently receive educational VHVMASP. The commenter also events, or other academic pursuits, that assistance under chapter 30, 31, 32, 33, recommended that VA clarify in the may require participants to take a leave 34, or 35 of title 38 United States Code final rule that the monthly stipend will of absence. This same commenter or chapter 1606 or 1607 of title 10 be adjusted for inflation. VA has various similarly requested that extenuating United States Code at the time the other scholarship programs and would circumstances also be considered when veteran would be receiving VHVMASP like to administer the programs as VA recoups funds from participants funding. VA would not count time using consistently as possible. Under VA’s who breach their agreement and must the GI Bill or Vocational Rehabilitation current programs, such as the Employee pay the amount owed within one year against funding received for the Incentive Scholarship Program, exams of such breach. Another commenter VHVMASP, but the veteran would not and certifications are not authorized suggested that the requirement for be able to receive VHVMASP funding if expenses. As an example, students repayment of any liability for failure to such veteran is concurrently receiving pursuing a nursing degree do not get complete the program should be other types of educational assistance. reimbursed to take the National Council extended to at least five years rather We are not making any changes based Licensure Exam (NCLEC). Also, the than one year and should consider the on these comments. current Health Professional Scholarship possibility of a return to the educational Another commenter stated that the Program (HPS) program does not pay for track, i.e. someone might have to drop ten-year limit should be dropped. The licensures or boards for other out for a year or two, but then be able commenter added that three years disciplines. VA will pay a monthly to resume their medical education. VA would help ease the process for the stipend directly to VHVMASP takes into account a participant’s program so that the veteran doesn’t have participants. The payment will be made extenuating circumstances when to wait ten years and so the program can for each month a participant is enrolled recouping funds. A participant may seek function properly with the rotation of in coursework, beginning with the first a waiver or suspension of the service or veterans in need. The ten-year month of the school year. The stipend financial liability incurred under this limitation is the maximum allowable will be adjusted annually based on the program or agreement by written request time after a veteran is discharged from approved Cost of Living Allowance to the Under Secretary for Health setting service to be eligible to apply for the (COLA) increase. We are not making any forth the basis, circumstances, and VHVMASP. The veteran does not have changes based on this comment. causes which support the requested to wait ten years to apply for the A commenter stated that in 2018, 351 action. We are clarifying the regulation program after they have left military American Medical College Application text based on this comment by adding service. We are not making any changes Service (AMCAS) applicants selected a new paragraph § 17.618(c) to state that based on this comment. ‘‘veteran’’ for military status on their the Under Secretary for Health, or A commenter stated that the proposed AMCAS application, and 175 applicants designee, may waive or suspend any rule was not clear with respect to the selected ‘‘active duty.’’ The commenter service or financial liability incurred by period of obligated service. For instance, urged VA to clarify whether the a participant whenever compliance by would a participating veteran work for VHVMASP is only applicable to the the participant is impossible, due to VA upon graduation, would such entering class of 2020 or whether it will circumstances beyond the control of the employment be full time, will the be extended in future years. The participant, or whenever the Under veteran receive benefits, and good pay. commenter added that given the VA’s Secretary for Health, or designee, VA disagrees that the rule is not clear physician workforce shortages, they concludes that a waiver or suspension regarding the period of obligated would support the extension of this of compliance is in the VA’s best service. Section 304(d)(1)(E) of the VA program indefinitely and its expansion interest. MISSION Act of 2018, states that each to additional medical schools. VA A commenter stated that the proposed eligible veteran who accepts funding for understands the commenter’s concern, rule outlines the terms of the agreement,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61550 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

which includes completing post- Effect of Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. The provisions graduate training leading to eligibility The Code of Federal Regulations, as associated with this rulemaking are not for board certification in a physician revised by this final rulemaking, will processed by any other entities outside specialty applicable to VA. The represent the exclusive legal authority of VA. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. commenter asks VA to clarify the on this subject. No contrary rules or 605(b), this rulemaking would be definition of a physician specialty procedures would be authorized. All VA exempt from the initial and final applicable to the VA. VA currently has guidance would be read to conform with regulatory flexibility analysis many vacancies for physicians. A this final rulemaking if possible or, if requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. physician specialty applicable to VA is not possible, such guidance would be Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and one which is focused on the diagnosis superseded by this rulemaking. and treatment of healthcare conditions 13771 Paperwork Reduction Act potentially experienced by veterans. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Participants of the VHVMASP would fill The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 direct agencies to assess the costs and these much-needed vacancies as part of (44 U.S.C. 3507) requires that VA benefits of available regulatory the participant’s obligated service. This consider the impact of paperwork and alternatives and, when regulation is language is also found in section 304 other information collection burdens necessary, to select regulatory (d)(1)(C) of the VA MISSION Act of imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C. approaches that maximize net benefits 2018. We are not making any changes 3507(a), an agency may not collect or based on this comment. (including potential economic, sponsor the collection of information, environmental, public health and safety A commenter indicated that the nor may it impose an information proposed rule states that eligible effects, and other advantages; collection requirement unless it distributive impacts; and equity). veterans must ensure the State licenses displays a currently valid Office of are obtained in a minimal amount of Executive Order 13563 (Improving Management and Budget (OMB) control Regulation and Regulatory Review) time following completion of residency, number. This final rule contains or fellowship, if the veteran is enrolled emphasizes the importance of provisions constituting a new collection quantifying both costs and benefits, in a fellowship program approved by of information, at 38 CFR 17.617 and the VA. The commenter requests that reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and will be included under OMB Control promoting flexibility. The Office of VA clarify whether participants will be #2900–0793 for approval and submitted Information and Regulatory Affairs has required to enter a VA residency under a separate PRA process as determined that this rule is not a program to complete their training and explained below. The provisions in this significant regulatory action under comply with VHVMASP agreements. A final rule, under 38 CFR 17.617, would Executive Order 12866. VA’s impact participant will not be required to enter require eligible veterans to sign and analysis can be found as a supporting a VA residency program because, in submit an agreement between VA and general, VA does not have its own the eligible veteran who accepts funding document at http:// residency programs. VA will rely on for the VHVMASP. This provision www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 graduate medical education (GME) would result in a new information hours after the rulemaking document is programs accredited by the collected burden under OMB control published. Additionally, a copy of the Accreditation Council for Graduate #2900–0793. The notice of proposed rulemaking and its impact analysis are Medical Education (ACGME) or rulemaking (NPRM) preceding and available on VA’s website at http:// American Osteopathic Association associated with this final rule, www.va.gov/orpm by following the link (AOA) and sponsored by academic published on May 19, 2019 (84 FR for VA Regulations Published from FY affiliates to meet the participant’s 22990). In that NPRM, VA detailed the 2004 through FYTD. residency requirement. We are not new information collection burden This final rule is not expected to be making any changes based on this associated with the provisions under 38 an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because comment. CFR 17.617 in the PRA section of the this final rule is not significant under We made minor technical edits to the preamble. However, the associated PRA E.O. 12866. numbering in § 17.614. The edits consist package was not submitted to OMB for of adding numbering to the individual approval due to another VA NPRM also Unfunded Mandates statements in the definition of requiring a revised information The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act acceptable level of academic standing. collection under the same approved We have also renumbered the definition of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that OMB Control # 2900–0793. Despite this agencies prepare an assessment of of covered medical school. No other discrepancy published in the NPRM and anticipated costs and benefits before edits to the content of these paragraphs in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), issuing any rule that may result in the was made. VA submitted the new and revised expenditure by State, local, and tribal We clarified the definition of information collection requests (ICRs) to governments, in the aggregate, or by the VHVMASP by adding the public law OMB through a separate PRA process private sector, of $100 million or more number for the VA MISSION Act of via ROCIS and sought public comment (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 2018. The amended definition of through a Federal Register Notice one year. This final rule will have no VHVMASP is the Veterans Healing document (84 FR 42991). These separate such effect on State, local, and tribal Veterans Medical Access and ICRs are in the final review stage with governments, or on the private sector. Scholarship Program authorized by OMB. section 304 of the VA MISSION Act of Congressional Review Act 2018, Public Law 115–182. Regulatory Flexibility Act Based on the rationale set forth in the The Secretary hereby certifies that Pursuant to the Congressional Review Supplementary Information to the this final rule will not have a significant Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of proposed rule and in this final rule, VA economic impact on a substantial Information and Regulatory Affairs is adopting the proposed rule with the number of small entities as they are designated this rule as not a major rule, edits described in this rulemaking. defined in the Regulatory Flexibility as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61551

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Veterans Healing Veterans Medical (b) Is not concurrently receiving Access and Scholarship Program educational assistance under chapter 30, There are no Catalog of Federal 31, 32, 33, 34, or 35 of title 38 United Domestic Assistance numbers and titles § 17.613 Purpose. States Code or chapter 1606 or 1607 of for this rule. The purpose of §§ 17.613 through title 10 United States Code at the time List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17 17.618 is to establish the requirement the veteran would be receiving for the Veterans Healing Veterans VHVMASP funding; Administrative practice and Medical Access and Scholarship (c) Applies for admission to a covered procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Program (VHVMASP). The VHVMASP medical school for the entering class of Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug will provide funding for the medical 2020; abuse, Foreign relations, Government education of two eligible veterans from (d) Indicates on the application to the contracts, Grant programs—health, each covered medical school. covered medical school that they would like to be considered for the VHVMASP; Grant programs—veterans, Health care, § 17.614 Definitions. Health facilities, Health professions, (e) Meets the minimum admissions Health records, Homeless, Medical and The following definitions apply to criteria for the covered medical school dental schools, Medical devices, §§ 17.613 through 17.618. to which the eligible veteran applies; Medical research, Mental health Acceptable level of academic standing and programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, means: (f) Agrees to the terms stated in Reporting and recordkeeping (1) Maintaining a cumulative grade § 17.617. point average at or above passing, as requirements, Scholarships and § 17.616 Award procedures. determined by the medical school; fellowships, Travel and transportation (a) Distribution of funds. (1) Each expenses, Veterans. (2) Completing all required courses with a passing grade; covered medical school that opts to Signing Authority (3) Successfully completing the participate in the VHVMASP will required course of study for graduation reserve two seats in the entering class of The Secretary of Veterans Affairs within four academic years; 2020 for eligible veterans who receive approved this document and authorized (4) Successfully passing the required funds for the VHVMASP. Funding will the undersigned to sign and submit the United States Medical Licensing be awarded to two eligible veterans with document to the Office of the Federal Examinations steps 1 and 2, within the the highest admissions ranking among Register for publication electronically as timeframe for graduation from medical veteran applicants for such entering an official document of the Department school; and class for each covered medical school. of Veterans Affairs. Pamela Powers, (5) Having no final determinations of (2) If two or more eligible veterans do Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans unprofessional conduct or behavior. not apply for admission at a covered Affairs, approved this document on Covered medical school means any of medical school for the entering class of November 5, 2019, for publication. the following: 2020, VA will distribute the available (1) Texas A&M College of Medicine. funding to eligible veterans who Michael P. Shores, applied, and are accepted, for admission Director, Office of Regulation Policy & (2) Quillen College of Medicine at East Tennessee State University. at other covered medical schools. Management, Office of the Secretary, (b) Amount of funds. An eligible Department of Veterans Affairs. (3) Boonshoft School of Medicine at Wright State University. veteran will receive funding from the For the reasons set forth in the (4) Joan C. Edwards School of VHVMASP equal to the actual cost of preamble, we are amending 38 CFR part Medicine at Marshall University. the following: (1) Tuition at the covered medical 17 as follows: (5) University of South Carolina school for which the veteran enrolls for School of Medicine. PART 17—MEDICAL a period of not more than 4 years; (6) Charles R. Drew University of (2) Books, fees, and technical Medicine and Science. ■ equipment; 1. The authority citation for part 17 is (7) Howard University College of amended by adding an entry for (3) Fees associated with the National Medicine. Residency Match Program; §§ 17.613 through 17.618 in numerical (8) Meharry Medical College. order to read in part as follows: (4) Two away rotations, performed (9) Morehouse School of Medicine. during the fourth year of school, at a VA Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in VA means the Department of Veterans medical facility; and specific sections. Affairs. (5) A monthly stipend for the four- * * * * * VHVMASP means the Veterans year period during which the eligible Sections 17.613 through 17.618 are also Healing Veterans Medical Access and veteran is enrolled in a covered medical issued under Pub. L. 115–182, sec. 304. Scholarship Program authorized by school in an amount to be determined * * * * * section 304 of the VA MISSION Act of by VA. 2018, Public Law 115–182. ■ 2. Add an undesignated center § 17.617 Agreement and obligated service. heading and §§ 17.613 through 17.618 to § 17.615 Eligibility. (a) Agreement. Each eligible veteran read as follows. A veteran is considered eligible to who accepts funds from the VHVMASP receive funding for the VHVMASP if Veterans Healing Veterans Medical Access will enter into an agreement with VA and Scholarship Program such veteran meets the following where the eligible veteran agrees to the criteria. following: 17.613 Purpose. (a) Has been discharged or released, 17.614 Definitions. (1) Maintain enrollment, attendance, 17.615 Eligibility. under conditions other than and acceptable level of academic 17.616 Award procedures. dishonorable, from the Armed Forces standing as defined by the covered 17.617 Agreement and obligated service. for not more than 10 years before the medical school; 17.618 Failure to comply with terms and date of application for admission to a (2) Complete post-graduate training conditions of agreement. covered medical school; leading to eligibility for board

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61552 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

certification in a physician specialty waiver or suspension of compliance is and CP2019–190); August 6, 2019, applicable to VA; in the VA’s best interest. Priority Mail Contract 541 (MC2019–172 (3) After completion of medical [FR Doc. 2019–24503 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] and CP2019–194); August 6, 2019, school and post-graduate training, BILLING CODE 8320–01–P Priority Mail Contract 540 (MC2019–171 obtain and maintain a license to practice and CP2019–193); August 7, 2019, medicine in a State. Eligible veterans Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail must ensure that State licenses are POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION Contract 96 (MC2019–173 and CP2019– obtained in a minimal amount of time 195); August 7, 2019, First-Class following completion of residency, or 39 CFR Part 3020 Package Service Contract 101 (MC2019– fellowship, if the veteran is enrolled in 174 and CP2019–196); August 7, 2019, [Docket Nos. MC2010–21 and CP2010–36] a fellowship program approved by VA. Priority Mail Contract 542 (MC2019–175 If a participant fails to obtain his or her Update to Product Lists and CP2019–197); August 8, 2019, degree, or fails to become licensed in a Priority Mail Contract 544 (MC2019–177 State no later than 90 days after AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. and CP2019–199); August 8, 2019, completion of residency, or fellowship, ACTION: Final rule. Priority Mail Contract 543 (MC2019–176 if applicable, the participant is and CP2019–198); August 12, 2019, considered to be in breach of the SUMMARY: The Commission is updating Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & acceptance agreement; and the product lists. This action reflects a First-Class Package Service Contract 64 (4) Serve as a full-time clinical publication policy adopted by (MC2019–178 and CP2019–200); August practice employee in VA for a period of Commission order. The referenced 12, 2019, Priority Mail Express & four years. policy assumes periodic updates. The Priority Mail Contract 97 (MC2019–179 (b) Obligated service—(1) General. An updates are identified in the body of and CP2019–201); August 15, 2019, eligible veteran’s obligated service will this document. The product lists, which Priority Mail Contract 545 (MC2019–181 begin on the date on which the eligible are re-published in their entirety, and CP2019–203); August 15, 2019, veteran begins full-time permanent include these updates. Priority Mail Contract 546 (MC2019–182 employment with VA as a clinical DATES: Effective Date: November 13, and CP2019–204); August 15, 2019, practice employee. VA will appoint the 2019. For applicability dates, see Priority Mail & First-Class Package participant to such position as soon as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Service Contract 111 (MC2019–183 and possible, but no later than 90 days after FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CP2019–205); August 15, 2019, Priority the date that the participant completes David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at Mail & First-Class Package Service residency, or fellowship, if applicable, 202–789–6800. Contract 112 (MC2019–184 and or the date the participant becomes SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CP2019–206); August 15, 2019, Priority licensed in a State, whichever is later. Applicability Dates: July 2, 2019, Mail & First-Class Package Service (2) Location and position of obligated Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 113 (MC2019–185 and service. VA reserves the right to make Contract 95 (MC2019–157 and CP2019– CP2019–207); August 22, 2019, Priority final decisions on the location and 175); July 12, 2019, Priority Mail Mail & First-Class Package Service position of the obligated service. Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Contract 114 (MC2019–186 and (The Office of Management and Package Service Contract 63 (MC2019– CP2019–208); August 26, 2019, Parcel Budget has approved the information 158 and CP2019–177); July 18, 2019, Select Contract 34 (MC2019–188 and collection requirements in this section Priority Mail & First-Class Package CP2019–211); September 12, 2019, under control number 2900–0793.) Service Contract 106 (MC2019–160 and Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail CP2019–180); July 18, 2019, Priority Contract 98 (MC2019–190 and CP2019– § 17.618 Failure to comply with terms and Mail Contract 536 (MC2019–161 and 213); September 12, 2019, Priority Mail conditions of agreement. CP2019–181); July 19, 2019, Priority Contract 547 (MC2019–189 and (a) Participant fails to satisfy terms of Mail & First-Class Package Service CP2019–212); September 18, 2019, agreement. If an eligible veteran who Contract 105 (MC2019–159 and Priority Mail Contract 548 (MC2019–191 accepts funding for the VHVMASP CP2019–179); July 23, 2019, Priority and CP2019–214); September 18, 2019, breaches the terms of the agreement Mail Contract 537 (MC2019–163 and Priority Mail & First-Class Package stated in § 17.617, the United States is CP2019–183); July 23, 2019, Priority Service Contract 115 (MC2019–192 and entitled to recover damages in an Mail Express Contract 78 (MC2019–162 CP2019–215); September 20, 2019, amount equal to the total amount of and CP2019–182); July 23, 2019, Priority Market Test of Experimental Product— VHVMASP funding received by the Mail & First-Class Package Service Plus One (MT2019–1); September 20, eligible veteran. Contract 107 (MC2019–164 and 2019, Priority Mail & First-Class Package (b) Repayment period. The eligible CP2019–184); July 24, 2019, Priority Service Contract 116 (MC2019–193 and veteran will pay the amount of damages Mail & First-Class Package Service CP2019–216); September 20, 2019, that the United States is entitled to Contract 108 (MC2019–165 and Priority Mail & First-Class Package recover under this section in full to the CP2019–185); July 24, 2019, Priority Service Contract 117 (MC2019–194 and United States no later than 1 year after Mail & First-Class Package Service CP2019–217); September 23, 2019, First- the date of the breach of the agreement. Contract 109 (MC2019–166 and Class Package Service Contract 102 (c) Waivers. The Under Secretary for CP2019–186); July 26, 2019, Priority (MC2019–195 and CP2019–218); Health, or designee, may waive or Mail & First-Class Package Service September 23, 2019, Priority Mail suspend any service or financial Contract 110 (MC2019–167 and Contract 549 (MC2019–196 and liability incurred by a participant CP2019–187); July 30, 2019, First-Class CP2019–219); September 23, 2019, whenever compliance by the participant Package Service Contract 100 (MC2019– Priority Mail Contract 550 (MC2019–197 is impossible, due to circumstances 169 and CP2019–191); July 30, 2019, and CP2019–220); September 23, 2019, beyond the control of the participant, or Priority Mail Contract 539 (MC2019–170 Priority Mail & First-Class Package whenever the Under Secretary for and CP2019–192); August 1, 2019, Service Contract 118 (MC2019–198 and Health, or designee, concludes that a Priority Mail Contract 538 (MC2019–168 CP2019–221); September 23, 2019,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61553

Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & CP2019–184) (Order No. 5163), added 28. Priority Mail & First-Class Package First-Class Package Service Contract 65 July 23, 2019. Service Contract 113 (MC2019–185 and (MC2019–199 and CP2019–222); 9. Priority Mail & First-Class Package CP2019–207) (Order No. 5199), added September 27, 2019, Priority Mail Service Contract 108 (MC2019–165 and August 15, 2019. Contract 551 (MC2019–200 and CP2019–185) (Order No. 5165), added 29. Priority Mail & First-Class Package CP2019–223); September 27, 2019, July 24, 2019. Service Contract 114 (MC2019–186 and Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & 10. Priority Mail & First-Class Package CP2019–208) (Order No. 5206), added First-Class Package Service Contract 66 Service Contract 109 (MC2019–166 and August 22, 2019. (MC2019–201 and CP2019–224). CP2019–186) (Order No. 5167), added 30. Parcel Select Contract 34 This document identifies updates to July 24, 2019. (MC2019–188 and CP2019–211) (Order the market dominant and the 11. Priority Mail & First-Class Package No. 5210), added August 26, 2019. competitive product lists, which appear Service Contract 110 (MC2019–167 and 31. Priority Mail Express & Priority as 39 CFR appendix A to subpart A of CP2019–187) (Order No. 5173), added Mail Contract 98 (MC2019–190 and part 3020—Market Dominant Product July 26, 2019. CP2019–213) (Order No. 5227), added List and 39 CFR appendix B to subpart 12. First-Class Package Service September 12, 2019. A of part 3020—Competitive Product Contract 100 (MC2019–169 and 32. Priority Mail Contract 547 List, respectively. Publication of the CP2019–191) (Order No. 5174), added (MC2019–189 and CP2019–212) (Order updated product lists in the Federal July 30, 2019. No. 5228), added September 12, 2019. 13. Priority Mail Contract 539 Register is addressed in the Postal 33. Priority Mail Contract 548 (MC2019–170 and CP2019–192) (Order Accountability and Enhancement Act (MC2019–191 and CP2019–214) (Order No. 5175), added July 30, 2019. No. 5235), added September 18, 2019. (PAEA) of 2006. 14. Priority Mail Contract 538 Authorization. The Commission 34. Priority Mail & First-Class Package (MC2019–168 and CP2019–190) (Order Service Contract 115 (MC2019–192 and process for periodic publication of No. 5177), added August 1, 2019. updates was established in Docket Nos. CP2019–215) (Order No. 5236), added 15. Priority Mail Contract 541 September 18, 2019. MC2010–21 and CP2010–36, Order No. (MC2019–172 and CP2019–194) (Order 445, April 22, 2010, at 8. 35. Priority Mail & First-Class Package No. 5180), added August 6, 2019. Service Contract 116 (MC2019–193 and Changes. The product lists are being 16. Priority Mail Contract 540 CP2019–216) (Order No. 5240), added updated by publishing replacements in (MC2019–171 and CP2019–193) (Order their entirety of 39 CFR appendix A to September 20, 2019. No. 5181), added August 6, 2019. 36. Priority Mail & First-Class Package subpart A of part 3020—Market 17. Priority Mail Express & Priority Service Contract 117 (MC2019–194 and Dominant Product List and 39 CFR Mail Contract 96 (MC2019–173 and CP2019–217) (Order No. 5241), added appendix B to subpart A of part 3020— CP2019–195) (Order No. 5182), added Competitive Product List. The following August 7, 2019. September 20, 2019. products are being added, removed, or 18. First-Class Package Service 37. First-Class Package Service moved within the product lists: Contract 101 (MC2019–174 and Contract 102 (MC2019–195 and CP2019–218) (Order No. 5245), added Market Dominant Product List CP2019–196) (Order No. 5183), added August 7, 2019. September 23, 2019. 1. Market Test of Experimental 19. Priority Mail Contract 542 38. Priority Mail Contract 549 Product—Plus One (MT2019–1) (Order (MC2019–175 and CP2019–197) (Order (MC2019–196 and CP2019–219) (Order No. 5239), added September 20, 2019. No. 5184), added August 7, 2019. No. 5246), added September 23, 2019. 39. Priority Mail Contract 550 Competitive Product List 20. Priority Mail Contract 544 (MC2019–177 and CP2019–199) (Order (MC2019–197 and CP2019–220) (Order 1. Priority Mail Express & Priority No. 5186), added August 8, 2019. No. 5247), added September 23, 2019. Mail Contract 95 (MC2019–157 and 21. Priority Mail Contract 543 40. Priority Mail & First-Class Package CP2019–175) (Order No. 5142), added (MC2019–176 and CP2019–198) (Order Service Contract 118 (MC2019–198 and July 2, 2019. No. 5187), added August 8, 2019. CP2019–221) (Order No. 5248), added 2. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail 22. Priority Mail Express, Priority September 23, 2019. & First-Class Package Service Contract Mail & First-Class Package Service 41. Priority Mail Express, Priority 63 (MC2019–158 and CP2019–177) Contract 64 (MC2019–178 and CP2019– Mail & First-Class Package Service (Order No. 5150), added July 12, 2019. 200) (Order No. 5191), added August 12, Contract 65 (MC2019–199 and CP2019– 3. Priority Mail & First-Class Package 2019. 222) (Order No. 5249), added September Service Contract 106 (MC2019–160 and 23. Priority Mail Express & Priority 23, 2019. CP2019–180) (Order No. 5158), added Mail Contract 97 (MC2019–179 and 42. Priority Mail Contract 551 July 18, 2019. CP2019–201) (Order No. 5192), added (MC2019–200 and CP2019–223) (Order 4. Priority Mail Contract 536 August 12, 2019. No. 5255), added September 27, 2019. (MC2019–161 and CP2019–181) (Order 24. Priority Mail Contract 545 43. Priority Mail Express, Priority No. 5159), added July 18, 2019. (MC2019–181 and CP2019–203) (Order Mail & First-Class Package Service 5. Priority Mail & First-Class Package No. 5194), added August 15, 2019. Contract 66 (MC2019–201 and CP2019– Service Contract 105 (MC2019–159 and 25. Priority Mail Contract 546 224) (Order No. 5256), added September CP2019–179) (Order No. 5160), added (MC2019–182 and CP2019–204) (Order 27, 2019. July 19, 2019. No. 5195), added August 15, 2019. The following negotiated service 6. Priority Mail Contract 537 26. Priority Mail & First-Class Package agreements have expired, or have been (MC2019–163 and CP2019–183) (Order Service Contract 111 (MC2019–183 and terminated early, and are being deleted No. 5161), added July 23, 2019. CP2019–205) (Order No. 5197), added from the Competitive Product List: 7. Priority Mail Express Contract 78 August 15, 2019. 1. Parcel Select Contract 2 (MC2012– (MC2019–162 and CP2019–182) (Order 27. Priority Mail & First-Class Package 16 and CP2012–23) (Order No. 1349). No. 5162), added July 23, 2019. Service Contract 112 (MC2019–184 and 2. Priority Mail Contract 123 8. Priority Mail & First-Class Package CP2019–206) (Order No. 5198), added (MC2015–52 and CP2015–80) (Order Service Contract 107 (MC2019–164 and August 15, 2019. No. 2535).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61554 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

3. Priority Mail Express & Priority 26. Priority Mail & First-Class Package 49. Priority Mail Contract 262 Mail Contract 21 (MC2016–14 and Service Contract 25 (MC2016–174 and (MC2017–29 and CP2017–54) (Order CP2016–17) (Order No. 2822). CP2016–253) (Order No. 3465). No. 3662). 4. Priority Mail Contract 177 27. Priority Mail Express & Priority 50. Priority Mail Contract 275 (MC2016–57 and CP2016–72) (Order Mail Contract 30 (MC2016–175 and (MC2017–52 and CP2017–78) (Order No. 2984). CP2016–254) (Order No. 3466). No. 3702). 5. Priority Mail Contract 175 28. Priority Mail & First-Class Package 51. Priority Mail Express Contract 45 (MC2016–53 and CP2016–68) (Order Service Contract 26 (MC2016–177 and (MC2017–92 and CP2017–126) (Order No. 2991). CP2016–256) (Order No. 3476). No. 3802). 6. Priority Mail Contract 186 29. First-Class Package Service 52. First-Class Package Service (MC2016–71 and CP2016–86) (Order Contract 60 (MC2016–176 and CP2016– Contract 74 (MC2017–96 and CP2017– No. 3001). 255) (Order No. 3477). 136) (Order No. 3833). 7. First-Class Package Service 30. Priority Mail Contract 233 53. Priority Mail Contract 300 Contract 41 (MC2016–73 and CP2016– (MC2016–179 and CP2016–258) (Order (MC2017–101 and CP2017–148) (Order 88) (Order No. 3002). No. 3478). No. 3844). 8. Parcel Select Contract 13 (MC2016– 31. Priority Mail Express Contract 41 54. Priority Mail Contract 306 75 and CP2016–93) (Order No. 3023). (MC2016–180 and CP2016–259) (Order (MC2017–111 and CP2017–159) (Order 9. Priority Mail & First-Class Package No. 3479). No. 3860). Service Contract 13 (MC2016–76 and 32. Priority Mail Contract 232 55. Priority Mail Contract 324 CP2016–98) (Order No. 3067). (MC2016–178 and CP2016–257) (Order (MC2017–139 and CP2017–198) (Order 10. First-Class Package Service No. 3481). No. 3955). Contract 44 (MC2016–82 and CP2016– 33. Priority Mail Express & Priority 56. Priority Mail Express & Priority 107) (Order No. 3120). Mail Contract 31 (MC2016–182 and Mail Contract 49 (MC2017–147 and 11. Priority Mail Contract 192 CP2016–262) (Order No. 3483). CP2017–206) (Order No. 3966). (MC2016–86 and CP2016–111) (Order 34. Priority Mail & First-Class Package 57. Priority Mail Express Contract 49 No. 3140). Service Contract 27 (MC2016–183 and (MC2017–149 and CP2017–210) (Order 12. Priority Mail & First-Class Package CP2016–263) (Order No. 3485). No. 3981). Service Contract 15 (MC2016–89 and 35. Priority Mail & First-Class Package 58. Priority Mail Contract 345 CP2016–114) (Order No. 3147). Service Contract 28 (MC2016–184 and (MC2017–180 and CP2017–281) (Order 13. Priority Mail Contract 199 CP2016–264) (Order No. 3486). No. 4092). (MC2016–100 and CP2016–128) (Order 36. Priority Mail Express & Priority 59. First-Class Package Service No. 3188). Mail Contract 33 (MC2016–186 and Contract 80 (MC2017–194 and CP2017– 14. Priority Mail Contract 200 CP2016–267) (Order No. 3503). 295) (Order No. 4110). (MC2016–101 and CP2016–129) (Order 37. Priority Mail Express & Priority 60. Parcel Select Contract 23 No. 3194). Mail Contract 32 (MC2016–185 and (MC2017–211 and CP2017–319) (Order 15. Priority Mail Express Contract 35 CP2016–266) (Order No. 3504). No. 4149). (MC2016–107 and CP2016–135) (Order 38. Priority Mail Express & Priority 61. First-Class Package Service No. 3201). Mail Contract 34 (MC2016–187 and Contract 83 (MC2018–1 and CP2018–1) 16. First-Class Package Service CP2016–268) (Order No. 3508). (Order No. 4159). Contract 52 (MC2016–130 and CP2016– 39. Priority Mail & First-Class Package 62. Priority Mail Contract 379 164) (Order No. 3289). Service Contract 30 (MC2016–189 and (MC2018–36 and CP2018–66) (Order 17. Priority Mail Contract 216 CP2016–272) (Order No. 3514). No. 4269). (MC2016–133 and CP2016–170) (Order 40. Priority Mail Contract 235 63. Priority Mail Contract 387 No. 3340). (MC2016–190 and CP2016–273) (Order (MC2018–52 and CP2018–83) (Order 18. Priority Mail Contract 221 No. 3515). No. 4290). (MC2016–144 and CP2016–181) (Order 41. Priority Mail & First-Class Package 64. First-Class Package Service No. 3350). Service Contract 29 (MC2016–188 and Contract 88 (MC2018–60 and CP2018– 19. Priority Mail Contract 223 CP2016–271) (Order No. 3516). 100) (Order No. 4316). (MC2016–146 and CP2016–183) (Order 42. Priority Mail Contract 238 65. Priority Mail & First-Class Package No. 3354). (MC2016–193 and CP2016–276) (Order Service Contract 66 (MC2018–62 and 20. Priority Mail Contract 226 No. 3522). CP2018–102) (Order No. 4318). (MC2016–153 and CP2016–216) (Order 43. Priority Mail & First-Class Package 66. Priority Mail Contract 393 No. 3399). Service Contract 31 (MC2016–194 and (MC2018–64 and CP2018–104) (Order 21. Priority Mail Express, Priority CP2016–277) (Order No. 3523). No. 4320). Mail & First-Class Package Service 44. First-Class Package Service 67. Priority Mail Express & Priority Contract 10 (MC2016–160 and CP2016– Contract 61 (MC2016–195 and CP2016– Mail Contract 58 (MC2018–88 and 231) (Order No. 3417). 278) (Order No. 3524). CP2018–130) (Order No. 4350). 22. Priority Mail Contract 229 45. First-Class Package Service 68. Priority Mail Contract 412 (MC2016–159 and CP2016–230) (Order Contract 63 (MC2016–198 and CP2016– (MC2018–107 and CP2018–149) (Order No. 3418). 282) (Order No. 3529). No. 4372). 23. Priority Mail & First-Class Package 46. Priority Mail Contract 239 69. Priority Mail Contract 420 Service Contract 21 (MC2016–165 and (MC2016–199 and CP2016–283) (Order (MC2018–118 and CP2018–160) (Order CP2016–239) (Order No. 3437). No. 3533). No. 4379). 24. First-Class Package Service 47. First-Class Package Service 70. Priority Mail Express & Priority Contract 59 (MC2016–171 and CP2016– Contract 62 (MC2016–197 and CP2016– Mail Contract 60 (MC2018–114 and 249) (Order No. 3453). 281) (Order No. 3534). CP2018–156) (Order No. 4381). 25. Priority Mail Express Contract 40 48. Priority Mail Contract 256 71. Priority Mail Contract 419 (MC2016–169 and CP2016–247) (Order (MC2017–17 and CP2017–36) (Order (MC2018–117 and CP2018–159) (Order No. 3454). No. 3627). No. 4390).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61555

72. Parcel Select Contract 30 incorporated into 39 CFR appendix A to Customized Postage (MC2018–122 and CP2018–165) (Order subpart A of part 3020—Market Stamp Fulfillment Services No. 4406). Dominant Product List and 39 CFR Negotiated Service Agreements * 73. Priority Mail Contract 426 appendix B to subpart A of part 3020— Domestic * (MC2018–134 and CP2018–190) (Order Competitive Product List. International * No. 4564). Inbound Market Dominant Multi- List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3020 74. Priority Mail Contract 429 Service Agreements with Foreign (MC2018–141 and CP2018–202) (Order Administrative practice and Postal Operators No. 4584). procedure, Postal Service. Inbound Market Dominant Expre´s 75. Priority Mail Express, Priority For the reasons discussed in the Service Agreement 1 Mail & First-Class Package Service preamble, the Postal Regulatory Inbound Market Dominant Registered Contract 34 (MC2018–147 and CP2018– Commission amends chapter III of title Service Agreement 1 211) (Order No. 4603). 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as Inbound Market Dominant PRIME 76. Priority Mail Contract 435 follows: Tracked Service Agreement (MC2018–157 and CP2018–226) (Order Nonpostal Services * No. 4637). PART 3020—PRODUCT LISTS Alliances with the Private Sector to 77. Priority Mail Contract 436 Defray Cost of Key Postal Functions ■ (MC2018–159 and CP2018–229) (Order 1. The authority citation for part 3020 Philatelic Sales No. 4644). continues to read as follows: Market Tests * 78. Priority Mail Contract 443 Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642; Plus One (MC2018–168 and CP2018–240) (Order 3682. No. 4663). ■ Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 3020— 79. Priority Mail Express Contract 63 2. Revise appendices A and B to Competitive Product List (MC2018–181 and CP2018–255) (Order subpart A to read as follows: (An asterisk (*) indicates an No. 4686). Appendix A to Subpart A of Part organizational class or group, not a 80. Priority Mail Contract 449 3020—Market Dominant Product List (MC2018–182 and CP2018–256) (Order Postal Service product.) No. 4687). (An asterisk (*) indicates an Part B—Competitive Products 81. Priority Mail Contract 454 organizational class or group, not a (MC2018–195 and CP2018–273) (Order Postal Service product.) 2000 Competitive Product List No. 4734). Part A—Market Dominant Products Domestic Products * 82. Priority Mail Contract 460 Priority Mail Express (MC2018–204 and CP2018–284) (Order 1000 Market Dominant Product List Priority Mail No. 4770). First-Class Mail * Parcel Select 83. Priority Mail Contract 467 Single-Piece Letters/Postcards Parcel Return Service (MC2019–2 and CP2019–2) (Order No. Presorted Letters/Postcards First-Class Package Service 4858). Flats USPS Retail Ground 84. Priority Mail Contract 477 Outbound Single-Piece First-Class International Products * (MC2019–20 and CP2019–20) (Order Mail International Outbound International Expedited No. 4891). Inbound Letter Post Services 85. Priority Mail Express Contract 66 USPS Marketing Mail (Commercial and Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU rates) (MC2019–24 and CP2019–25) (Order Nonprofit)* Outbound Priority Mail International No. 4901). High Density and Saturation Letters International Priority Airmail (IPA) 86. Priority Mail Express Contract 67 High Density and Saturation Flats/ International Surface Air List (ISAL) (MC2019–25 and CP2019–26) (Order Parcels International Direct Sacks—M-Bags No. 4903). Carrier Route Outbound Single-Piece First-Class 87. Priority Mail Contract 482 Letters Package International Service (MC2019–29 and CP2019–30) (Order Flats Negotiated Service Agreements * No. 4908). Parcels Domestic * 88. Priority Mail Contract 484 Every Door Direct Mail—Retail Priority Mail Express Contract 42 (MC2019–31 and CP2019–32) (Order Periodicals * Priority Mail Express Contract 43 No. 4909). 89. Priority Mail Express & Priority In-County Periodicals Priority Mail Express Contract 44 Mail Contract 76 (MC2019–34 and Outside County Periodicals Priority Mail Express Contract 46 CP2019–35) (Order No. 4913). Package Services * Priority Mail Express Contract 47 90. Priority Mail Express Contract 68 Alaska Bypass Service Priority Mail Express Contract 48 (MC2019–32 and CP2019–33) (Order Bound Printed Matter Flats Priority Mail Express Contract 51 No. 4917). Bound Printed Matter Parcels Priority Mail Express Contract 52 91. Priority Mail Contract 493 Media Mail/Library Mail Priority Mail Express Contract 53 (MC2019–44 and CP2019–47) (Order Special Services* Priority Mail Express Contract 54 No. 4940). Ancillary Services Priority Mail Express Contract 55 92. Priority Mail Express, Priority International Ancillary Services Priority Mail Express Contract 56 Mail & First-Class Package Service Address Management Services Priority Mail Express Contract 57 Contract 49 (MC2019–72 and CP2019– Caller Service Priority Mail Express Contract 59 77) (Order No. 4978). Credit Card Authentication Priority Mail Express Contract 60 93. Priority Mail Express Contract 72 International Reply Coupon Service Priority Mail Express Contract 61 (MC2019–112 and CP2019–121) (Order International Business Reply Mail Priority Mail Express Contract 62 No. 5049). Service Priority Mail Express Contract 64 Updated product list. The referenced Money Orders Priority Mail Express Contract 65 changes to the product lists are Post Office Box Service Priority Mail Express Contract 69

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61556 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

Priority Mail Express Contract 70 Priority Mail Contract 288 Priority Mail Contract 375 Priority Mail Express Contract 71 Priority Mail Contract 290 Priority Mail Contract 376 Priority Mail Express Contract 73 Priority Mail Contract 292 Priority Mail Contract 377 Priority Mail Express Contract 74 Priority Mail Contract 293 Priority Mail Contract 378 Priority Mail Express Contract 75 Priority Mail Contract 295 Priority Mail Contract 380 Priority Mail Express Contract 76 Priority Mail Contract 297 Priority Mail Contract 381 Priority Mail Express Contract 77 Priority Mail Contract 298 Priority Mail Contract 382 Priority Mail Express Contract 78 Priority Mail Contract 299 Priority Mail Contract 383 Parcel Return Service Contract 6 Priority Mail Contract 303 Priority Mail Contract 384 Parcel Return Service Contract 11 Priority Mail Contract 305 Priority Mail Contract 386 Parcel Return Service Contract 12 Priority Mail Contract 307 Priority Mail Contract 389 Parcel Return Service Contract 13 Priority Mail Contract 308 Priority Mail Contract 390 Parcel Return Service Contract 14 Priority Mail Contract 310 Priority Mail Contract 391 Parcel Return Service Contract 15 Priority Mail Contract 311 Priority Mail Contract 394 Parcel Return Service Contract 16 Priority Mail Contract 312 Priority Mail Contract 395 Priority Mail Contract 77 Priority Mail Contract 313 Priority Mail Contract 396 Priority Mail Contract 78 Priority Mail Contract 314 Priority Mail Contract 397 Priority Mail Contract 80 Priority Mail Contract 316 Priority Mail Contract 398 Priority Mail Contract 125 Priority Mail Contract 317 Priority Mail Contract 399 Priority Mail Contract 150 Priority Mail Contract 318 Priority Mail Contract 400 Priority Mail Contract 203 Priority Mail Contract 319 Priority Mail Contract 401 Priority Mail Contract 207 Priority Mail Contract 320 Priority Mail Contract 402 Priority Mail Contract 208 Priority Mail Contract 321 Priority Mail Contract 403 Priority Mail Contract 210 Priority Mail Contract 322 Priority Mail Contract 404 Priority Mail Contract 222 Priority Mail Contract 323 Priority Mail Contract 405 Priority Mail Contract 230 Priority Mail Contract 325 Priority Mail Contract 406 Priority Mail Contract 231 Priority Mail Contract 326 Priority Mail Contract 408 Priority Mail Contract 234 Priority Mail Contract 327 Priority Mail Contract 410 Priority Mail Contract 236 Priority Mail Contract 328 Priority Mail Contract 411 Priority Mail Contract 237 Priority Mail Contract 329 Priority Mail Contract 413 Priority Mail Contract 242 Priority Mail Contract 330 Priority Mail Contract 415 Priority Mail Contract 243 Priority Mail Contract 331 Priority Mail Contract 416 Priority Mail Contract 244 Priority Mail Contract 333 Priority Mail Contract 418 Priority Mail Contract 246 Priority Mail Contract 334 Priority Mail Contract 421 Priority Mail Contract 247 Priority Mail Contract 335 Priority Mail Contract 422 Priority Mail Contract 248 Priority Mail Contract 336 Priority Mail Contract 423 Priority Mail Contract 249 Priority Mail Contract 337 Priority Mail Contract 424 Priority Mail Contract 250 Priority Mail Contract 338 Priority Mail Contract 425 Priority Mail Contract 251 Priority Mail Contract 339 Priority Mail Contract 427 Priority Mail Contract 252 Priority Mail Contract 340 Priority Mail Contract 428 Priority Mail Contract 253 Priority Mail Contract 341 Priority Mail Contract 430 Priority Mail Contract 254 Priority Mail Contract 342 Priority Mail Contract 431 Priority Mail Contract 255 Priority Mail Contract 343 Priority Mail Contract 434 Priority Mail Contract 257 Priority Mail Contract 344 Priority Mail Contract 437 Priority Mail Contract 258 Priority Mail Contract 347 Priority Mail Contract 438 Priority Mail Contract 259 Priority Mail Contract 348 Priority Mail Contract 439 Priority Mail Contract 261 Priority Mail Contract 349 Priority Mail Contract 440 Priority Mail Contract 263 Priority Mail Contract 351 Priority Mail Contract 442 Priority Mail Contract 264 Priority Mail Contract 352 Priority Mail Contract 444 Priority Mail Contract 265 Priority Mail Contract 353 Priority Mail Contract 445 Priority Mail Contract 266 Priority Mail Contract 354 Priority Mail Contract 447 Priority Mail Contract 267 Priority Mail Contract 355 Priority Mail Contract 448 Priority Mail Contract 269 Priority Mail Contract 356 Priority Mail Contract 450 Priority Mail Contract 270 Priority Mail Contract 357 Priority Mail Contract 451 Priority Mail Contract 271 Priority Mail Contract 358 Priority Mail Contract 452 Priority Mail Contract 272 Priority Mail Contract 359 Priority Mail Contract 455 Priority Mail Contract 273 Priority Mail Contract 360 Priority Mail Contract 456 Priority Mail Contract 274 Priority Mail Contract 361 Priority Mail Contract 457 Priority Mail Contract 276 Priority Mail Contract 362 Priority Mail Contract 458 Priority Mail Contract 277 Priority Mail Contract 363 Priority Mail Contract 462 Priority Mail Contract 278 Priority Mail Contract 364 Priority Mail Contract 463 Priority Mail Contract 279 Priority Mail Contract 365 Priority Mail Contract 464 Priority Mail Contract 280 Priority Mail Contract 367 Priority Mail Contract 465 Priority Mail Contract 281 Priority Mail Contract 368 Priority Mail Contract 466 Priority Mail Contract 282 Priority Mail Contract 370 Priority Mail Contract 468 Priority Mail Contract 283 Priority Mail Contract 371 Priority Mail Contract 469 Priority Mail Contract 285 Priority Mail Contract 372 Priority Mail Contract 470 Priority Mail Contract 286 Priority Mail Contract 373 Priority Mail Contract 473 Priority Mail Contract 287 Priority Mail Contract 374 Priority Mail Contract 474

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61557

Priority Mail Contract 475 Priority Mail Contract 550 Contract 71 Priority Mail Contract 476 Priority Mail Contract 551 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 478 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 72 Priority Mail Contract 479 Contract 12 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 480 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 73 Priority Mail Contract 483 Contract 13 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 486 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 74 Priority Mail Contract 487 Contract 18 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 488 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 75 Priority Mail Contract 489 Contract 27 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 490 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 77 Priority Mail Contract 491 Contract 29 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 492 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 78 Priority Mail Contract 494 Contract 35 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 495 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 79 Priority Mail Contract 496 Contract 36 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 497 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 80 Priority Mail Contract 498 Contract 37 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 499 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 81 Priority Mail Contract 500 Contract 38 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 501 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 82 Priority Mail Contract 502 Contract 39 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 503 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 83 Priority Mail Contract 504 Contract 41 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 505 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 84 Priority Mail Contract 506 Contract 42 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 507 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 85 Priority Mail Contract 508 Contract 43 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 509 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 86 Priority Mail Contract 510 Contract 44 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 511 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 87 Priority Mail Contract 512 Contract 45 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 513 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 88 Priority Mail Contract 514 Contract 47 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 515 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 89 Priority Mail Contract 516 Contract 48 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 517 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 90 Priority Mail Contract 518 Contract 51 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 519 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 91 Priority Mail Contract 520 Contract 53 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 521 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 92 Priority Mail Contract 522 Contract 54 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 523 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 93 Priority Mail Contract 524 Contract 55 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 525 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 94 Priority Mail Contract 526 Contract 56 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 527 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 95 Priority Mail Contract 528 Contract 57 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 529 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 96 Priority Mail Contract 530 Contract 59 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 531 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 97 Priority Mail Contract 532 Contract 62 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Priority Mail Contract 533 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 98 Priority Mail Contract 534 Contract 63 Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Priority Mail Contract 535 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 3 Priority Mail Contract 536 Contract 64 Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Priority Mail Contract 537 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 6 Priority Mail Contract 538 Contract 65 Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Priority Mail Contract 539 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 7 Priority Mail Contract 540 Contract 66 Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Priority Mail Contract 541 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 8 Priority Mail Contract 542 Contract 67 Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Priority Mail Contract 543 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 9 Priority Mail Contract 544 Contract 68 Parcel Select Contract 9 Priority Mail Contract 545 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Parcel Select Contract 11 Priority Mail Contract 546 Contract 69 Parcel Select Contract 17 Priority Mail Contract 547 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Parcel Select Contract 19 Priority Mail Contract 548 Contract 70 Parcel Select Contract 20 Priority Mail Contract 549 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Parcel Select Contract 22

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61558 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

Parcel Select Contract 25 First-Class Package Service Contract 30 Parcel Select Contract 26 98 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Parcel Select Contract 27 First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract Parcel Select Contract 28 99 31 Parcel Select Contract 29 First-Class Package Service Contract Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Parcel Select Contract 32 100 First-Class Package Service Contract Parcel Select Contract 34 First-Class Package Service Contract 32 Priority Mail—Non-Published Rates 101 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail—Non-Published Rates 1 First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 102 35 38 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 45 7 36 First-Class Package Service Contract Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & 55 First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 11 37 64 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 65 12 38 First-Class Package Service Contract Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & 66 First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 13 39 67 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 68 14 40 First-Class Package Service Contract Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & 69 First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 15 42 71 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 72 16 43 First-Class Package Service Contract Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & 73 First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 17 44 75 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 76 18 45 First-Class Package Service Contract Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & 77 First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 19 46 78 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 79 20 47 First-Class Package Service Contract Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & 81 First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 21 48 82 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 85 23 50 First-Class Package Service Contract Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & 87 First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 24 51 89 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 90 25 52 First-Class Package Service Contract Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & 91 First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 26 53 92 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 93 27 54 First-Class Package Service Contract Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & 94 First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 28 55 95 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract 96 29 56 First-Class Package Service Contract Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & 97 First-Class Package Service Contract First-Class Package Service Contract

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61559

57 Service Contract 49 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 87 First-Class Package Service Contract Service Contract 50 Priority Mail & First-Class Package 58 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 88 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Service Contract 51 Priority Mail & First-Class Package First-Class Package Service Contract Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 89 59 Service Contract 52 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 90 First-Class Package Service Contract Service Contract 53 Priority Mail & First-Class Package 60 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 91 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Service Contract 54 Priority Mail & First-Class Package First-Class Package Service Contract Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 92 61 Service Contract 55 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 93 First-Class Package Service Contract Service Contract 56 Priority Mail & First-Class Package 62 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 94 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Service Contract 57 Priority Mail & First-Class Package First-Class Package Service Contract Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 95 63 Service Contract 58 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 96 First-Class Package Service Contract Service Contract 59 Priority Mail & First-Class Package 64 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 97 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Service Contract 60 Priority Mail & First-Class Package First-Class Package Service Contract Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 98 65 Service Contract 61 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 99 First-Class Package Service Contract Service Contract 62 Priority Mail & First-Class Package 66 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 100 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 63 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 9 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 101 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 64 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 17 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 102 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 67 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 19 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 103 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 69 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 20 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 104 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 70 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 23 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 105 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 71 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 24 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 106 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 72 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 32 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 107 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 73 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 34 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 108 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 74 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 35 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 109 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 75 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 36 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 110 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 76 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 37 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 111 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 77 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 38 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 112 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 78 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 39 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 113 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 79 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 40 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 114 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 80 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 42 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 115 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 81 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 43 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 116 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 82 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 44 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 117 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 83 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 45 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 118 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 84 Priority Mail & Parcel Select Contract Service Contract 47 Priority Mail & First-Class Package 2 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 85 Priority Mail Express & First-Class Service Contract 48 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Package Service Contract 1 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 86 Priority Mail Express & First-Class

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61560 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

Package Service Contract 2 Rate Boxes Contracts Priority Mail Rental, Leasing, Licensing or other Priority Mail Express & First-Class International Regional Rate Boxes Non-Sale Disposition of Tangible Package Service Contract 3 Contracts 1 Property Outbound International * Competitive International Training Facilities and Related Global Expedited Package Services Merchandise Return Service Services (GEPS) Contracts Agreements with Foreign Postal USPS Electronic Postmark (EPM) GEPS 3 Operators Program GEPS 5 Competitive International Market Tests * GEPS 6 Merchandise Return Service Darcie S. Tokioka, GEPS 7 Agreements with Foreign Postal Acting Secretary. GEPS 8 Operators 1 GEPS 9 Competitive International [FR Doc. 2019–24554 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] GEPS 10 Merchandise Return Service BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P GEPS 11 Agreements with Foreign Postal Global Bulk Economy (GBE) Contracts Operators 2 Global Plus Contracts Alternative Delivery Provider (ADP) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Global Plus 1C Contracts ADP 1 AGENCY Global Plus 1D Alternative Delivery Provider Reseller Global Plus 1E (ADPR) Contracts ADPR 1 40 CFR Part 52 Global Plus 2C Inbound International * [EPA–R01–OAR–2019–0353; FRL–10001– Global Plus 3 International Business Reply Service 80–Region 1] Global Plus 4 (IBRS) Competitive Contracts Global Plus 5 International Business Reply Service Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Global Plus 6 Competitive Contract 1 Transport Element for the 2010 Sulfur Global Reseller Expedited Package International Business Reply Service Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Contracts Competitive Contract 3 Standard Global Reseller Expedited Package Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Services 1 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Customers Agency (EPA). Global Reseller Expedited Package Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with ACTION: Services 2 Foreign Postal Administrations Final rule. Global Reseller Expedited Package Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Services 3 Foreign Postal Administrations Agency (EPA) is approving a State Global Reseller Expedited Package Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Implementation Plan (SIP) revision Services 4 Foreign Postal Administrations 1 submitted by the Commonwealth of Global Expedited Package Services Inbound EMS Massachusetts. This revision addresses (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates Inbound EMS 2 the interstate transport requirements of Global Expedited Package Services Inbound Air Parcel Post (at non-UPU the Clean Air Act (CAA), referred to as (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 2 rates) the good neighbor provision, for the Global Expedited Package Services Royal Mail Group Inbound Air Parcel 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO ) (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 3 2 Post Agreement national ambient air quality standards Global Expedited Package Services Inbound Competitive Multi-Service (NAAQS). This action approves (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 4 Agreements with Foreign Postal Global Expedited Package Services Massachusetts’s certification that air Operators emissions in the Commonwealth will (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 5 Inbound Competitive Multi-Service Global Expedited Package Services not significantly contribute to Agreements with Foreign Postal nonattainment or interfere with (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 6 Operators 1 Global Expedited Package Services maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in Special Services * any other state. (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 7 Address Enhancement Services DATES: Global Expedited Package Services Greeting Cards, Gift Cards, and This rule is effective on (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 8 Stationery December 13, 2019. Global Expedited Package Services International Ancillary Services ADDRESSES: EPA has established a (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 9 International Money Transfer docket for this action under Docket Global Expedited Package Services Service—Outbound Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 10 International Money Transfer 2019–0353. All documents in the docket Global Expedited Package Services Service—Inbound are listed on the https:// (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 11 Premium Forwarding Service www.regulations.gov website. Although Global Expedited Package Services Shipping and Mailing Supplies listed in the index, some information is (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 12 Post Office Box Service not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other Global Expedited Package Services Competitive Ancillary Services information whose disclosure is (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 13 Nonpostal Services * restricted by statute. Certain other Global Expedited Package Services Advertising material, such as copyrighted material, (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 14 Licensing of Intellectual Property is not placed on the internet and will be Priority Mail International Regional other than Officially Licensed Retail publicly available only in hard copy Rate Boxes—Non-Published Rates Products (OLRP) form. Publicly available docket Outbound Competitive International Mail Service Promotion materials are available at https:// Merchandise Return Service Officially Licensed Retail Products www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Agreement with Royal Mail Group, (OLRP) Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Ltd. Passport Photo Service Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Priority Mail International Regional Photocopying Service Radiation Division, 5 Post Office

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61561

Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA contribute to the SO2 non-attainment NAAQS. The attainment plan did not requests that if at all possible, you area in the neighboring state of New require any reductions from contact the contact listed in the FOR Hampshire,’’ not just those emitting Massachusetts sources, and relied solely FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to over 100 tpy of SO2. on controls and limits at Merrimack schedule your inspection. The Regional Response: The EPA disagrees with the Generating Station to address the Office’s official hours of business are commenter’s assertion that modeling nonattainment. On September 20, 2019, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to must be performed to rule out the EPA took final action to approve 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. significant contribution to SO2 New Hampshire’s maintenance plan, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: nonattainment in New Hampshire from submitted to ensure the area will Elizabeth Townsend, Air Quality any stationary source of SO2 emissions continue to maintain the 2010 SO2 Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection and that the use of a 100 tpy threshold NAAQS, for the Central New Hampshire Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office was inappropriate. The EPA continues area.2 This final action also formally Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 05–2), to believe that a weight of evidence redesignated the Central New Boston, MA 02109–3912, tel. (617) 918– (WOE) approach is sufficient to Hampshire SO2 Nonattainment Area to 1614, email [email protected]. determine if a state has satisfied the Attainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: good neighbor provision for the 2010 Therefore, the EPA still concludes that Throughout this document whenever 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and there is no sources in Massachusetts do not ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean legal requirement in the CAA suggesting contribute significantly to SO2 EPA. that dispersion modeling must be used nonattainment or interfere with to evaluate good neighbor SIPs. maintenance in the Central New Table of Contents Regarding the statement about Hampshire area. I. Background and Purpose modeling, EPA notes that it did not The EPA continues to believe that the II. Response to Comments independently model any sources as WOE analysis provided in the NPRM is III. Final Action part of its evaluation of Massachusetts’s adequate to determine the potential IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews good neighbor SIP submission, downwind impact from Massachusetts including sources emitting more than to neighboring states. The EPA’s I. Background and Purpose 100 tpy of SO2 within 50 km from the analysis includes the following factors: On August 8, 2019 (84 FR 38898), the Massachusetts border. However, when (1) Ambient air quality data for active EPA published a notice of proposed reliable and relevant modeling SO2 monitors in Massachusetts or in a rulemaking (NPRM) to approve the information is available, the EPA may neighboring or downwind state within February 9, 2018 submittal from the utilize this information to inform its 50 km of the Massachusetts border, (2) Commonwealth of Massachusetts as determination of whether a state has emissions information for SO2 sources meeting the interstate transport satisfied the good neighbor provision. in Massachusetts emitting greater than requirements of CAA section As further discussed in the NPRM, 100 tpy and located within 50 km of the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 Massachusetts reviewed potential SO2 Massachusetts border, (3) emissions NAAQS, commonly referred to as the impacts on the Central New Hampshire information for SO2 sources in good neighbor provision. Other specific nonattainment area. New Hampshire neighboring or downwind states requirements and the rationale for the submitted an attainment plan for the emitting more than 100 tpy and located EPA’s proposed action are explained in Central New Hampshire nonattainment within 50 km of the Massachusetts the NPRM and will not be restated here. area on January 31, 2017, which relied border, (4) available modeling and Comments on the proposed rulemaking mainly on the emissions limits and monitoring information for any area were due on or before September 9, other conditions established for the within 50 km of the Massachusetts 2019. Merrimack Generating Station, and the border, including for Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and (5) SO emissions II. Response to Comments EPA approved that plan on June 5, 2 2018.1 New Hampshire’s attainment trends in Massachusetts and The EPA received one adverse plan and demonstration for the central neighboring and downwind states. comment from an anonymous New Hampshire nonattainment area Regarding the commenter’s concern commenter. This comment is included relied on air dispersion modeling of the with the focus on individual facilities in the docket for this final action. The 1-hour critical emission value shown to which emitted above 100 tpy (using the EPA has summarized the comment and be equivalent to the federally- most recent year for which point source provided a response below. enforceable 7-boiler operating day emission data was available, i.e., 2017); Comment: The commenter stated that allowable emissions limit for the the EPA disagrees that this focus on the EPA should evaluate all sources of Merrimack Generating Station. This such sources is arbitrary. The EPA noted SO 2 emissions in Massachusetts located modeling analysis included the addition in the NPRM to this final action that

near the border of the SO2 of monitored background SO Massachusetts limited its analysis to nonattainment area in New Hampshire, 2 concentrations. These measured sources emitting greater than 100 tpy of rather than focus our analysis on large background concentrations account for SO2. These emissions account for 96 SO 2 sources located farther from the potential contributions from all percent of Massachusetts’s statewide nonattainment area in New Hampshire. Massachusetts sources, not just those SO2 emissions from point sources, and The commenter expressed concern emitting greater than 100 tpy. The New thus are appropriate to evaluate for

about the 100 tons per year (tpy) SO2 Hampshire modeling analysis purposes of determining whether there emissions threshold by stating that the demonstrated that allowable emissions is any emissions activity within the EPA arbitrarily picked 100 tpy as a from Merrimack Generating Station, in state that is in violation of the good threshold, and that smaller sources of addition to the background levels, will neighbor provision. The EPA annual emissions can violate a 1-hour not cause a violation of the 1-hour SO independently assessed which sources standard. The commenter asserted that 2 emitting over 100 tpy could have the ‘‘EPA must perform modeling to 1 See the EPA’s final action on the Central New most potential impact on downwind affirmatively rule out any stationary Hampshire Nonattainment Area Plan for the 2010 2 source of SO2 emissions don’t SO2 NAAQS at 83 FR 25922 (June 5, 2018). See 84 FR 49467 (September 20, 2019).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61562 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

and neighboring states. Based on the Management and Budget under copy of the rule, to each House of the assessment contained in the NPRM, the Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Congress and to the Comptroller General EPA stated ‘‘we agree with October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, of the United States. EPA will submit a Massachusetts’s choice to limit its January 21, 2011); report containing this action and other analysis in this way, because in the • Is not an Executive Order 13771 required information to the U.S. Senate, absence of special factors, for example regulatory action because this action is the U.S. House of Representatives, and the presence of a nearby larger source or not significant under Executive Order the Comptroller General of the United unusual factors, Massachusetts sources 12866; States prior to publication of the rule in emitting less than 100 tpy can • Does not impose an information the Federal Register. A major rule appropriately be assumed to not be collection burden under the provisions cannot take effect until 60 days after it causing or contributing to SO2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 is published in the Federal Register. concentrations above the NAAQS. The U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as EPA recognizes that in 2017 Ardagh • Is certified as not having a defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Glass Inc. emitted 92 tpy SO2, with the significant economic impact on a Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean next highest source (Wheelabrator substantial number of small entities Air Act, petitions for judicial review of Saugus Inc) emitting 54 tpy SO2. Ardagh under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 this action must be filed in the United Glass Inc. has permanently ceased U.S.C. 601 et seq.); States Court of Appeals for the operations as of September 26, 2018. • Does not contain any unfunded appropriate circuit by January 13, 2020. Given these facts, the EPA finds mandate or significantly or uniquely Filing a petition for reconsideration by Massachusetts’s analysis of SO2 sources affect small governments, as described the Administrator of this final rule does above 100 tpy adequate for analysis of in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act not affect the finality of this action for SO2 transport impacts to neighboring of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); the purposes of judicial review nor does 3 and downwind states.’’ The EPA • Does not have federalism it extend the time within which a continues to find this statement implications as specified in Executive petition for judicial review may be filed, accurate. Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, and shall not postpone the effectiveness The EPA notes that the commenter 1999); of such rule or action. This action may did not provide a technical analysis or • Is not an economically significant not be challenged later in proceedings to additional information indicating that regulatory action based on health or enforce its requirements. (See section sources emitting 100 tpy or less within safety risks subject to Executive Order 307(b)(2).) 50 km of the border may have 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); downwind impacts that violate the good • Is not a significant regulatory action List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 neighbor provision. For these reasons, subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR the EPA finds that our analysis of the Environmental protection, Air 28355, May 22, 2001); pollution control, Incorporation by Massachusetts sources in the proposal, • Is not subject to requirements of reference, Intergovernmental relations, considered alongside other WOE factors Section 12(d) of the National described in that document, support the Reporting and recordkeeping Technology Transfer and Advancement requirements, Sulfur oxides. EPA’s conclusion that Massachusetts Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because has satisfied the good neighbor application of those requirements would Dated: November 1, 2019. provision for the 2010 1-hour SO2 be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; Dennis Deziel, NAAQS. and Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. • III. Final Action Does not provide EPA with the Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the The EPA is approving Massachusetts’s discretionary authority to address, as Code of Federal Regulations is amended February 9, 2018 interstate transport SIP appropriate, disproportionate human as follows: health or environmental effects, using for the 2010 SO2 1-hour NAAQS as a revision to the Massachusetts SIP. practicable and legally permissible PART 52—APPROVAL AND methods, under Executive Order 12898 PROMULGATION OF IV. Statutory and Executive Order (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Reviews In addition, the SIP is not approved Under the Clean Air Act, the to apply on any Indian reservation land ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 Administrator is required to approve a or in any other area where EPA or an continues to read as follows: SIP submission that complies with the Indian tribe has demonstrated that a Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. provisions of the Act and applicable tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); Indian country, the rule does not have Subpart W—Massachusetts 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP tribal implications and will not impose submissions, EPA’s role is to approve substantial direct costs on tribal ■ 2. In § 52.1120(e), amend the table by state choices, provided that they meet governments or preempt tribal law as adding the entry ‘‘Certification of the criteria of the Clean Air Act. specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 Adequacy of Massachusetts 2010 Sulfur Accordingly, this action merely FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Dioxide NAAQS Infrastructure SIP to approves state law as meeting Federal The Congressional Review Act, 5 Address the Good Neighbor requirements and does not impose U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Requirements of Clean Air Act additional requirements beyond those Business Regulatory Enforcement 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’’ to the end of the table imposed by state law. For that reason, Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides to read as follows: this action: that before a rule may take effect, the • Is not a significant regulatory action agency promulgating the rule must § 52.1120 Identification of plan. subject to review by the Office of submit a rule report, which includes a (e) * * *

3 See 84 FR 38898 (August 8, 2019).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61563

MASSACHUSETTS NON REGULATORY

State submittal EPA Applicable geographic or Explanations Name of non regulatory SIP provision nonattainment area date/ approved effective date 3 date

******* Certification of Adequacy of Massachusetts Statewide ...... 2/9/2018 10/13/2019 [Insert Federal 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Infrastructure SIP Register citation]. to Address the Good Neighbor Requirements of Clean Air Act 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 3 To determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

[FR Doc. 2019–24323 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] e.g., Confidential Business Information C. Judicial Review and Administrative BILLING CODE 6560–50–P or other information whose disclosure is Reconsideration restricted by statute. Certain other II. Background and Final Amendments material, such as copyrighted material, III. Public Comments and Responses ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION is not placed on the internet and will be IV. Impacts of the Final Rule AGENCY V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews publicly available only in hard copy A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory form. Publicly available docket 40 CFR Part 60 Planning and Review and Executive materials are available either Order 13563: Improving Regulation and [EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0851; FRL–10001–93– electronically in https:// Regulatory Review OAR] www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory RIN 2060–AU27 the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Costs Standards of Performance for Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Stationary Compression Ignition The Public Reading Room is open from D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Internal Combustion Engines 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism AGENCY: Environmental Protection telephone number for the Public Agency (EPA). G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and and Coordination With Indian Tribal ACTION: Final rule. the telephone number for the EPA Governments Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Children From Environmental Health questions about this action, contact Risks and Safety Risks amendments to the Standards of I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Performance for Stationary Compression Melanie King, Sector Policies and Concerning Regulations That Ignition Internal Combustion Engines. Programs Division (D243–01), Office of Significantly Affect Energy Supply, This final action revises the emission Air Quality Planning and Standards, Distribution, or Use standards for particulate matter (PM) for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, J. National Technology Transfer and new stationary compression ignition Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Advancement Act (NTTAA) (CI) engines located in remote areas of 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions Alaska. 2469; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income DATES: The final rule is effective on email address: [email protected]. Populations November 13, 2019. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a Organization of this document. The docket for this rulemaking under Docket information in this preamble is I. General Information ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0851. All organized as follows: A. Does this action apply to me? documents in the docket are listed in on I. General Information the https://www.regulations.gov/ A. Does this action apply to me? Regulated entities. Categories and website. Although listed, some B. Where can I get a copy of this document entities potentially regulated by this information is not publicly available, and other related information? action include:

Category NAICS 1 code Examples of regulated entities

Industries using stationary CI internal combustion engines ...... 2211 Electric power generation, transmission, or distribution. 1 North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be questions regarding the applicability of B. Where can I get a copy of this exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide any aspect of this action, please contact document and other related for readers regarding entities likely to be the person listed in the preceding FOR information? affected by the final action for the FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of In addition to being available in the source category listed. To determine this preamble. docket, an electronic copy of this final whether your facility is affected, you action will also be available on the should examine the applicability internet. Following signature by the criteria in the rule. If you have any EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61564 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

copy of this final action at: https:// after a standard for those sources is Amendments specified that stationary www.epa.gov/stationary-engines/new- proposed. The NSPS for Stationary CI CI engines located in remote areas of source-performance-standards- Engines established limits on emissions Alaska would not have to meet emission stationary-compression-ignition- of PM, nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon standards that would necessitate the use internal-0. Following publication in the monoxide (CO), and non-methane of aftertreatment devices until the 2014 Federal Register, the EPA will post the hydrocarbons (NMHC). The emission model year. The aftertreatment Federal Register version and key standards for these stationary CI engines technology that was expected to be used technical documents at this same are generally modeled after the EPA’s to meet the PM standards is a diesel website. standards for nonroad CI engines particulate filter (DPF). The EPA (including standards for land-based expected that providing additional time C. Judicial Review and Administrative nonroad CI engines and marine CI to gain experience with use of DPFs Reconsideration engines), which are types of mobile would alleviate some of the concerns Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section engines regulated under 40 CFR parts associated with feasibility and costs of 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final 89, 94, 1039, 1042, and 1068. In general, installing and operating DPFs in remote action is available only by filing a the NSPS for Stationary CI Engines, like villages. petition for review in the United States the nonroad engine standards, are In a letter to the EPA Administrator Court of Appeals for the District of phased in over several years and have dated December 20, 2017, Governor Bill Columbia Circuit by January 13, 2020. Tiers with increasing levels of Walker of Alaska requested that the EPA Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the stringency, with Tier 4 as the most rescind the PM emission standards requirements established by this final stringent level. The engine model year based on aftertreatment for 2014 model rule may not be challenged separately in in which the Tiers take effect varies for year and later stationary CI engines in any civil or criminal proceedings different size ranges of engines. The Tier remote areas of Alaska. The letter stated brought by the EPA to enforce the 4 final standards for both new stationary that it is difficult to operate and requirements. non-emergency CI engines and nonroad maintain PM aftertreatment controls on Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA CI engines generally began with either stationary CI engines in remote areas of further provides that only an objection the 2014 or 2015 model year. The NSPS Alaska because of cost, complexity, and to a rule or procedure which was raised for Stationary CI Engines are codified at unreliability. According to the letter, with reasonable specificity during the 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII. utilities in remote areas have been period for public comment (including In 2011, the EPA finalized revisions to installing used, remanufactured, and any public hearing) may be raised the NSPS for Stationary CI Engines (the rebuilt pre-2014 model year engines in during judicial review. That section of ‘‘2011 Amendments’’) that amended the the remote areas to avoid the the CAA also provides a mechanism for standards for engines located in remote requirement to use PM aftertreatment, the EPA to reconsider the rule if the areas of Alaska (76 FR 37954, June 28, instead of installing new engines that person raising an objection can 2011). As discussed in the 2011 meet the Tier 3 marine CI engine demonstrate to the Administrator that it rulemaking, the remote communities in standards. The EPA’s expectation that was impracticable to raise such Alaska rely almost exclusively on diesel experience with use of DPFs would objection within the period for public engines for electricity and heat, and alleviate feasibility and cost concerns comment or if the grounds for such these engines need to be in working was not realized and the requirement objection arose after the period for condition, particularly in the winter. that 2014 model year and later engines public comment (but within the time These communities are scattered over use DPFs had, in fact, resulted in use of specified for judicial review) and if such long distances in remote areas and are older engines. The letter indicated that objection is of central relevance to the not connected to population centers by new engines certified to the Tier 3 outcome of the rule. Any person seeking road and/or power grid. Most of these marine CI engine standards are notably to make such a demonstration should communities are located in the most cleaner than the non-certified engines submit a Petition for Reconsideration to severe arctic environments in the currently in use in remote areas of the Office of the Administrator, U.S. United States. The 2011 Amendments Alaska, due to advances in diesel engine EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, allowed owners and operators of electronic fuel injection and electronic 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, stationary CI engines located in remote governors. Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to areas of Alaska to use engines certified After receiving the letter from both the person(s) listed in the to marine CI engine standards, rather Governor Walker, the EPA contacted the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION than land-based nonroad engine Alaska Department of Environmental CONTACT section, and the Associate standards. The remote communities Conservation and the Alaska Energy General Counsel for the Air and prefer to use marine CI engines because Authority (AEA) to obtain more Radiation Law Office, Office of General their design facilitates the use of heat information about the issues described Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, recovery systems to provide heat to in the letter. In particular, the EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, community facilities. The 2011 asked for information regarding the Washington, DC 20460. Amendments also removed the state’s concerns about the cost, II. Background and Final Amendments requirements to meet Tier 4 emission complexity, and reliability of DPFs, as standards for NO , CO, and NMHC that On July 11, 2006, the EPA X would necessitate the use of selective (FAHS), or meet all of the following criteria: (1) The promulgated Standards of Performance only connection to the FAHS is through the Alaska catalytic reduction aftertreatment for Stationary CI Internal Combustion Marine Highway System, or the stationary CI engine devices in light of issues associated with Engines (71 FR 39154). These standards, operation is within an isolated grid in Alaska that supply, storage, and use of the necessary is not connected to the statewide electrical grid known as new source performance chemical reductant (usually urea) in referred to as the Alaska Railbelt Grid; (2) at least standards (NSPS), implement section 10 percent of the power generated by the stationary remote Alaska.1 For PM, the 2011 111(b) of the CAA. The standards apply CI engine on an annual basis is used for residential purposes; and (3) the generating capacity of the to new stationary sources of emissions, 1 Remote areas of Alaska are defined in the source is less than 12 megawatts, or the stationary i.e., sources whose construction, Stationary CI Engine NSPS as those that either are CI engine is used exclusively for backup power for reconstruction, or modification begins not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System renewable energy.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61565

expressed in Governor Walker’s letter. the costs for an engine in Texas.5 The regeneration of the DPF once they were The EPA also asked for information on remote communities also have a in-use by operators.7 the number of stationary CI engines that shortage of operators who are trained for After considering all of the are installed in remote areas of Alaska the DPF equipment. Typically, the filter information provided, including each year and whether any stationary CI element must be periodically removed, information provided on the lack of engines with DPFs were currently and the accumulated ash must be experience with and higher costs operating in the remote areas. The AEA cleaned from the filter and captured. associated with the use of DPFs on indicated that owners and operators of The AEA indicates that few engines in remote areas of Alaska, the engines in rural communities have been communities have the technical potential for operational issues, and delaying replacement of older engines capacity to perform the necessary emission reductions expected if the because of the cost and concerns about cleaning procedures for DPFs. disincentive to replacing old engines is having to install new engines with Technicians would have to travel to the eliminated, the EPA has determined that communities to perform DPF the use of DPFs is not adequately DPFs. As stated in Governor Walker’s maintenance, resulting in additional demonstrated in remote areas of Alaska. letter, the communities are using rebuilt DPF maintenance costs from more On July 5, 2019, the EPA issued a direct older engines rather than installing new frequent travel. final rule (84 FR 32084) and a parallel Tier 3 marine CI engines that would be proposed rule (84 FR 32114) to revise lower-emitting and more efficient. According to the AEA, experience with the use of DPFs in remote areas of the provision in 40 CFR 60.4216 for As noted previously, the communities Alaska is very limited. The AEA was 2014 model year and later stationary CI in remote areas of Alaska are not aware of only one remote community engines in remote areas of Alaska. After accessible by the FAHS and/or not that had installed DPFs on two engines considering the public comments connected to the statewide electrical in a power plant. The DPFs were received, the EPA is finalizing the grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt installed in April 2018, so there has not amendment that was proposed. The Grid. They are isolated, and most are been experience with the long-term EPA is amending the provision in 40 located in the most severe arctic operation of the engines and DPFs. The CFR 60.4216 to specify that 2014 model environments in the United States. It is AEA noted that, rather than having the year and later stationary CI engines in critical for the engines in these emission controls integrated with the remote areas of Alaska must be certified communities to remain in working order certified engine, as is typical for Tier 4 to Tier 3 PM standards. The EPA has because they are used for electricity and CI engines, the remote communities will determined that the Tier 3 PM standards heating. Information provided by the have to purchase Tier 3 marine CI reflect the best system of emission AEA and engine dealers indicates that engines and equip them with DPFs that reduction (BSER) that has been the costs for engine and control device may come from third parties. The DPFs adequately demonstrated. The Tier 3 maintenance and repair are much higher would not be integrated into the PM standards will limit emissions of than for engines located elsewhere in engine’s computer system, which may PM to levels significantly below those of the older uncertified engines currently the United States due to the remote increase the likelihood of problems in use in many of the remote location and severe arctic climate. occuring that could cause the engine to communities. Technicians must travel to the remote shut down. As stated previously, the This final action revising the NSPS for areas for service and repairs, and travel engines are generally used for heating in the villages, so unexpected engine Stationary CI Engines also satisfies costs for technicians and shipping costs EPA’s obligation under the recently for parts are much higher than in other shutdowns could cause life safety issues. Providers of engines and enacted Alaska Remote Generator areas. Information provided by the AEA emission controls in Alaska noted that Reliability and Protection Act, Public indicated that travel costs can include they have experienced operational Law 116–62 (October 4, 2019), to chartering aircraft and can be issues with Tier 4 nonroad and remove the requirement in 40 CFR approximately $3,000–$4,000 per trip, 60.4216(c) that stationary CI engines in 2 stationary CI engines with DPFs in other in addition to daily labor costs. areas of Alaska, even when the controls remote areas of Alaska meet the Tier 4 According to the information provided were integrated with the engine by the PM standard and replace it with a by AEA, a typical DPF service interval original equipment manufacturer. For requirement that those engines meet the is 2,000 hours of operation, so example, one provider noted that he Tier 3 PM standard. approximately two service trips per year serviced two Tier 4 stationary CI III. Public Comments and Responses will be needed.3 The travel time can engines that required numerous service range from 25 to 99 percent of the total calls and the addition of a parasitic load This section presents a summary of labor invested in a job.4 In addition to bank to maintain exhaust temperatures the public comments received on the increased maintenance costs, a control high enough for DPF regeneration, proposed amendments and the device vendor indicated that costs for which increased fuel consumption and responses developed. The EPA received DPF installation on an engine in remote operating costs.6 Another provider two public comments on the proposed areas of Alaska can be more than double stated that it sold a number of Tier 4 rule. The comments can be obtained nonroad CI engines equipped with DPFs online from the Federal Docket 2 Letter from Ben Hopkins, General Manager that met extensive factory tests for Management System at https:// Kaktovik Enterprises LLC to Janet Reiser, Executive reliability and durability, but www.regulations.gov/. Director, AEA, June 11, 2018. Available in the experienced numerous problems with Comment: One commenter stated that rulemaking docket. there was no need to relax air quality 3 Email from David Lockard, AEA to Robert Klepp et al. FW: Estimated DPF Capital and Operating 5 Email from Marc Rost, Johnson Matthey to standards and no need for diesel Costs. October 26, 2018. Available in the Melanie King, U.S. EPA. Estimated DPF Capital and generation anywhere in Alaska. rulemaking docket. Operating Costs. November 19, 2018. 4 Letter from Bill Mossey, President, Pacific 6 Summary of April 17, 2018, meeting between 7 Letter from Bill Mossey, President, Pacific Power Group to Janet Reiser, Executive Director, the EPA and the AEA to discuss Governor Walker’s Power Group to Janet Reiser, Executive Director, AEA. August 10, 2018. Available in the rulemaking request for regulatory relief. Available in the AEA. August 10, 2018. Available in the rulemaking docket. rulemaking docket. docket.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61566 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

According to the commenter, there are to help communities gain experience in the owner or operator of stationary CI opportunities for generation using installing and operating DPFs and to engines subject to the regulation to hydropower in combination with allow them to install DPFs if the costs determine applicability for specific transmission, and the commenter has a are too high. engines. low-head hydroelectric generation The commenter disagreed that Tier 4 In response to the comment that the design. The commenter indicated that a CI engines will require greater costs due EPA should use a grant process to help demonstration site has been operating in to service and repair trips to remote communities gain experience with Ontario since 1988. locations. According to the commenter, implementing the Tier 4 standards, Response: The commenter did not any engine, including a Tier 4 CI engine, although the EPA supports the idea of provide any support for the assertion will require the same costs for trips for communities becoming proficient in that replacing diesel generation with maintenance, service, and repairs. operating and maintaining DPFs, the hydropower generation in remote areas Regarding concerns over proper potential availability of grants does not of Alaska would be feasible on either a disposal of DPF ash and used filters, the change our determination that the use of technical or economic basis and could commenter said that the engines DPFs is not currently BSER in remote provide continuous power for the without DPFs will emit the hazardous areas of Alaska. remote areas. The commenter did not metallics into the atmosphere, and the Information on the higher costs in provide information to demonstrate that EPA should compare the health remote areas of Alaska for engine and the communities in remote areas of consequences of these emissions with control device maintenance and repair Alaska are near potential sources of the benefits of capturing and properly provided by engine and catalyst dealers hydropower or that transmission to such disposing of the ash and the filter. The is included in the docket for this communities from any potential sources commenter stated that the EPA should rulemaking and summarized earlier in of hydropower would be feasible. The promote innovation and environmental this preamble. The commenter asserted commenter conceded that some and health protection for remote areas of that this information was false and that transmission would be required, but did Alaska, which are typically home to the cost of traveling to the engine not provide any information regarding lower income individuals and location for service and repairs will be the cost or feasibility of installing the minorities according to the commenter. the same for any engine. It is true that transmission infrastructure from a Response: Regarding the comment the cost of engine technician travel per theoretical source of hydropower to a that the EPA should provide an trip would be the same regardless of the community in remote Alaska. In extension to provide more time for type of engine. However, there would addition, as noted in the 2011 remote communities to gain experience likely be increased frequency of travel Amendments, heat recovery systems are with the use of DPF, the EPA already associated with engines equipped with used with diesel engines in remote provided an extension for that purpose DPFs to allow engine technicians to Alaskan communities to provide heat to in the 2011 rulemaking, and as perform the maintenance required for community facilities and schools. The explained above, the EPA’s expectation the DPFs, since the communities commenter did not provide information that experience with the use of DPFs reportedly do not have the capability of to show how that heat would be would alleviate feasibility and cost performing the maintenance on their generated if the diesel engines are concerns was not realized. Instead, the own. Therefore, the overall maintenance replaced by hydropower generation. requirement that model year 2014 and costs could be higher than for an engine Further, the commenter does not later engines use DPFs has, in fact, not equipped with a DPF. explain how the potential for resulted in the use of older engines. Regarding the comment concerning hydroelectric power in remote Alaska is Further, in light of the information the the health consequences of air relevant to the EPA’s determination that EPA received from Governor Walker, emissions and the benefits of capturing Tier 3 CI engines are the BSER that has the Alaska Department of and properly disposing of the ash been adequately demonstrated. In doing Environmental Conservation and the collected by the DPF, the EPA has the analysis of the BSER for new AEA, as explained above, the EPA has considered the health impacts stationary CI engines in remote areas of determined that Tier 3 CI engines are associated with this final action. As Alaska, we considered adequately the BSER and does not believe it is stated previously in this preamble, demonstrated controls that can be appropriate to retain a requirement that utilities in the remote areas have been applied to the source, not complete would necessitate the use of a DPF even installing used, remanufactured, and replacement of the source with a if additional time is provided to meet rebuilt pre-model year 2014 engines, different means of generating power and that requirement. If more experience is instead of installing new engines that heat. gained with the use of DPFs in remote meet the Tier 3 CI engine standards. Comment: One commenter stated that areas of Alaska, the EPA will consider According to the AEA, if these the EPA should not repeal the DPF that information when it next reviews amendments are not finalized, higher requirements for remote areas of Alaska. the standards under section 111(b)(1)(B) emitting engines will likely continue to The commenter recommended that the of the CAA. operate in the remote communities. EPA provide the remote areas of Alaska Regarding the comment that the EPA Replacing the higher emitting engines with an extension to allow further time should formally designate the areas that with engines meeting the Tier 3 CI for those areas to gain experience with are remote on a map or list them engine standards and that use ultra low DPFs and provide training to people in somewhere so that communities know sulfur diesel fuel will result in health the communities. The commenter what requirements are necessary, the and environmental protections for the indicated that the EPA should formally criteria for qualifying as a remote area remote communities. designate the remote areas on a map or of Alaska in the regulation is not always in a list so that communities know what based solely on geographical location. In IV. Impacts of the Final Rule requirements are necessary. The some cases, the criteria include other A detailed discussion of the impacts commenter recommended that the EPA factors such as the generating capacity of these amendments can be found in use the grant process specified in of the source, so a map would not be the Impacts of the Amendments to the section 105 of the CAA to provide sufficient for determining applicability. NSPS for Stationary Compression Alaska with funding for pilot programs Furthermore, it is the responsibility of Ignition Internal Combustion Engines

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61567

memorandum, which is available in the equivalent annualized value (EAV), a costs and benefits associated with this docket for this action. That value calculated consistent with the PV. action. memorandum was written for the The EAV of the cost savings is estimated C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) proposed rule and direct final rule, and in 2016 dollars as $9.7 million at a the estimates of the impacts did not discount rate of 3 percent and $7.8 This action does not impose any new change for the final rule. million at a discount rate of 7 percent. information collection burden under the In the original 2006 rulemaking, the All of these PV and EAV estimates are PRA. OMB has previously approved the EPA assumed that, even in the absence discounted to 2016 and assume an information collection activities of the NSPS, emissions from stationary indefinite time period after contained in the existing regulations CI engines would be reduced to the promulgation for their calculation. and has assigned OMB control number same emission levels as nonroad CI Note that the AEA has indicated that 2060–0590. This action does not impose engines through Tier 3, because engine owners and operators of engines in an information collection burden manufacturers frequently use the same remote communities have been delaying because the EPA is not making any engine in both nonroad and stationary replacement of older engines because of changes to the information collection applications. Emission reductions and the cost and concerns about having to requirements. install new engines with DPFs. Thus, costs were only estimated for the D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) difference between compliance with the the costs and additional PM emission Tier 3 standard and compliance with reductions from engines installed in I certify that this action will not have the Tier 4 standard in the original 2014 and later have not been occurring a significant economic impact on a rulemaking.8 Using a similar as expected when the rule was substantial number of small entities assumption, the foregone PM reductions originally issued in 2006. According to under the RFA. In making this and costs from these amendments are the AEA, if these amendments are not determination, the impact of concern is calculated based on the difference in finalized, the remote communities will any significant adverse economic emissions between the engines that are likely continue delaying replacement of impact on small entities. An agency may expected to be used once these older engines and will not receive the certify that a rule will not have a amendments are finalized, which are benefits of the reduced PM emissions significant economic impact on a Tier 3 marine CI engines because of heat that will occur if the older engines are substantial number of small entities if recovery abilities of marine engines, and replaced by new Tier 3 CI engines. the rule relieves regulatory burden, has the engines currently required by the Replacing an older engine with an no net burden, or otherwise has a regulations (known as the baseline), engine meeting the Tier 3 CI engine positive economic effect on the small which are Tier 3 nonroad CI engines emission standard results in a entities subject to the rule. This action (either land-nonroad or marine) with a significant reduction in PM emissions reduces the impact of the rule on DPF. If the baseline is assumed to be a compared to the older engine’s owners and operators of stationary CI Tier 3 land-based nonroad CI engine emissions. For example, for a 238 engines located in remote areas of with a DPF, then the foregone PM horsepower (HP) engine, PM emissions Alaska. We have, therefore, concluded reductions, based on the difference from a Tier 3 marine CI engine are that this action will relieve regulatory between a Tier 3 marine CI engine and reduced by 80 percent from a Tier 0 9 burden for all directly regulated small a Tier 3 land-based nonroad CI engine engine. entities. with a DPF, are 5.3 tons per year in the V. Statutory and Executive Order E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act first year after the amendments. In the Reviews (UMRA) fifth year after the amendments, the This action does not contain an foregone PM reductions would be 27 Additional information about these unfunded mandate of $100 million or tons of PM per year, assuming the statutes and Executive Orders can be more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. number of new engines installed each found at https://www.epa.gov/laws- 1531–1538, and does not significantly or year remains constant. If the baseline is regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. uniquely affect small governments. The assumed to be a Tier 3 marine CI engine A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory action imposes no enforceable duty on with a DPF, foregone PM reductions are Planning and Review and Executive any state, local, or tribal governments or 6.6 tons of PM per year in the first year Order 13563: Improving Regulation and the private sector. and 33 tons of PM in the fifth year. The Regulatory Review cost savings in the fifth year after the This action is not a significant F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism amendments are estimated to be regulatory action and was, therefore, not This action does not have federalism approximately $8.0 million (2017 submitted to the Office of Management implications. It will not have substantial dollars). The cost savings are the same and Budget (OMB) for review. direct effects on the states, on the for either baseline (Tier 3 land-based relationship between the national nonroad or Tier 3 marine). We also B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing government and the states, or on the show the cost savings using a present Regulation and Controlling Regulatory distribution of power and value (PV) in adherence to Executive Costs responsibilities among the various Order 13771. The PV of the cost savings This action is considered an levels of government. is estimated in 2016 dollars as $322.9 Executive Order 13771 deregulatory million at a discount rate of 3 percent action. Details on the estimated cost G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and $111.2 million at a discount rate of savings of this final rule can be found and Coordination With Indian Tribal 7 percent. Finally, the annualized cost in the EPA’s analysis of the potential Governments savings over time can be shown as an This action does not have tribal 9 Tier 0 signifies an engine built between 1988 implications as specified in Executive 8 Emission Reduction Associated with NSPS for and the first model year in which the Tier 1 Order 13175. While some Native Stationary CI ICE. Memorandum from Tanya Parise, standards took effect, which is 1996 for a 238 HP Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc. to Jaime Paga´n, engine. See Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Alaskan tribes and villages could be EPA Energy Strategies Group. May 19, 2006. Factors for Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines impacted by this amendment, this rule Document EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0029–0288. in MOVES2014b, EPA–420–R–18–009, July 2018. would reduce the compliance costs for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61568 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

owners and operators of stationary CI Dated: October 30, 2019. this temporary rule for commercial engines in remote areas of Alaska. Thus, Andrew R. Wheeler, harvest of king mackerel in the southern Executive Order 13175 does not apply Administrator. zone of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) to this action. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) using For the reasons set forth in the run-around gillnet gear. NMFS has H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of preamble, 40 CFR part 60 is amended as determined that the commercial annual Children From Environmental Health follows: catch limit (equivalent to the Risks and Safety Risks PART 60—STANDARDS OF commercial quota) for king mackerel The EPA interprets Executive Order PERFORMANCE FOR NEW using run-around gillnet gear in the 13045 as applying only to those STATIONARY SOURCES southern zone of the Gulf EEZ was regulatory actions that concern exceeded in the 2018–2019 fishing year. environmental health or safety risks that ■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 Therefore, NMFS reduces the southern the EPA has reason to believe may continues to read as follows: zone commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for king mackerel fishing using disproportionately affect children, per Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory run-around gillnet gear in the Gulf EEZ action’’ in section 2–202 of the Subpart IIII—Standards of Performance during the 2019–2020 fishing year. This Executive Order. This action is not for Stationary Compression Ignition commercial ACL reduction is necessary subject to Executive Order 13045 Internal Combustion Engines to protect the Gulf king mackerel because it does not concern an resource. environmental health risk or safety risk. ■ 2. Section 60.4216 is amended by DATES: The temporary rule is effective revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: I. Executive Order 13211: Actions from 6 a.m. on January 21, 2020, through June 30, 2020. Concerning Regulations That § 60.4216 What requirements must I meet Significantly Affect Energy Supply, for engines used in Alaska? FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelli O’Donnell, NMFS Southeast Distribution, or Use * * * * * Regional Office, telephone: 727–824– (c) Manufacturers, owners, and This action is not subject to Executive 5305, email: [email protected]. Order 13211, because it is not a operators of stationary CI ICE that are located in remote areas of Alaska may SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The significant regulatory action under fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish Executive Order 12866. choose to meet the applicable emission standards for emergency engines in in the Gulf includes king mackerel, J. National Technology Transfer and §§ 60.4202 and 60.4205, and not those Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is Advancement Act (NTTAA) for non-emergency engines in managed under the Fishery §§ 60.4201 and 60.4204, except that for Management Plan for the Coastal This rulemaking does not involve Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf technical standards. 2014 model year and later non- emergency CI ICE, the owner or operator of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). K. Executive Order 12898: Federal of any such engine must have that The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Actions To Address Environmental engine certified as meeting at least the Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Justice in Minority Populations and Tier 3 PM standards in 40 CFR 89.112 Management Councils, and is Low-Income Populations or 40 CFR 1042.101. implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens * * * * * While some Native Alaskan tribes and Fishery Conservation and Management [FR Doc. 2019–24335 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] villages could be impacted by this Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by amendment, the EPA believes that this BILLING CODE 6560–50–P regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All action does not have disproportionately weights for Gulf migratory group king high and adverse human health or mackerel (Gulf king mackerel) below environmental effects on minority DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE apply as either round or gutted weight. populations, low-income populations, The king mackerel commercial ACL National Oceanic and Atmospheric and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in the Gulf is divided into separate Administration in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, ACLs for hook-and-line and run-around February 16, 1994). The amendments gillnet gear. The use of run-around 50 CFR Part 622 will not have a significant effect on gillnets for king mackerel is restricted to emissions and will likely remove [Docket No. 160426363–7275–02] the Gulf southern zone. The Gulf barriers to the installation of new, lower southern zone, which includes the EEZ emission engines in remote RIN 0648–XS008 off Collier and Monroe Counties in communities. Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources south Florida, encompasses an area of L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic the EEZ south of a line extending due Region; 2019–2020 Commercial Quota west from the boundary of Lee and This action is subject to the CRA, and Reduction for King Mackerel Run- Collier Counties on the Florida west the EPA will submit a rule report to Around Gillnet Fishery coast, and south of a line extending due each House of the Congress and to the east from the boundary of Monroe and Comptroller General of the United AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Miami-Dade Counties on the Florida States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and east coast (50 CFR 622.369(a)(1)(iii)). as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), For the 2018–2019 fishing season, the commercial gillnet quota for Gulf king List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; commercial mackerel was 585,900 lb (265,760 kg). Environmental protection, quota reduction. Regulations at 50 CFR 622.8(b) and Administrative practice and procedure, 622.388(a)(1) require NMFS to close any Air pollution control, Reporting and SUMMARY: NMFS implements an component of the king mackerel recordkeeping requirements. accountability measure (AM) through commercial sector when its respective

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61569

quota has been reached, or is projected notice and opportunity for public prepared for this action at: National to be reached, by filing a notification comment pursuant to the authority set Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great with the Office of the Federal Register. forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930– On February 8, 2019, NMFS determined notice and opportunity for public 2276 or by calling (978) 281–9315. that the 2018–2019 commercial gillnet comment on this temporary rule is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: quota had been reached, and closed the unnecessary. Such procedure is Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst, commercial gillnet component for the unnecessary because the rule (978) 281–9122. remainder of the 2018–2019 fishing year implementing the commercial ACL and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (84 FR 3723, February 13, 2019). the associated AM for the commercial NMFS’ most recent landings data for ACL reduction has already been subject Background the 2018–2019 fishing year indicate that to public notice and comment, and all Under its process for managing the commercial gillnet component that remains is to notify the public of species that are managed by both the exceeded the 585,900-lb (265,760-kg) the commercial ACL reduction. states and NMFS, the Atlantic States quota by 45,357 lb (20,573 kg). The AM Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Marine Fisheries Commission makes a specified in 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1)(iii) Dated: November 6, 2019. management decision, and then states if commercial landings of king recommends that the Federal Jennifer M. Wallace, mackerel caught by run-around gillnet government enact regulations to gear exceed the commercial gillnet ACL, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable complement these measures when Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. then NMFS will reduce the commercial appropriate. The Atlantic Coastal gillnet ACL in the following fishing year [FR Doc. 2019–24516 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Fisheries Cooperative Management Act by the amount of the overage. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P (16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) directs the The 2019–2020 commercial gillnet Federal government to support the ACL for Gulf king mackerel in the management efforts of the Commission southern zone is 575,400 lb (260,997 kg) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE and, to the extent the Federal (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(iii)(B)). The government seeks to regulate a fishing season is currently closed from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Commission species, to develop July 1, 2019, through January 20, 2020, Administration regulations that are compatible with the and will open at 6 a.m. on January 21, Commission’s Interstate Fishery 2020. The 2019–2020 fishing year runs 50 CFR Part 648 Management Plan and consistent with through June 30, 2020. [Docket No. 191023–0070] Consistent with the AM, NMFS the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery reduces the 2019–2020 commercial RIN 0648–BF43 Conservation and Management Act’s gillnet quota by the amount of the 2018– National Standards. 2019 commercial gillnet ACL overage to Fisheries of the Northeastern United Historically, Jonah crabs (Cancer 530,043 lb (240,423 kg). If king mackerel States; Jonah Crab Fishery; Interstate borealis) have been harvested as an commercial gillnet landings do not Fishery Management Plan for Jonah incidental catch in the American lobster exceed the ACL in the 2019–2020 Crab trap fishery. Lobster harvesters did not fishing year, then in the 2020–2021 target Jonah crabs but sometimes AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries retained and sold crabs caught while fishing year, the component’s Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and commercial quota will again be 575,400 lobster fishing. Eventually, the Jonah Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), crab market expanded, and lobster lb (260,997 kg) as specified in 50 CFR Commerce. 622.384(b)(1)(iii)(B). harvesters began modifying fishing ACTION: Final rule. practices to target Jonah crabs. Landings Classification have dramatically increased from nearly SUMMARY: We, the National Marine 3 million lb (1,361 mt) in 1994 to a high The Regional Administrator for the Fisheries Service, are implementing NMFS Southeast Region has determined of over 17 million lb (7,711 mt) in 2015. regulations for the Jonah crab fishery in The Commission initiated this temporary rule is necessary for the Federal waters based on Atlantic States conservation and management of Gulf management of Jonah crab out of Marine Fisheries Commission concern for its future sustainability. king mackerel and is consistent with the recommendations. This action is FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and Fishery managers became concerned by necessary to enact measures that the rapid increase in Jonah crab other applicable laws. provide stock protections to a This action is taken under 50 CFR landings, particularly because the previously unmanaged fishery. The impacts of the significantly increased 622.8(b) and 622.388(a)(1)(iii) and is action is intended to ensure exempt from review under Executive fishing pressure are not clear. There is compatibility between state and Federal no stock assessment for Jonah crab and Order 12866. Jonah crab management measures, These measures are exempt from the no biological reference points, so we do consistent with the Commission’s procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility not know whether the stock is Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Act because the temporary rule is issued overfished or if overfishing is occurring. Jonah Crab and the intent of the Atlantic without prior notice and opportunity for Managers fear that if overfishing does Coastal Fisheries Cooperative public comment. occur, that it could continue unabated, This action responds to the best Management Act. because the only regulatory protections scientific information available. The DATES: This rule is effective December for Jonah crabs are imposed by lobster NOAA Assistant Administrator for 12, 2019. fishery regulations. At present, the Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to ADDRESSES: You may request copies of Jonah crab fishery is unregulated in immediately implement this action to the Final Environmental Impact Federal waters; any unpermitted vessel reduce the commercial ACL for the Statement (FEIS), including the can fish for any amount of crabs, with fishery component that uses run-around Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and the unlimited amounts of gear. Prior to gillnet gear constitutes good cause to Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis development of the Commission’s Jonah waive the requirements to provide prior (IRFA), or the Record of Decision (ROD) Crab Plan, some states attempted to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61570 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

implement some control over state of management actions. The goal of the species/jonah-crab. The Commission Jonah crab harvesters (e.g., limiting Commission’s Jonah Crab Plan is ‘‘to formally recommended that the Jonah crab harvest to those with a valid promote conservation, reduce the Secretary of Commerce implement lobster permit), but these regulations possibility of recruitment failure, and complementary Federal measures to the were often inconsistent between the allow the full utilization of the resource Jonah Crab Plan on September 8, 2015. states. The market provided some by the industry.’’ In general, the plan The Commission amended the Jonah additional stock protection. Only crabs attempted to maintain the fishery as it Crab Plan to include additional above a 5-inch (12.7-cm) carapace existed prior to approval of the plan in measures and the Secretary to include length were marketable and, thus, crabs 2015 and cap fishing effort at the 2015 those additional measures as part of the with a smaller carapace width were not levels. For example, this involved Federal rulemaking process on February harvested and returned to the sea. establishing a fishery that was limited to 8, 2017. The Commission’s American Lobster and prosecuted by lobster trap Approved Measures Management Board manages the Jonah harvesters. Shortly after the Commission crab fishery because of the link between approved the plan, the Commission This rule approves the following the lobster and Jonah crab fisheries. The initiated and approved Addenda I and measures (Table 1) which are consistent Commission approved an Interstate II, refining incidental catch limits and with the Commission’s Fishery Management Plan for Jonah claw-only measures. These documents recommendations in the Jonah Crab Crab in August 2015, following its are available on the Commission’s Plan and its addenda. Measures are public process for review and approval website at: http://www.asmfc.org/ discussed in greater detail below.

Commercial Measures Jonah crab fishing in the future. lobster permitting structure is Analysis of Federal and state harvest appropriate. 1. Permitting data completed during development of Commercial non-trap lobster permit Only vessels with Federal lobster the Commission’s plan identified that holders may land an incidental amount permits can fish for and harvest Jonah all Jonah crab trap harvesters held an of Jonah crabs (meeting both the crab. As a result, there is no need to American lobster permit. In multiple incidental limit and incidental separately qualify or issue a Jonah crab- advance notices of proposed rulemaking definition, discussed below) (see Table specific permit. Tying Jonah crab access (80 FR 31347, June 2, 2015; 81 FR 1). As with trap harvesters, non-trap to the lobster permits allows managers 70658, October 13, 2016), we requested harvesters must comply with all to take advantage of existing lobster information to identify any Jonah crab applicable lobster regulations. regulations to protect Jonah crabs harvesters that did not hold a lobster Charter/party-permitted vessels and particularly because the Jonah crab permit, which would inform our recreational anglers may possess Jonah fishery has historically been prosecuted proposal to link Jonah crab harvest to crabs but must comply with the by lobster permit holders using lobster the existing lobster permit structure. We recreational requirements (see Table 1). traps. The Jonah crab fishery will have received no comments in response to Finally, recreational anglers may not set trap limits and gear configuration these notices identifying Jonah crab trap gear. requirements because the pots used are harvesters that did not have a lobster 2. Minimum Size considered lobster traps under our permit. Since that time, one state has regulations at 50 CFR 697.2 and subject identified Jonah crab-only harvesters in We are implementing a minimum to all the restrictions required by our state waters, and there is no evidence carapace width size of 43⁄4 inches lobster regulations set forth in 50 CFR that these Jonah crab-only harvesters (12.065 cm). The purpose of a minimum part 697. participated in the fishery in federal size restriction is to protect crabs until This action is not expected to prevent waters. We concluded that linking Jonah they mature and have an opportunity to historical Jonah crab harvesters from crab harvest to the existing American reproduce. This size restriction should

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 ER13NO19.002 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61571

have a negligible impact on the fishing between 2010 and 2014 landed more reporting requirements for all other industry because Jonah crabs smaller than 900 lb (408.2 kg). Therefore, a regionally managed commercial than 43⁄4 inches (12.065 cm) have not Federal incidental catch of up to 1,000 fisheries, including lobster. The Jonah been traditionally marketable and crabs provides consistency between Crab Plan specified information to be therefore, were not harvested. The Federal and state regulations. collected in dealer reports. We are Commission’s Jonah Crab Plan 5. Incidental Catch Definition approving the collection of the Development Team (PDT) attempted to Commission’s recommended identify Jonah crab size at maturity and We are implementing a requirement information. We will require the same found that, ‘‘data suggests that both that Jonah crabs cannot comprise more information currently required in other sexes reach near 100 percent maturity than 50 percent, by weight, of all fisheries, as well as some additional by 3 35/64 inches (9.0 cm).’’ We are species kept onboard a commercial non- information. These requirements implementing the Commission- trap permitted vessel. This is a second include: Dealer name; dealer permit recommended minimum carapace width requirement governing the incidental number; name and permit number or because it has biological benefits (i.e., possession of Jonah crabs that name and hull number (U.S. Coast ensures that the majority of crabs have complements the maximum incidental Guard documentation number or state the opportunity to reproduce) and is catch limit of 1,000 crabs per trip. To registration number, whichever is enforceable. Approving the same size further ensure that the incidental catch applicable) of the vessel from which fish restrictions in this action ensures of Jonah crabs does not expand into a are purchased; trip identifier (vessel trip consistent size restrictions in state and targeted fishery, the Commission report identification number for vessels Federal waters. developed and approved an incidental with mandatory vessel trip reporting catch definition (called a ‘‘bycatch 3. Broodstock Protection requirement); date of purchase; units of definition’’) as part of Addendum II. measure and amount by species (by We are approving a prohibition on Percentage-based incidental catch market category, if applicable); price per retaining egg-bearing female Jonah caps have been used in other regionally unit by species (by market category, if crabs. Approving this prohibition helps managed fisheries and are enforceable. applicable) or total value by species (by to align state and Federal regulations. Therefore, consistent with the market category, if applicable); port We are also prohibiting the removal of Commission’s recommendation and to landed; disposition of the seafood eggs from an egg-bearing female Jonah complement state measures already in product; and any other information crab. While not specifically considered effect, we are approving a requirement deemed necessary by the Regional by the Commission, this measure that, in addition to the incidental catch Administrator. Finally, to facilitate complements the Jonah Crab Plan by limit, Jonah crabs cannot comprise more reporting of all market categories, we are closing a potential enforcement than 50 percent, by weight, of all adding additional species market codes loophole which could allow a harvester species kept onboard a vessel. to the dealer report, which will help to circumvent the prohibition of 6. Mandatory Dealer Reporting more accurately assess Jonah crab possessing egg-bearing female Jonah landings. While this dealer permitting crabs by removing the eggs. Finally, this We are approving a dealer-permitting and reporting program is more prohibition has been an important and requirement and a mandatory dealer- expansive than what is specified in the effective element of our lobster reporting requirement for any dealer Jonah Crab Plan, it is consistent with the regulations, and therefore we think it is purchasing Jonah crabs from federally Commission’s intent and will ensure important to include a similar provision permitted vessels, consistent with all consistency with the dealer reporting for Jonah crabs. other regionally managed species. The Commission did not explicitly requirements for other federally 4. Incidental Catch Limit discuss a permitting program for dealers managed fisheries. We are implementing an incidental purchasing Jonah crabs. Permitting is Recreational Measures catch limit of up to 1,000 crabs per trip necessary to successfully implement a for commercial non-trap lobster permit mandatory dealer-reporting program. 1. Broodstock Protection holders, as recommended in Addendum Therefore, we are approving a We are approving a prohibition on I. The Commission originally approved requirement that a dealer obtain a retaining egg-bearing female Jonah crabs an incidental catch limit of up to 200 Federal Jonah crab dealer permit if that in the recreational fishery, consistent crabs per day and up to 500 crabs per dealer wishes to purchase Jonah crabs with the Commission’s trip which largely mirrored the lobster from a federally permitted lobster recommendation. Development of this incidental catch limit. The PDT permit holder. Due to the overlap of measure occurred in parallel to reviewed available catch information Jonah crab and lobster harvest, our broodstock protection measures for the and determined that the original Jonah analysis shows that the vast majority of commercial fishery. For more Crab Plan limit would have restricted dealers currently purchasing Jonah background, please see Broodstock some past trips which landed more than crabs already have Federal dealer Protection under the Commercial 200 crabs per day or 500 crabs per trip. permits due to the other species Measures heading above. The PDT determined that a limit of purchased, specifically lobster. 1,000 crabs per trip would cover the Requesting an additional fishery in the 2. Recreational Catch Limit majority of past landings from non-trap annual renewal application is not We are approving a recreational Jonah gear. expected to add any additional burden crab harvest limit of 50 whole crabs per Because of the PDT’s findings, the to an applicant. Dealers may begin person, per day. Consistent with the Commission revised the Plan’s requesting this permit once the rule is Commission’s recommendation and to incidental catch limit of up to 1,000 effective. It will be issued and begin complement state measures already in crabs per trip for both non-trap gear and being enforced on January 1, 2020. effect, we are implementing a non-lobster trap gear as part of We are also requiring that all federally recreational catch limit of 50 whole Addendum I. Our catch data corroborate permitted Jonah crab dealers submit crabs per person, per day. Consistent the Commission’s basis for revising the dealer reports electronically, on a with the regulations for recreational incidental catch limit as only three trips weekly basis, consistent with dealer harvest of American lobster, non-trap

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61572 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

gear must be used to harvest Jonah crab complementary claw fishery measures, Commission developed this addendum recreationally, including diving, but the variety of state regulations to address data gaps from inconsistent charter/party trips, and personal complicates our ability to create reporting and data collection angling. While little information exists complementary Federal regulations. requirements across state and Federal on the recreational fishery, this limit Specifically, it is challenging to issue a agencies. As a result, the recommended balances recreational access to the single Federal regulation that is Jonah crab reporting will be subsumed fishery while restricting future consistent with state landing disposition by the lobster reporting requirements expansion. requirements, when the state regulations that the Commission already made as themselves are inconsistent. Because the part of Addendum XXVI to the Lobster Other Measures Considered by the states can effectively regulate this matter Plan/Addendum III to the Jonah Crab Commission but Not Implemented on shore without complementary Plan. We are currently developing a 1. Landing Disposition Requirements regulations, we are not issuing proposed rule in a separate action to (i.e., Whole Crab vs. Claw Only Fishery) regulations for a landing disposition at consider adopting these expanded this time. As such, states will regulate lobster and Jonah crab harvester We are not imposing a landing crab landing disposition shore-side. We reporting recommendations. We expect disposition requirement at this time. will monitor the effectiveness of these the proposed measures to publish in late Landing disposition requirements, like state regulations to determine whether 2019 and the rule to implement the incidental landing limit, evolved future Federal regulation will be requirements to occur in 2020. during the development of the Jonah necessary. Deferring action on this issue Crab Plan and its addenda. In a first Research Activities is expected to minimize disconnects attempt to capture regional harvesting between state and Federal regulations. Since the Commission’s approval of differences in the Jonah Crab Plan, the the Jonah Crab Plan, several Commission approved a whole crab 2. Mandatory Commercial Harvester organizations have established Jonah fishery with an exemption for Reporting crab research programs focused on the individuals who could prove a history The Commission recommended a 100- research needs identified in the Plan. of claw landings before the June 2, 2015, percent mandatory harvester-reporting Researchers from the Massachusetts control date in the states of New Jersey, program as part of the Jonah Crab Plan Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF), Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. but allowed jurisdictions requiring less the Commercial Fisheries Research During the development of the Jonah than 100 percent of lobster harvester Foundation (CFRF), and the University Crab Plan, we advocated for a whole- reporting to maintain their current of Maryland have requested exempted crab fishery due to biological, programs and extend them to Jonah fishing permits (EFPs), including enforcement, and for better coastwide crab. The Jonah Crab Plan established exemptions from Jonah crab regulations, management consistency. specific information to be reported, to conduct research on migration, The Commission reconsidered its including: A unique trip identification growth rates, and maturity in Federal claw fishery requirements as part of (link to dealer report); vessel number; waters. Because no Federal regulations Addendum II. This effort included a trip start date; location (NMFS stat area); existed for Jonah crab, we advised thorough investigation of state and traps hauled; traps set; quantity (lb); trip researchers that they were free to Federal landings data in an attempt to length; soak time in hours and minutes; conduct their research activities in determine the extent of Jonah crab claw and target species. We intend to restrict Federal waters, but that exemptions landings. The Jonah Crab PDT Jonah crab harvest to Federal lobster from lobster regulations would be developed a range of potential permit holders, and at present, there is required. management measures, including: (1) no mandatory harvester-reporting We issued EFPs to MA DMF and Status quo (a whole crab fishery with an requirement for Federal lobster permit CFRF, and the University of Maryland exemption for southern states); (2) a holders. Therefore, we do not intend to in 2019. These projects have centered whole crab fishery coastwide; and (3) a modify Federal lobster permit holder’s on the collection of crabs and lobster coastwide regulated claw fishery. reporting requirements through this using ventless traps and, to date, have Incidental volumetric measure claw action. This action, however, will add received exemptions from the lobster limits such as a maximum of one 5- an additional species code to the vessel trap regulations, including exemptions gallon (18.93 L) bucket were also trip report to better capture the landings from escape vent, trap tagging, and discussed. During the development of of Jonah crab claws in states that permit number of allowable traps requirements. Addendum II, we again advocated for a such activity. Several of these studies are also whole-crab fishery, but we supported In recent months, the Commission has collecting information on lobsters, and options that would allow a small given additional consideration to the therefore have exemptions from lobster amount of claw-only landings. The reporting requirements in both the possession provisions in regulations, Commission ultimately approved a lobster and Jonah crab fisheries. In including provisions on minimum and measure that established a coastwide February 2018, the Commission maximum size, egg-bearing females, etc. standard for claw harvest, allowing for approved Addendum XXVI to the This action expands the exemptions an unlimited amount of claws to be Interstate Fishery Management Plan for granted to these three research projects harvested subject to a minimum claw American Lobster, which also serves as to include exemptions from the length requirement. Addendum III to the Jonah Crab Plan. proposed Jonah crab regulations, as In response, states have implemented The intent of Lobster Addendum XXVI/ outlined in Table 2. New EFPs will be a wide range of measures. Some allow Jonah crab Addendum III is to expand issued to these researchers, coinciding the harvest of an unlimited amount of lobster harvester reporting with the effective date of these claws that meet the minimum size; requirements, enhance the spatial and measures. These exemptions do not others allow harvest of a maximum of effort data collections, and improve the expand the scope or scale of any one 5-gallon (18.93 L) bucket of claws, amount and type of biological data existing research projects; they are while others allow only whole crabs to collected in the offshore trap fishery. intended to allow these research be landed. The Commission Given the offshore expansion of lobster activities to continue without recommended that we implement trap effort in recent years, the interruption.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61573

TABLE 2—EXPANDED EXEMPTION PROPOSAL TO EXISTING RESEARCH PERMITS

Organization Project title Jonah crab exemptions

Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation .... Southern New England Cooperative Ventless Minimum size. Trap Survey. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries ..... Random Stratified Coastwide Ventless Lob- Minimum size. ster Trap Survey. Prohibition on the possession of egg-bearing female Jonah crabs. University of Maryland ...... Sexual maturity investigation of Jonah crabs .. Minimum size.

Once approved, the applicants may Response: We agree. A central the lobster fishery. Before this action, request minor modifications and purpose of the control date was to put any unpermitted individual could fish extensions to the EFP throughout the harvesters on notice of the potential an unlimited number of traps in Federal year. We may grant EFP modifications regulatory restrictions and prevent waters for Jonah crab. Now Jonah crab and extensions without further notice if speculation. Available information fishing is restricted to lobster permit the modifications and extensions are suggests that speculative fishing was holders and any traps used to target deemed essential to facilitate limited. Jonah crabs are considered lobster traps, completion of the proposed research Comment 2: An anonymous comment subject to all lobster regulations. This and have minimal impacts that do not opposed establishing a control date. The new regulatory framework ensures that change the scope or impact of the commenter argued that it was the fishery’s impacts to whales will be initially approved EFP requests. The inappropriate for NMFS to issue a analyzed in NMFS’ ongoing fishery EFPs would prohibit any fishing activity control date at the request of the Biological Opinion, as well as the conducted outside the scope of the Commission when the fishery takes recommendations made by the Large exempted fishing activities. Finally, we place in Federal waters and the New Whale Take Reduction Team in April invite any other organizations England Fishery Management Council 2019, and all lobster reporting conducting Jonah crab research to expressed interest in management, as requirements in response to contact us to discuss whether their Council management would take Commission Addendum XXVI. research activities will require Federal precedence over Commission Comment 4: During development of permits. management. the rulemaking and EIS, the Center for Response: We disagree. The control Biological Diversity stated the spatial Comments and Responses date provided notice to the public of information should be included in the Two documents solicited comment on potential future regulations and its reporting requirements. this action: A control date advance purpose and value is independent of its Response: We agree. NMFS is notice of proposed rulemaking (80 FR origin from either the Commission or developing spatial information reporting 31347; June 2, 2015) and a notice of the Council. Here, the Commission’s requirements in a separate rulemaking intent for the environmental impact involvement makes sense given the that addresses the recommendations of statement (EIS)/advance notice of overlap between the lobster fishery and Addendum XXVI to the Lobster Plan/ proposed rulemaking (81 FR 70658; Jonah crab fishery. Notwithstanding the Addendum III to the Jonah Crab Plan. October 13 2016). Comments were Commission’s role in developing its This future rulemaking will also received from: The Atlantic Offshore Jonah Crab Plan, the New England and consider reporting needs from the Lobstermen’s Association; the Center for Mid-Atlantic Councils have been Lobster and Jonah Crab Plan, which Biological Diversity; and two members consulted on this matter. Many requires the following information as of the public. We published a proposed members of the Commission’s Lobster part of harvester reports: A unique trip rule in the Federal Register on March Board are also Council members and a ID (link to dealer report), vessel number, 22, 2019 (84 FR 10756), soliciting public New England Council member was trip start date, location (statistical area), comment on the proposed Jonah Crab invited to represent the Council’s Jonah traps hauled, traps set, quantity (lb), trip Plan measures. The comment period crab interests on the Lobster Board. The length, soak time in hours and minutes, ended on April 22, 2019. We received Council has participated in Commission and target species. These requirements eight letters from two fishery decision-making and voted to adopt were intended to match the reporting organizations, the New England Fishery Commission’s actions at the Lobster requirements associated with the Management Council, two Jonah crab Board. Because of this, we feel that it Interstate Fishery Management Plan for harvesters, a group of environmental was appropriate to issue a control date American Lobster, as these two fisheries advocacy organizations, and two at the Commission’s request. are linked. Due to the overlap with members of the public. Only comments Comment 3: During development of North Atlantic right whales, the Atlantic that were applicable to the proposed the rulemaking and EIS, the Center for Large Whale Take Reduction Team may measures are addressed below. Biological Diversity raised concern recommend additional reporting Consolidated responses are provided to about large whale entanglements in requirements. Such requirements may similar comments on the proposed Jonah crab traps and requested that the be incorporated into this future measures. EIS consider impacts to large whales, rulemaking. Comment 1: The Atlantic Offshore specifically the north Atlantic right Comment 5: During development of Lobstermen’s Association supported the whale (Eubalaena glacialis). the rulemaking and EIS, one individual establishment of a control date for the Response: We are mindful of potential opposed the development of Federal Jonah crab fishery, believing that it will impacts between the Jonah crab fishery Jonah crab regulations, preferring that discourage speculative entry into the and large whales and analyzed trap the fishery be closed to commercial fishery during the interim period before impacts in Section 5 of the EIS. This harvest, stating that Jonah crabs are a the states and NMFS published analysis will be ongoing because this food source for birds and marine regulations to manage the fishery. action folds the Jonah crab fishery into mammals.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61574 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

Response: The Commission crabs now are increasingly a targeted width. Due to the significant overlap developed the Jonah Crab Plan out of catch from lobster traps. This obvious with the American lobster fishery, the precaution and potential concern for the linkage is the basis for the American Commission’s American Lobster Board Jonah crab resource given the recent and Lobster Board overseeing management has overseen management, as rapid increase in landings. There is no and is a primary driver behind the recommended. The Board has stock assessment for Jonah crab, but the recommendation to link Jonah crab developed many coastwide measures science does not presently support a harvest to the lobster permit structure. (i.e., all but claw provisions that are complete closure of the fishery. The There is no justification to qualify and state-by-state) that states have population has been able to sustain past issue Jonah crab-only permits. As implemented, which will now be increases in commercial landings, as discussed above, on several different complemented in Federal waters described in Section 4.5.2 of the EIS. occasions, we requested information to through this action. Fishing effort has been capped at such identify any Jonah crab harvesters that When developing measures for the levels. We are taking action, as did not hold a lobster permit. One of fishery, Lobster Board considered a requested by the Commission, to these requests coincided with a 2015 range of minimum sizes. These implement complementary regulations control date, intended to promote measures were included in the draft in Federal waters. This action is awareness of possible future Jonah Crab Plan and taken out to public expected to put some initial limits on rulemaking, and discourage speculative comment. As discussed in greater detail Jonah crab harvest and implement entry into and/or investment in the in the proposed rule, the Commission reporting requirements, adding to our Jonah crab fishery. We received no selected a minimum size of 43⁄4 inches information and making a future stock comments in response to these earlier (12.065 cm) because it balances market assessment possible. requests for information. In addition, demands, biological concerns over the Comment 6: The Atlantic Offshore only one state has identified Jonah-crab size at which crabs become mature, and Lobstermen’s Association commented in only harvesters and only in state waters. industry concerns that enforcement support of Federal rulemaking at As no other information has been officials would issue violations for crabs multiple stages and highlighted the presented that helps to identify Jonah that are just under the market-preferred need for the commercial management crab harvesters without a lobster permit size in this high-volume fishery where measures approved in this rule. One in Federal waters prior to the 2015 measuring each crab may be difficult. commercial lobster harvester control date and the commenter We considered and analyzed both resubmitted a copy of a letter that was indicated that his entry into the fishery 43⁄4-inch (12.065-cm) and 5-inch (12.7- submitted to the Commission in 2014 occurred after the 2015 control date, cm) minimum sizes as alternatives in supporting Jonah Crab Plan which was designed to prevent such the accompanying EIS. While they are development. The Cape Cod speculative entry, we are linking Jonah reasonable, approving a measure that is Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance crab harvest to the lobster permit inconsistent with what the states have generally supported proposed measures. structure. already promulgated would create a All three letters supported linking Jonah Finally, it would be problematic for significant inconsistency between state crab harvest to the lobster permit NMFS to authorize additional effort in and Federal regulations for this species. structure. the lobster fishery without consulting Any inconsistency increases the Response: We agree and are the Commission, the American Lobster difficultly to achieve coordinated developing regulations consistent with Board, and our partner states as it would management, administrative and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries create an inconsistency with the Lobster enforcement objectives, and creates Cooperative Management Act and the Plan and with state regulations. The additional confusion about applicable Commission’s recommendations in the Commission specifically endorsed regulations for harvesters. Due to these Jonah Crab Plan. For additional linking Jonah crab harvest to the lobster potential negative effects, we have rationale, please refer to Approved permit structure. The Interstate Fishery approved a minimum size that is Measures. Management Plan for American Lobster consistent with Commission Comment 7: One harvester, who strictly controls harvest. Any additional recommendations and state identified himself as a Jonah crab-only effort in the fishery should be requirements. harvester without a lobster permit, considered through the Commission’s Comment 9: The Atlantic Offshore disagreed with our proposal to link open and public process. Lobstermen’s Association, the New Jonah crab harvest to the lobster permit In sum, the administrative and England Fishery Management Council, structure. Instead, the commenter enforcement efficiencies, as well as the and one member of the public proposed establishing a targeted Jonah biological benefits (to crabs, lobsters, supported the prohibition on the crab permit to allow targeted harvesters and whales) weighed against the retention of egg-bearing female Jonah to land an unlimited amount of crabs negative time and resources impacts and crabs. Both harvesters supported and 100 lobster per day as bycatch, ineffectiveness caused by creating an prohibiting the retention of all female arguing that the Jonah crab fishery has inconsistent Federal Jonah crab-only Jonah crabs, with one identifying egg- ‘‘emerged as its own fishery separate fishery that would potentially benefit bearing female Jonah crabs as needing from lobster.’’ only one individual, all provide the specific protections. Response: The best available basis for our linking the fisheries. Response: We agree with the information suggests that the Jonah crab Comment 8: The Atlantic Offshore associations and one member of the fishery is not separate from the lobster Lobstermen’s Association, Cape Cod public that the approved broodstock fishery. Landings data available during Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance, and protection measures will provide the development of the Jonah Crab Plan one industry member supported the protections for the Jonah crab fishery, indicated that between approximately proposed minimum size. The other consistent with the Atlantic Coastal 91–99 percent of Cancer crabs (both industry member supported a 5-inch Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Jonah crabs and rock crabs) were (12.7-cm) minimum size. and the Commission’s recommendations harvested from lobster permit holder in Response: We agree with the in the Jonah Crab Plan. When their trap gear. Data further suggests that commenters and are approving a 43⁄4- developing the Jonah Crab Plan, the the fishery began as unintentional catch; inch (12.065-cm) minimum carapace Lobster Board considered protections

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61575

for egg bearing female crabs and all and one member of the public Association in the development and female crabs as management supported the proposed dealer approval of these measures. Staff alternatives. Both alternatives help requirements. involved in the management of ensure that eggs are given the Response: We agree. Mandatory American lobster and Jonah crab opportunity to hatch and add to the dealer reporting in the will provide reviewed the existing lobster regulation population and similar measures have much needed fishery information. Such found at 50 CFR part 697 for any needed been successfully used in the lobster information will inform future science revisions based on this rulemaking. fishery, under the Interstate Fishery and management of this species. Several changes to the lobster-specific Management Plan for American Lobster. Comment 12: The Cape Cod regulations were proposed and are Ultimately, the Commission selected to Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance implemented by this final rule. No prohibit the possession of egg-bearing supported ‘‘measures to expand additional changes are necessary to 50 female crabs. The Jonah Crab Plan and research in the fishery to fill gaps in CFR part 697, as these measures are the EIS both note that the vast majority knowledge,’’ noting that such research solely derived from Commission of female crabs (96–98 percent) are could help refine management measures recommendations based on measures in smaller than the minimum size. As and encouraged that a stock assessment the Interstate Fishery Management Plan such, approving only a prohibition on be conducted as soon as possible to for American Lobster, and further egg-bearing female Jonah crabs is more ‘‘ensure that overfishing is not likely to clarification is not necessary. targeted to the Commission’s objective occur in this burgeoning fishery, Comment 14: The group of of giving eggs the opportunity to hatch allowing it to thrive for generations.’’ environmental advocacy organizations and contribute to the overall crab Response: We agree that additional supported the proposed management population. Most states had already data and research is needed on this measures and recommended the implemented regulations to prohibit data-poor species. Mandatory dealer following additional requirements: possession of egg-bearing female crabs reporting in the immediate future and 1. A 100-percent catch reporting by June 1, 2016. mandatory harvester reporting through a requirement at the trip-level for all While both broodstock protection separate, future action should provide limited-access American lobster permit alternatives are reasonable, approving much needed fishery information. Such holders; measures that are inconsistent with information will feed into a future stock 2. A lost gear reporting requirement; what the states have already assessment, which the Commission 3. A requirement to report all data promulgated would create a significant identified as a high priority need in the including fishing location by 10-minute inconsistency between state and Federal Jonah Crab Plan. The Plan already squares (10nm x 10nm) or a finer spatial regulations for this species. Due to the requires jurisdictions to collect the scale if available; potential negative effects associated following information from port/sea 4. A requirement to report all data with inconsistencies, we have approved sampling: Carapace width, sex, discard electronically; a prohibition on the retention of egg- information, egg-bearing status, cull 5. A requirement for electronic vessel bearing female Jonah crabs, consistent status, shell hardness, and whether the monitoring; and with Commission recommendations and landings are whole crabs or parts. 6. A requirement to mark gear by state requirements. Together, this fishery dependent and fishery and statistical area fished on at Comment 10: The New England independent data will be useful to least every 40 feet (12.2 m) of line. Council and one member of the public measure the effectiveness of In addition, the Atlantic Offshore supported the incidental catch limit. management measures, including the Lobstermen’s Association supported the Response: We agree. The Commission minimum size and to monitor the claw- expeditious approval of 100-percent spent several meetings establishing the only fishery in states where it is Jonah crab and lobster harvester incidental catch limit in the original allowed. These data will inform a future reporting. Similarly, the Cape Cod Jonah Crab Plan and then perfected it in stock assessment. In the interim, the Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance noted Addendum I. Ultimately, the Plan requires that the Lobster Board that additional reporting requirements, Commission approved a new, expanded conduct an annual review of including harvester reporting and vessel limit of up to 1,000 crabs per trip for management measures, state data monitoring systems/electronic tracking both non-trap gear and non-lobster trap collections, and research needs, which would improve data collection and be gear as part of Addendum I. The helps to bridge the gap until a stock consistent with other fisheries. Commission expected that this revised assessment is scheduled. Response: We agree. NMFS intends to limit would be more consistent with the Additional research will be critical to propose joint Jonah crab/American maximum incidental catch that existed answering some of the larger questions lobster harvester reporting requirements in 2015 prior to developing the Jonah about this species. The Plan specifies in a rulemaking based upon Addendum Crab Plan while preventing future biological, habitat, and economic XXVI to the American Lobster Plan/ expansion of the incidental fishery into research needs, which partner states Addendum III to the Jonah Crab Plan. a larger or more targeted fishery. Our have begun to address with and without Harvester reporting was not added to catch data corroborated the research permits. We encourage this action for several reasons. First, Commission’s basis for revising the additional research on this species and substantial development of this Jonah- incidental catch limit as only 3 trips will consider exemptions to lobster and crab specific action had already taken between 2010 and 2014 landed more Jonah crab regulations to facilitate place. Second, adding Jonah crab- than 900 lb (408.2 kg). A Federal future research. specific reporting requirements would incidental catch of up to 1,000 crabs Comment 13: The Atlantic Offshore be a de-facto reporting requirement for provides consistency between Federal Lobstermen’s Association noted, ‘‘it may the lobster industry which would have and state regulations, thereby avoiding be appropriate to modify the language in expanded the scope of this action. negative impacts associated with [F]ederal code 50 CFR 697 to specify Third, a lobster-specific rulemaking was inconsistency, as outlined in the that those measures apply to both in development at a stage where lobster response to Comment 8. lobster and Jonah crab fisheries.’’ reporting could be easily considered. To Comment 11: The Council, the Cape Response: We appreciate the that end, we published an advance Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance, collaboration with and support of the notice of proposed rulemaking on June

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61576 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

14, 2018 (83 FR 27747), announcing our coverage for the Jonah crab fishery. The prepared for this action, and the intent to consider expanded lobster and agency has re-initiated Section 7 responses to public comments included Jonah crab harvester reporting consultation on the lobster fishery, in this final rule. A copy of this analysis requirements and expect publication of which will necessarily include analysis is available from NMFS (see a proposed rule later in 2019, with of the Jonah crab fishery. ADDRESSES). implementation targeted for 2020. We agree that additional data Changes From the Proposed Rule A Summary of the Significant Issues elements will aid in the future Minor corrections to improve Raised by the Public in Response to the management of the lobster fishery and technical accuracy and clarity of the IRFA, a Summary of the Agency’s in assessing impacts to protected regulatory text were made between Assessment of Such Issues, and a species. To that end, we have proposed and final rules. Statement of Any Changes Made in the Final Rule as a Result of Such committed to a multi-year overhaul of Classification our fishery reporting systems which will Comments include an increase in electronic The Administrator, Greater Atlantic No public comments were received reporting, more intuitive forms, and Region, NMFS, determined that this pertaining directly to the economic additional data fields that may be final rule is necessary for the effects of this rule. conservation and management of the pertinent to specific fisheries or gear Description and Estimate of the Number types. We look forward to engaging with Jonah crab fishery and that it is consistent with the Atlantic Coastal of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will all of our partners on this effort. Apply Comment 15: The group of Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, environmental advocacy organizations applicable provisions of the Magnuson- The action will implement regulations stated, ‘‘NMFS must ensure that the Stevens Fishery Conservation and affecting commercial fishing activities ASMFC’s Interstate Fishery Management Act, and other applicable (North American Industry Classification Management Plan for the Jonah crab laws. System (NAICS) code 11411), seafood fishery complies with the statutory and NMFS prepared a final EIS for this dealers (NAICS code 424460), and regulatory requirements of both the action. The final EIS was filed with the operators of party/charter businesses Endangered Species Act and the Marine Environmental Protection Agency on (NAICS code 487210). Because each of Mammal Protection Act.’’ The letter June 4, 2019. A notice of availability these activities has their own size further noted that ‘‘the existing was published on June 14, 2019 (84 FR standard under the RFA, consideration Biological Opinion for the American 27777). NMFS issued a Record of of the number of regulated entities and lobster fishery is inadequate. . . Decision (ROD) identifying the selected the potential economic impacts of the therefore any new fishing authorized by alternatives. A copy of the ROD is action for each NAICS code is discussed the existing limited-access American available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). below. lobster permit would be inherently This final rule has been determined to For RFA purposes only, NMFS has unlawful until the new consultation is be not significant for purposes of established a small business size completed.’’ Finally, the letter stated Executive Order 12866. standard for businesses, including their ‘‘until fishing gear that does not include This final rule does not contain affiliates, whose primary industry is an unattended endline/buoyline is policies with federalism implications as commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). commercially available and legally defined in E.O. 13132. NMFS has A business primarily engaged in required, NMFS must take every consulted with the states in the creation commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) reasonable step to decrease the number of the Jonah Crab Plan, which makes is classified as a small business if it is of vertical lines in the water when North recommendations for Federal action. independently owned and operated, is Atlantic right whales are present.’’ The approved measures are based upon not dominant in its field of operation Response: The comment contains the Jonah Crab Plan and its addenda, (including its affiliates), and has legal argument that is the subject of which were created by the Commission, combined annual receipts not in excess ongoing litigation and is beyond the and, as such, were created by, and are of $11 million for all its affiliated scope of detailed response in this overseen by, the states. These measures operations worldwide. The document. We note, however, that this are already in place at the state level. determination as to whether the entity action restricts the Jonah crab fishery Additionally, these measures would not is large or small is based on the average and its gear. Previously unregulated, the preempt state law and would not annual revenue for the three years from Jonah crab fishery will now be regulated regulate the states. 2014 through 2016. as part of the lobster fishery because the The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), Section 3 of the Small Business Act fisheries coincide and are both 5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires agencies to defines the term ‘‘affiliation’’ in its prosecuted using the same lobster trap assess the economic impacts of their regulations. According to these gear. The lobster fishery which is proposed regulations on small entities. regulations, affiliation may arise among managed pursuant to the ASMFC’s The objective of the RFA is to consider two or more persons with an identity of Interstate Lobster Fishery Management the impacts of a rulemaking on small interest. Individuals or firms that have Plan, is undergoing endline/buoyline entities, and the capacity of those identical or substantially identical analysis and restriction as part of the affected by regulations to bear the direct business or economic interests (such as Large Whale Take Reduction Team and indirect costs of regulation. A final family members, individuals or firms Process and Endangered Species Act regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) with common investments, or firms that Section 7 consultation reinitiation. was prepared, as required by section are economically dependent through Because the lobster and Jonah crab 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act contractual or other relationships) may fisheries coincide and overlap, the 2014 (RFA). The FRFA consists of the Initial be treated as one party with such Biological Opinion for the American Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), interests aggregated (13 CFR 121.103(f)). lobster fishery analyzed the effect of this the relevant portions of the proposed We applied the Small Business mixed lobster and Jonah crab fishery on rule describing the proposed Administration’s definition of affiliation endangered species and provides management measures, the to NMFS’s 2016 vessel ownership data Endangered Species Act Section 7 corresponding analysis in the EIS to determine the number of affiliated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61577

regulated entities that were associated designated trap only, and 140 entities is less than the number of with at least one limited access lobster designated both a trap and a non-trap permitted vessels because a small permit. During 2016, there were 2,377 gear. Table 8 summarizes the number of number affiliated ownership groups limited access lobster permits included large and small entities after the own more than one permit. in the ownership database, of which 640 principals of affiliation were applied. designated non-trap only, 1,597 Note that the number of regulated

TABLE 3—SUMMARY, BY ENTITY SIZE, OF AVERAGE GROSS SALES, NUMBER OF REGULATED ENTITIES, AND LOBSTER SALES

Mean lobster Number of Mean gross sales and entities ($1,000’s) Jonah crab sales ($1,000’s)

Large Entities ...... 8 21,562 Non-Participating Large Entities ...... 4 21,729 Participating Large Entities ...... 4 21,395 6,984 Small Entities ...... 2,018 387 Non-Participating Small Entities ...... 609 564 Participating Small Entities ...... 1,409 311 220

Dealer data are the primary source of number of affected participating lobster representative of the fleet of limited data used to estimate gross receipts for trap gear entities. As previously noted, access lobster trap permit holders. purposes of size class determination. a significant number of vessel owners The number of permitted limited Although dealer data are the best possess only a limited access lobster access trap vessels that reported one or available source of revenues earned permit and are not subject to mandatory more lobster trap trips from 2014–2016 from commercial fishing, it generally reporting. Despite this, the analysis, ranged from 400 in 2014 to 412 in 2016. lacks gear information, which is needed which is based on vessel owners that do None of these vessels relied exclusively to estimate the number of affected trap possess at least one other permit for on Jonah crab. Percent of trips and gear entities. For this reason, vessel trip which VTRs are mandatory, is vessels landing lobster-only, Jonah crab- reports (VTRs) are used to estimate the only, or both is summarized in Table 4.

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF LOBSTER TRAP EFFORT AND NUMBER OF AFFECTED ENTITIES

2014 2015 2016

Trips: Percent

Lobster Only Effort ...... 86.7 87.7 87.1 Jonah Crab Only Effort ...... 0.5 0.4 0.4 Lobster and Jonah Crab Effort ...... 12.8 11.9 12.5

Vessels: Count

Lobster Only Effort ...... 252 251 258 Jonah Crab Only Effort ...... 0 0 0 Lobster and Jonah Crab Effort ...... 148 160 154

As previously noted, the ownership Crab Plan indicated only three trips harvesters and dealers. An assumption data used to determine the number of would have exceeded the proposed trip that a crab weighs one lb (0.45 kg) was affected entities is based on aggregated limit. Table 6 summarizes the number of used; however, this assumption may be dealer data. Because the action will limited access lobster non-trap permit an underestimate given that the market affect limited access lobster non-trap holders, trips, trips landings Jonah favors larger crabs. The median value of permits, we used VTR data to determine crabs, and trips exceeding the approved this distribution ranged from a high of the number of participating vessels that limit. While the incidental limit is 1,175 lb (533 kg) in 2014 to a low of will be affected by the action. Analysis defined in number of crabs, this analysis 1,046 lb (474 kg) in 2015. of data from 2010 through 2014 relies on lb landed, as weight of catch presented in Addendum I to the Jonah and counts of crabs is reported by

TABLE 5—AFFECTED REGULATED NON-TRAP PERMITS

2014 2015 2016

Number of Reporting Permits ...... 647 659 660 Number of Affected Permits ...... 11 15 12 Number of trips ...... 30,865 31,192 33,891 Trips Landing Jonah Crab ...... 502 608 413 Jonah Crab Above Limit ...... 115 180 139

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61578 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

Under existing regulations for other 803 dealer establishments in Greater in both Delaware and New Jersey, but regulated species, NMFS requires a Atlantic Region states that employed the number of CBP establishments was Federal dealer permit for the purchase 8,118 people. A summary of Federal substantially higher than the number of of seafood from a federally permitted permits, CBP establishments, CBP Federal permits in all other states in the commercial vessel. NMFS regulations employment, and establishment by size Mid-Atlantic region. This disparity can also require that dealers report all class, by state, is provided in Table 7. arise for two reasons: (1) Not all dealers purchases of fish and/or shellfish from Of note, for Maine, New Hampshire, are active; and (2) CBP data classifies any vessel, including state-waters-only Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, the multi-activity establishments into only vessels. This means that any dealer CBP number of establishments ranged one NAICS code. Available data suggest issued a Federal dealer permit will be from 52 percent to 66 percent lower that the seafood dealer sector is regulated under the action. During 2015, than the number of Federal permits dominated by businesses that are there were 750 Federal dealer permits issued to dealers in those states. By considered small entities for purposes of issued to dealers in Greater Atlantic contrast, the number of establishments region states. According to 2015 County in the CBP data was approximately the RFA. Business Patterns (CBP) data, there were equal to the number of Federal permits TABLE 6—NUMBER OF REGULATED SEAFOOD DEALERS AND EMPLOYMENT SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR 2015

CBP number of establishments by employment size class State Federal CBP CBP permits establishments employment 1–4 5–9 10–19 20–49 50–99 100–249 250–499

ME ...... 221 146 1,123 89 28 13 13 2 1 0 NH ...... 17 9 108 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 MA ...... 204 129 1,808 57 26 17 20 7 2 0 RI ...... 51 28 182 13 7 8 0 0 0 0 CT ...... 12 20 211 9 2 5 4 0 0 0 NY ...... 100 275 2,056 178 38 31 23 4 1 0 NJ ...... 85 78 784 43 10 15 7 2 1 0 DE ...... 6 6 54 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 NC ...... 42 59 1,187 27 10 10 8 3 0 1

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other protections, etc.) can be expected to This final rule contains a collection- Compliance Requirements have a limited economic impact on of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), This action contains several new permit holders, because existing market which the Office of Management and reporting and recordkeeping preferences encompass these measures. Budget (OMB) approved under the OMB requirements that will involve costs to That is, long before the existence of any control numbers listed below. Public dealers intending to land or purchase minimum size restrictions, harvesters reporting burden for these collections of Jonah crabs, however, these costs are threw back small crabs because dealers information, including the time for expected to be limited. Dealers wishing would not buy them. These smaller reviewing instructions, searching to purchase Jonah crabs will be required crabs were already protected from existing data sources, gathering and to obtain a Jonah crab designation on harvest due to market forces, and under maintaining the data needed, and their dealer permit and report their the changes in this rule, these smaller completing and reviewing the collection purchases weekly, as required for other crabs would be protected for of information, are estimated to average, federally managed species. These conservation purposes. As such, there as follows: approved measures will impose new will be limited economic impact on the compliance requirements; however, the fishing industry from establishing the 1. Initial Federal dealer permit measures are already in place for states recommended minimum size. application, OMB# 0648–0202, (15 and are, by design, intended to be Furthermore, because the Jonah crab minutes/response); and consistent with past fishing practices fishery has largely been prosecuted by 2. Dealer report of landings by and market requirements, thereby lobster trap harvesters, the Jonah crab species, OMB# 0648–0229, (4 minutes/ limiting costs. fishery remains restricted by effort response). control measures that already exist in Send comments on these or any other Description of the Steps the Agency Has the lobster regulations. Non-trap harvest aspects of the collection of information Taken To Minimize the Significant limits approved in this rule were set in to the Greater Atlantic Regional Economic Impact on Small Entities a manner to ensure that the vast Fisheries Office at the ADDRESSES above, Consistent With the Stated Objectives of majority of past trips would be and email to OIRA_Submission@ Applicable Statutes accounted for under the approved limit. omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395–5806. This action imposes minimal impacts Because the measures in this final rule Notwithstanding any other provision of on small entities. Due to the expected are consistent with Commission the law, no person is required to high rate of dual permitting and the fact recommendations, current state respond to, and no person shall be that the states are already compliant regulations, and existing lobster fishery subject to penalty for failure to comply with these measures, the majority of requirements, this final rule minimizes with, a collection of information subject Federal vessels are already abiding by the economic impact on small entities. to the requirements of the PRA, unless these requirements, and therefore will Further, if we had approved alternate that collection of information displays a not be impacted by the measures in this measures, this would likely create currently valid OMB control number. proposed rule. For those vessels not inconsistencies and regulatory List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 697 dually permitted, several approved disconnects with the states, and, measures that regulate the harvest of therefore, would likely worsen potential Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and Jonah crabs (minimum size, broodstock economic impacts. recordkeeping requirements.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61579

Dated: November 5, 2019. commercial dive vessels that possess 6 electronic reporting mechanisms Samuel D. Rauch III, or fewer American lobsters per person approved by NMFS, unless otherwise Deputy Assistant Administrator for or 50 Jonah crab per person aboard the directed by the Regional Administrator. Regulatory Programs, National Marine vessel if such lobsters or crabs are not The following information, and any Fisheries Service. intended for, nor used, in trade, barter other information required by the For the reasons set out in the or sale; recreational fishing vessels; and Regional Administrator, must be preamble, 50 CFR part 697 is amended vessels that fish exclusively in state provided in each report: as follows: waters for American lobster or Jonah (i) Required information. All dealers crab. issued a Federal lobster or Jonah crab PART 697—ATLANTIC COASTAL * * * * * dealer permit under this part must FISHERIES COOPERATIVE ■ 4. In § 697.5, revise paragraph (a) to provide the following information, as MANAGEMENT read as follows: well as any additional information as applicable under § 648.7(a)(1)(i) of this ■ 1. The authority citation for part 697 § 697.5 Operator permits. chapter: Dealer name; dealer permit continues to read as follows: (a) General. Any operator of a vessel number; name and permit number or Authority: 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. issued a Federal limited access name and hull number (USCG ■ 2. In § 697.2(a): American lobster permit under documentation number or state ■ a. Remove the definition for ‘‘Berried § 697.4(a), or any operator of a vessel of registration number, whichever is female;’’ the United States that fishes for, applicable) of vessel(s) from which fish ■ b. Add definitions for ‘‘Berried female possesses, or lands American lobsters or are transferred, purchased or received Jonah crab’’ and ‘‘Berried female Jonah crabs, harvested in or from the for a commercial purpose; trip identifier lobster’’ in alphabetical order; EEZ must have been issued and carry on for each trip from which fish are ■ c. Remove the definition for board a valid operator’s permit issued purchased or received from a ‘‘Carapace length;’’ and under this section. The requirement in commercial fishing vessel permitted ■ d. Add definitions for ‘‘Jonah crab,’’ this paragraph (a) does not apply to: under part 648 of this chapter with a ‘‘Jonah crab carapace width,’’ and Charter, head, and commercial dive mandatory vessel trip reporting ‘‘Lobster carapace length’’ in vessels that possess six or fewer requirement; date(s) of purchases and alphabetical order. American lobsters per person aboard the receipts; units of measure and amount The additions read as follows: vessel if said lobsters are not intended by species (by market category, if for nor used in trade, barter or sale; applicable); price per unit by species (by § 697.2 Definitions. recreational fishing vessels; and vessels market category, if applicable) or total (a) * * * that fish exclusively in state waters for value by species (by market category, if Berried female Jonah crab means a American lobster. applicable); port landed; cage tag female Jonah crab bearing eggs attached * * * * * numbers for surfclams and ocean to the abdomen. ■ quahogs, if applicable; disposition of the Berried female lobster means a female 5. In § 697.6, revise paragraphs (a), (n)(1) introductory text, (n)(1)(i), seafood product; and any other American lobster bearing eggs attached information deemed necessary by the to the abdominal appendages. (n)(1)(ii)(B), (n)(2), and (s) to read as follows: Regional Administrator. If no fish are * * * * * purchased or received during a Jonah crab means Cancer borealis. § 697.6 Dealer permits. reporting week, a report so stating must Jonah crab carapace width is the (a) General. Any person who receives, be submitted. straight line measurement across the for a commercial purpose (other than (ii) * * * widest part of the shell including the solely for transport on land), American (B) When purchasing or receiving fish tips of the posterior-most, longest spines lobster or Jonah crabs from the owner or from a vessel landing in a port located along the lateral margins of the operator of a vessel issued a valid outside of the Northeast Region (Maine, carapace. permit under this part, or any person New Hampshire, Massachusetts, * * * * * who receives, for a commercial purpose Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Lobster carapace length is the straight (other than solely for transport on land), New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, line measurement from the rear of the American lobster or Jonah crabs, Delaware, Virginia and North Carolina), eye socket parallel to the center line of managed by this part, must have been only purchases or receipts of species the carapace to the posterior edge of the issued, and have in his/her possession, managed by the Northeast Region under carapace. The carapace is the a valid permit issued under this section. this part (American lobster or Jonah unsegmented body shell of the * * * * * crab), and part 648 of this chapter, must American lobster. (n) Lobster and Jonah crab dealer be reported. Other reporting * * * * * recordkeeping and reporting requirements may apply to those species ■ 3. In § 697.4, revise paragraph (a) requirements—(1) Detailed report. All not managed by the Greater Atlantic introductory text to read as follows: federally-permitted lobster dealers and Region, which are not affected by this Jonah crab dealers, and any person paragraph (n); and § 697.4 Vessel permits and trap tags. acting in the capacity of a dealer, must * * * * * (a) Limited access American lobster submit to the Regional Administrator or (2) System requirements. All persons permit. Any vessel of the United States to the official designee a detailed report required to submit reports under that fishes for, possesses, or lands of all fish purchased or received for a paragraph (n)(1) of this section are American lobster or Jonah crab in or commercial purpose, other than solely required to have the capability to harvested from the EEZ must have been for transport on land, within the time transmit data via the internet. To ensure issued and carry on board a valid periods specified in paragraph (q) of this compatibility with the reporting system Federal limited access lobster permit. section, or as specified in § 648.7(a)(1)(f) and database, dealers are required to The requirement in this paragraph (a) of this chapter, whichever is most utilize a personal computer, in working does not apply to: Charter, head, and restrictive, by one of the available condition, that meets the minimum

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61580 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

specifications identified by NMFS. New State of Maine American lobster permit (C) The Jonah crabs were harvested by dealers will be notified of the minimum or license and fishing under the a charter boat, head boat, or commercial specifications via letter during the provisions of and under the areas dive vessel that possesses 50 or fewer permitting process. designated in § 697.24 to do any of the Jonah crabs per person on board the * * * * * following: vessel (including captain and crew) and (s) Additional dealer reporting (i) Retain on board, land, or possess the Jonah crabs are not intended to be, requirements. All persons issued a at or after landing, Jonah crabs that fail or are not, traded, bartered, or sold; or lobster dealer permit or a Jonah crab to meet the minimum Jonah crab (D) The Jonah crabs were harvested dealer permit under this part are subject carapace width standard specified in for recreational purposes by a to the reporting requirements set forth § 697.20(h)(1). All Jonah crabs will be recreational fishing vessel; or in paragraph (n) of this section, as well subject to inspection and enforcement (E) The Jonah crabs were harvested by as §§ 648.6 and 648.7 of this chapter, action, up to and including the time a vessel or person holding a valid State whichever is most restrictive. when a dealer receives or possesses of Maine American lobster permit or license and is fishing under the ■ 6. In § 697.7, revise paragraphs Jonah crabs for a commercial purpose. (ii) Retain on board, land, or possess provisions of and in the areas (c)(1)(i), (iii), (iv), and (xxix) and add designated in § 697.24. paragraph (h) to read as follows: any berried female Jonah crabs specified in § 697.20(h)(2). (ii) Sell, barter, or trade, or otherwise § 697.7 Prohibitions. (iii) Remove eggs from any berried transfer, or attempt to sell, barter, or trade, or otherwise transfer, for a * * * * * female Jonah crab, land, or possess any (c) * * * such Jonah crab from which eggs have commercial purpose, any Jonah crabs (1) * * * been removed. No person owning or from a vessel, unless the vessel has been (i) Retain on board, land, or possess operating a vessel issued a Federal issued a valid Federal limited access at or after landing, whole American limited access American lobster permit American lobster permit under § 697.4, lobsters that fail to meet the minimum under § 697.4 or a vessel or person or the Jonah crabs were harvested by a lobster carapace length standard holding a State of Maine American vessel without a valid Federal limited specified in § 697.20(a). All American lobster permit or license and fishing access American lobster permit that lobsters will be subject to inspection under the provisions of and under the fishes for Jonah crabs exclusively in and enforcement action, up to and areas designated in § 697.24 may land or state waters or unless the vessel or including the time when a dealer possess any Jonah crab that has come in person holds a valid State of Maine receives or possesses American lobsters contact with any substance capable of American lobster permit or license and for a commercial purpose. removing crab eggs. that is fishing under the provisions of and in the areas designated in § 697.24. * * * * * (iv) Sell, transfer, or barter or attempt to sell, transfer, or barter to a dealer any (iii) To be, or act as, an operator of a (iii) Retain on board, land, or possess vessel fishing for or possessing Jonah any berried female lobster specified in Jonah crabs, unless the dealer has a valid Federal Dealer’s Permit issued crabs in or from the EEZ, or issued a § 697.20(d). Federal limited access American lobster (iv) Remove eggs from any berried under § 697.6. permit under § 697.4, without having female lobster, land, or possess any such (v) Fish for, take, catch, or harvest been issued and possessing a valid lobster from which eggs have been Jonah crabs on a fishing trip in or from operator’s permit under § 697.5. removed. No person owning or the EEZ by a method other than traps, in excess of up to 1,000 crabs per trip, (iv) Purchase, possess, or receive for operating a vessel issued a Federal a commercial purpose, or attempt to limited access American lobster permit unless otherwise restricted by paragraph (h)(2)(i)(C) of this section. purchase, possess, or receive for a under § 697.4 or a vessel or person commercial purpose, as, or in the holding a State of Maine American (vi) Possess, retain on board, or land Jonah crabs by a vessel with any non- capacity of, a dealer, Jonah crabs taken lobster permit or license and fishing from or harvested by a fishing vessel under the provisions of and under the trap gear on board capable of catching Jonah crabs, in excess of up to 1,000 issued a Federal limited access areas designated in § 697.24 may land or American lobster permit, unless in possess any lobster that has come in crabs per trip, unless otherwise restricted by paragraph (h)(2)(i)(C) of possession of a valid dealer’s permit contact with any substance capable of issued under § 697.6. removing lobster eggs. this section. (vii) Transfer or attempt to transfer (v) Purchase, possess, or receive for * * * * * Jonah crabs from one vessel to another commercial purposes, or attempt to (xxix) Retain on board, land, or vessel. purchase or receive for commercial possess at or after landing, whole (2) In addition to the prohibitions purposes, as, or in the capacity of, a American lobsters that exceed the specified in § 600.725 of this chapter dealer, Jonah crabs caught by a vessel maximum lobster carapace length and the prohibitions specified in other than one issued a valid Federal standard specified in § 697.20(b). All paragraph (h)(1) of this section, it is limited access American lobster permit American lobsters will be subject to unlawful for any person to do any of the under § 697.4, or one holding or owned inspection and enforcement action, up following: or operated by one holding a valid State to and including the time when a dealer (i) Retain on board, land, or possess of Maine American lobster permit or receives or possesses American lobsters Jonah crabs unless: license and fishing under the provisions for a commercial purpose. (A) The Jonah crabs were harvested by of and in the areas designated in * * * * * a vessel that has been issued and carries § 697.24, unless the Jonah crabs were (h) Jonah crab. (1) In addition to the on board a valid Federal limited access harvested by a vessel without a Federal prohibitions specified in § 600.725 of American lobster permit under § 697.4; limited access American lobster permit this chapter, it is unlawful for any or and that fishes for Jonah crabs person owning or operating a vessel (B) The Jonah crabs were harvested in exclusively in state waters. issued a Federal limited access state waters by a vessel without a valid (vi) Make any false statement, oral or American lobster permit under § 697.4 Federal limited access American lobster written, to an authorized officer, or a vessel or person holding a valid permit; or concerning the taking, catching,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61581

harvesting, landing, purchase, sale, or lobster permit. A preponderance of all for each trip, unless otherwise restricted transfer of any Jonah crabs. submitted evidence that such Jonah by § 697.7. (vii) Violate any provision of this part, crabs were harvested by a vessel (e) Restrictions on fishing for, the ACFCMA, the Magnuson-Stevens without a Federal limited access possessing, or landing fish other than Act, or any regulation, permit, or American lobster permit and fishing Jonah crabs. Vessels are prohibited from notification issued under this part, the exclusively for Jonah crabs in state or possessing or landing Jonah crabs in ACFCMA, or the Magnuson-Stevens foreign waters will be sufficient to rebut excess of 50 percent, by weight, of all Act. this presumption. other species on board. (viii) Retain on board, land, or possess (ii) The possession of egg-bearing (f) Trap prohibition for non-trap any Jonah crabs harvested in or from the female Jonah crabs in violation of the Jonah crab harvesters. All persons that EEZ in violation of § 697.20. requirements set forth in § 697.20(h)(1) fish for, take, catch, or harvest Jonah (ix) Ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, or Jonah crabs that are smaller than the crabs on a fishing trip in or from the or purchase, in interstate or foreign minimum sizes set forth in EEZ are prohibited from transferring or commerce, any whole live Jonah crabs § 697.20(h)(2), will be prima facie attempting to transfer Jonah crabs from in violation of § 697.20. evidence that such Jonah crabs were one vessel to another vessel. (x) Violate any terms of a letter taken or imported in violation of these ■ 8. In § 697.20, revise paragraph (a), authorizing exempted fishing pursuant regulations. A preponderance of all (b), and (d), and add paragraph (h) to to § 697.22 or to fail to keep such letter submitted evidence that such Jonah read as follows: aboard the vessel during the time period crabs were harvested by a vessel not of the exempted fishing. holding a permit under this part and § 697.20 Size, harvesting and landing (xi) Possess, deploy, fish with, haul, fishing exclusively within state or requirements. harvest Jonah crabs from, or carry foreign waters will be sufficient to rebut (a) Minimum lobster carapace length. aboard a vessel any lobster trap gear on the presumption. (1) The minimum lobster carapace a fishing trip in the EEZ on a vessel that ■ 7. Section 697.17 is revised to read as length for all American lobsters fishes for, takes, catches, or harvests follows: harvested in or from the EEZ Nearshore Jonah crabs by a method other than Management Area 1 or the EEZ lobster traps. § 697.17 Non-trap harvest restrictions. Nearshore Management Area 6 is 31⁄4 (xii) Fish for, take, catch, or harvest (a) Non-trap lobster landing limits. In inches (8.26 cm). Jonah crabs on a fishing trip in the EEZ addition to the prohibitions set forth in (2) The minimum lobster carapace by a method other than traps, in excess § 600.725 of this chapter, it is unlawful length for all American lobsters landed, of up to 1,000 crabs per trip, unless for a vessel with any non-trap gear on harvested, or possessed by vessels otherwise restricted by paragraph board capable of catching lobsters, or, issued a Federal limited access (h)(2)(i)(C) of this section. that fishes for, takes, catches, or harvests (xiii) Possess, retain on board, or land lobster on a fishing trip in or from the American lobster permit fishing in or Jonah crabs by a vessel with any non- EEZ by a method other than traps, to electing to fish in the Nearshore possess, retain on board, or land, in Management Area 1 or the EEZ trap gear on board capable of catching 1 lobsters, in excess of up to 1,000 crabs excess of 100 lobsters (or parts thereof), Nearshore Management Area 6 is 3 3 ⁄4 per trip, unless otherwise restricted by for each lobster day-at-sea or part of a inches (8.26 cm). paragraph (h)(2)(i)(C) of this section. lobster day-at-sea, up to a maximum of (3) The minimum lobster carapace (xiv) Transfer or attempt to transfer 500 lobsters (or parts thereof) for any length for all American lobsters Jonah crabs from one vessel to another one trip, unless otherwise restricted by harvested in or from the EEZ Nearshore vessel. § 648.80(a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(i)(A), (a)(8)(i), Management Area 2, 4, 5 and the Outer 3 (xv) Fail to comply with dealer record (a)(9)(i)(D), (a)(12)(i)(A), (a)(13)(i)(A), or Cape Lobster Management Area is 3 ⁄8 keeping and reporting requirements as (b)(3)(ii) of this chapter or inches (8.57 cm). specified in § 697.6. § 697.7(c)(2)(i)(C). (4) The minimum lobster carapace (3) Any person possessing, or landing (b) Trap prohibition for non-trap length for all American lobsters landed, Jonah crabs at or prior to the time when lobster harvesters. All persons that fish harvested or possessed by vessels issued those Jonah crabs are landed, or are for, take, catch, or harvest lobsters on a a Federal limited access American received or possessed by a dealer for the fishing trip in or from the EEZ are lobster permit fishing in or electing to first time, is subject to all of the prohibited from transferring or fish in EEZ Nearshore Management Area prohibitions specified in paragraph (g) attempting to transfer American lobster 2, 4, 5 and the Outer Cape Lobster of this section, unless the Jonah crabs from one vessel to another vessel. Management Area is 33⁄8 inches (8.57 were harvested by a vessel without a (c) Trap prohibition for non-trap cm). Federal limited access American lobster lobster vessels. Any vessel on a fishing (5) Through April 30, 2015, the permit and that fishes for Jonah crabs trip in the EEZ that fishes for, takes, minimum lobster carapace length for all exclusively in state waters; or are from catches, or harvests lobster by a method American lobsters harvested in or from a charter, head, or commercial dive other than traps may not possess on the Offshore Management Area 3 is 31⁄2 vessel that possesses or possessed 50 or board, deploy, fish with, or haul back inches (8.89 cm). fewer Jonah crabs per person aboard the traps. (6) Through April 30, 2015, the vessel and the Jonah crabs are not (d) Non-trap Jonah crab landing minimum lobster carapace length for all intended for sale, trade, or barter; or are limits. In addition to the prohibitions set American lobsters landed, harvested or from a recreational fishing vessel. forth in § 600.725 of this chapter, it is possessed by vessels issued a Federal (i) Jonah crabs that are possessed, or unlawful for a vessel with any non-trap limited access American lobster permit landed at or prior to the time when the gear on board that fishes for, takes, fishing in or electing to fish in EEZ Jonah crabs are received by a dealer, or catches, or harvests Jonah crabs on a Offshore Management Area 3 is 31⁄2 Jonah crabs that are possessed by a fishing trip in or from the EEZ by a inches (8.89 cm). dealer, are presumed to have been method other than traps, to possess, (7) Effective May 1, 2015, the harvested from the EEZ or by a vessel retain on board, or land, in excess of up minimum lobster carapace length for all with a Federal limited access American to 1,000 Jonah crabs (or parts thereof), American lobsters harvested in or from

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61582 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

the Offshore Management Area 3 is Management Area 3 or the Outer Cape (h) Jonah crabs—(1) Minimum Jonah 317⁄32 inches (8.97 cm). Lobster Management Area is 63⁄4 inches crab carapace width. The minimum (8) Effective May 1, 2015, the (17.15 cm). Jonah crab carapace width for all Jonah minimum lobster carapace length for all (6) The maximum lobster carapace crabs harvested in or from the EEZ 43⁄4 American lobsters landed, harvested, or length for all American lobster landed, inches (12.065 inches). possessed by vessels issued a Federal harvested, or possessed by vessels (2) Berried female Jonah crabs. (i) Any limited access American lobster permit issued a Federal limited access berried female Jonah crab harvested in fishing in or electing to fish in EEZ American lobster permit fishing in or or from the EEZ must be returned to the Offshore Management Area 3 is 317⁄32 electing to fish in EEZ Offshore sea immediately. inches (8.97 cm). Management Area 3 or the Outer Cape (ii) No vessel, or owner, operator or 3 (9) No person may ship, transport, Lobster Management Area is 6 ⁄4 inches person aboard a vessel issued a Federal offer for sale, sell, or purchase, in (17.15 cm). limited access American lobster permit interstate or foreign commerce, any * * * * * may possess any berried female Jonah whole live American lobster that is (d) Berried female lobsters. (1) Any crab. smaller than the minimum size berried female lobster harvested in or (iii) No person may possess, ship, specified in paragraph (a) of this from the EEZ must be returned to the transport, offer for sale, sell, or section. sea immediately. If any berried female purchase, in interstate or foreign (b) Maximum lobster carapace length. lobster is harvested in or from the EEZ commerce, any berried female Jonah (1) The maximum lobster carapace Nearshore Management Areas 1, 2, 4, or crab as specified in paragraph (d) of this length for all American lobster 5, or in or from the EEZ Offshore section. harvested in or from the EEZ Nearshore ° ′ Management Area 3, north of 42 30 (3) Removal of eggs. (i) No person may Management Area 1 is 5 inches (12.7 North latitude, it must be v-notched remove, including, but not limited to, cm). before being returned to sea the forcible removal and removal by (2) The maximum lobster carapace immediately. chemicals or other substances or length for all American lobster landed, (2) Any berried female lobster liquids, extruded eggs attached to the harvested, or possessed by vessels harvested or possessed by a vessel abdominal appendages from any female issued a Federal limited access issued a Federal limited access lobster Jonah crab. American lobster permit fishing in or permit must be returned to the sea electing to fish in the EEZ Nearshore immediately. If any berried female (ii) No owner, operator or person Management Area 1 is 5 inches (12.7 lobster is harvested in or from the EEZ aboard a vessel issued a Federal limited cm). Nearshore Management Areas 1, 2, 4, or access American lobster permit may (3) The maximum lobster carapace 5, or in or from the EEZ Offshore remove, including but not limited to, length for all American lobster Management Area 3, north of 42° 30′ the forcible removal, and removal by harvested in or from the EEZ Nearshore North latitude, it must be v-notched chemicals or other substances or liquids, extruded eggs attached to the Management Areas 2, 4, 5, and 6 is 51⁄4 before being returned to sea inches (13.34 cm). immediately. abdominal appendages from any female (4) The maximum lobster carapace (3) No vessel, or owner, operator or Jonah crab. length for all American lobster landed, person aboard a vessel issued a Federal (iii) No person may possess, ship, harvested, or possessed by vessels limited access American lobster permit transport, offer for sale, sell, or issued a Federal limited access may possess any berried female lobster. purchase, in interstate or foreign American lobster permit fishing in or (4) No person may possess, ship, commerce, any whole live Jonah crab electing to fish in one or more of EEZ transport, offer for sale, sell, or that bears evidence of the removal of Nearshore Management Areas 2, 4, 5, purchase, in interstate or foreign extruded eggs from its abdominal and 6 is 51⁄4 inches (13.34 cm). commerce, any berried female lobster as appendages as specified in paragraph (e) (5) The maximum lobster carapace specified in paragraph (d) of this of this section. length for all American lobster section. [FR Doc. 2019–24429 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] harvested in or from EEZ Offshore * * * * * BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:58 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM 13NOR1 61583

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 219

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER FR Federal Register necessary, to select regulatory contains notices to the public of the proposed NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking approaches that maximize net benefits. issuance of rules and regulations. The § Section Executive Order 13771 directs agencies purpose of these notices is to give interested U.S.C. United States Code to control regulatory costs through a persons an opportunity to participate in the budgeting process. This NPRM has not rule making prior to the adoption of the final II. Background, Purpose, and Legal rules. Basis been designated a ‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under Executive On August 07, 2019, the City of Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM Valdez notified the Coast Guard that it has not been reviewed by the Office of DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND will be conducting a fireworks display SECURITY Management and Budget (OMB), and from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt December 31, 2019, in celebration of the Coast Guard from the requirements of Executive New Year. The fireworks are to be Order 13771. launched from land at Sea Otter Park, 33 CFR Part 165 This regulatory action determination located near the mouth of the Valdez is based on the size, location, duration, [Docket Number USCG–2019–0727] small boat harbor in Valdez, AK. and time-of-day of the safety zone. The RIN 1625–AA00 Hazards from firework displays include Coast Guard’s enforcement of the accidental discharge of fireworks, proposed safety zone will be of short Safety Zone; Port Valdez, Valdez, AK dangerous projectiles, and falling hot duration. Furthermore, vessels may be embers or other debris. The Coast Guard authorized to transit through the AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. proposes to establish a Safety Zone to proposed safety zones with the ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ensure the safety of vessels on the permission of the Captain of the Port navigable waters within a 150 yard Prince William Sound, Alaska. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing radius of the fireworks launch site to establish a temporary safety zone in before, during, and after the scheduled B. Impact on Small Entities the navigable waters, from the surface to event. The Coast Guard is proposing this The Regulatory Flexibility Act of seabed, within a 150 yard radius of the rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, fireworks launching point located at Sea 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).] requires Federal agencies to consider ° ′ ″ Otter Park in position 61 07 22 North the potential impact of regulations on ° ′ ″ III. Discussion of Proposed Rule and 146 21 13 West in the vicinity of small entities during rulemaking. The the mouth of the Small Boat Harbor, The COTP is proposing to establish a term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small Port Valdez, Alaska, to limit access for safety zone from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. businesses, not-for-profit organizations the duration of the New Year’s fireworks on December 31st, 2019. The safety zone that are independently owned and display. The purpose of the safety zone would cover all navigable waters within operated and are not dominant in their is to ensure the safety of mariners and a 150 yard radius of where the fireworks fields, and governmental jurisdictions vessels during the fireworks display. We will be launched at Sea Otter Park for with populations of less than 50,000. invite your comments on this proposed the City of Valdez New Year’s Eve The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. rulemaking. Fireworks Display. The duration of the 605(b) that this proposed rule would not DATES: Comments and related material zone is intended to ensure the safety of have a significant economic impact on must be received by the Coast Guard on vessels and these navigable waters a substantial number of small entities. or before December 13, 2019. before, during, and after the scheduled This proposed rule may affect the ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. fireworks following entities, some of which may identified by docket number USCG– display. No vessel or person would be be small entities: The owners or 2019–0727 using the Federal permitted to enter the safety zone operators of vessels intending to transit, eRulemaking Portal at https:// without obtaining permission from the anchor, or fish in a portion of Port www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public COTP or a designated representative. Valdez in the vicinity of the Small Boat Participation and Request for The regulatory text we are proposing Harbor entrance during the period of Comments’’ portion of the appears at the end of this document. enforcement of the proposed safety SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for zone. IV. Regulatory Analyses This safety zone will not have a further instructions on submitting We developed this proposed rule after significant economic impact on a comments. considering numerous statutes and substantial number of small entities for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If Executive orders related to rulemaking. the following reasons; this rule will be you have questions about this proposed Below we summarize our analyses enforced for a short duration and vessel rulemaking, call MST2 Chelsea based on a number of these statutes and traffic will be able to navigate safely Zimmerman, U.S. Coast Guard; Executive orders and we discuss First around the proposed safety zone. Before telephone 907–835–7233, or email Amendment rights of protestors. and during the enforcement period, we [email protected]. will also issue maritime advisories A. Regulatory Planning and Review SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: widely available to the mariners that Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 transit Port Valdez and Prince William I. Table of Abbreviations direct agencies to assess the costs and Sound. CFR Code of Federal Regulations benefits of available regulatory If you think that your business, DHS Department of Homeland Security alternatives and, if regulation is organization, or governmental

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP1.SGM 13NOP1 61584 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity that may result in the expenditure by a eRulemaking Portal at https:// and that this rule would have a State, local, or tribal government, in the www.regulations.gov. If your material significant economic impact on it, aggregate, or by the private sector of cannot be submitted using https:// please submit a comment (see $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or www.regulations.gov, call or email the ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it more in any one year. Though this person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION qualifies and how and to what degree proposed rule would not result in such CONTACT section of this document for this rule would economically affect it. an expenditure, we do discuss the alternate instructions. Under section 213(a) of the Small effects of this rule elsewhere in this We accept anonymous comments. All Business Regulatory Enforcement preamble. comments received will be posted Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), F. Environment without change to https:// we want to assist small entities in www.regulations.gov and will include understanding this proposed rule. If the We have analyzed this proposed rule any personal information you have rule would affect your small business, under Department of Homeland provided. For more about privacy and organization, or governmental Security Directive 023–01 and the docket, visit https:// jurisdiction and you have questions Environmental Planning COMDTINST www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice. concerning its provisions or options for 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Documents mentioned in this NPRM compliance, please call or email the Guard in complying with the National as being available in the docket, and all person listed in the FOR FURTHER Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 public comments, will be in our online INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a docket at https://www.regulations.gov Guard will not retaliate against small preliminary determination that this and can be viewed by following that entities that question or complain about action is one of a category of actions that website’s instructions. Additionally, if this proposed rule or any policy or do not individually or cumulatively you go to the online docket and sign up action of the Coast Guard. have a significant effect on the human for email alerts, you will be notified environment. This proposed rule C. Collection of Information when comments are posted or a final involves the establishment of a rule is published. This proposed rule would not call for temporary safety zone on the navigable a new collection of information under waters of Port Valdez, in the vicinity of List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the Valdez Small Boat Harbor. Normally Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). such actions are categorically excluded (water), Reporting and recordkeeping from further review under paragraph D. Federalism and Indian Tribal requirements, Security measures, L60(a) in Table 3–1 of U.S. Coast Guard Governments Waterways. Environmental Planning Implementing A rule has implications for federalism Procedures. A preliminary Record of For the reasons discussed in the under Executive Order 13132 Environmental Consideration preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing (Federalism), if it has a substantial supporting this determination is to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: direct effect on the States, on the available in the docket where indicated relationship between the national PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION under ADDRESSES. We seek any AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS government and the States, or on the comments or information that may lead distribution of power and to the discovery of a significant ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 responsibilities among the various environmental impact from this continues to read as follows: levels of government. We have analyzed proposed rule. this proposed rule under that Order and Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR have determined that it is consistent G. Protest Activities 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; with the fundamental federalism The Coast Guard respects the First Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. principles and preemption requirements Amendment rights of protesters. described in Executive Order 13132. Protesters are asked to call or email the ■ 2. Add § 165.T17–0727 to read as Also, this proposed rule does not have person listed in the FOR FURTHER follows: tribal implications under Executive INFORMATION CONTACT section to Order 13175 (Consultation and coordinate protest activities so that your § 165.T17–0727 Safety Zone; City of Valdez New Year’s Eve Fireworks, Port Valdez; Coordination with Indian Tribal message can be received without Valdez, AK. Governments) because it would not jeopardizing the safety or security of have a substantial direct effect on one or people, places, or vessels. (a) Location. The following area is a more Indian tribes, on the relationship safety zone: All navigable waters of Port between the Federal Government and V. Public Participation and Request for Valdez within a 150 yard radius from a ° ′ ″ Indian tribes, or on the distribution of Comments position of 61 07 22 North and ° ′ ″ power and responsibilities between the We view public participation as 146 21 13 West. This includes the Federal Government and Indian tribes. essential to effective rulemaking, and entrance to the Valdez small boat If you believe this proposed rule has will consider all comments and material harbor. implications for federalism or Indian received during the comment period. (b) Regulations. (1) Under the general tribes, please call or email the person Your comment can help shape the safety zone regulations in subpart C of listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION outcome of this rulemaking. If you this part, you may not enter the safety CONTACT section. submit a comment, please include the zone described in paragraph (a) of this docket number for this rulemaking, section unless authorized by the COTP E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act indicate the specific section of this or the COTP’s designated representative. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act document to which each comment (2) To seek permission to enter, of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires applies, and provide a reason for each contact the COTP or the COTP’s Federal agencies to assess the effects of suggestion or recommendation. representative via Channel 16 or (907) their discretionary regulatory actions. In We encourage you to submit 835–7205. Those in the safety zone must particular, the Act addresses actions comments through the Federal comply with all lawful orders or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP1.SGM 13NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61585

directions given to them by the COTP or or those submitted after the comment Developed Capacity States, and another the COTP’s designated representative. period. To ensure that we do not receive Center addressing the needs of 1 Dated: November 1, 2019. duplicate copies, please submit your Developing Capacity States) would be an efficient and effective approach to M.R. Franklin, comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your meeting the diverse needs of States in Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of integrating, reporting, analyzing, and the Port Prince William Sound, Alaska. comments. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to using high-quality IDEA Part B data. [FR Doc. 2019–24442 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] www.regulations.gov to submit your The Secretary specifically invites BILLING CODE 9110–04–P comments electronically. Information comments on the potential impact of on using Regulations.gov, including having two centers on the ease and instructions for accessing agency efficiency of accessing TA services DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION documents, submitting comments, and proposed in this notice, the differing viewing the docket, is available on the levels of expertise needed to effectively 34 CFR Chapter III site under ‘‘How to use deliver TA services to the two different [Docket ID ED–2019–OSERS–0025] Regulations.gov’’ in the Help section. groups of States, and the types of • Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, products that the two groups of States Proposed Priority and Requirements— or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver would need to achieve the outcomes Technical Assistance on State Data your comments about the proposed proposed in this notice. Collection—IDEA Data Management priority and requirements, address them We invite you to assist us in Center to Meredith Miceli, U.S. Department of complying with the specific Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, requirements of Executive Orders [Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Room 5141, Potomac Center Plaza, 12866, 13563, and 13771 and their (CFDA) Number: 84.373M.] Washington, DC 20202–5076. overall requirement of reducing AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Privacy Note: The Department’s regulatory burden that might result from Rehabilitative Services, Department of policy is to make all comments received this proposed priority and these Education. from members of the public available for proposed requirements. Please let us ACTION: Proposed priority and public viewing in their entirety on the know of any further ways we could requirements. Federal eRulemaking Portal at reduce potential costs or increase www.regulations.gov. Therefore, potential benefits while preserving the SUMMARY: The mission of the Office of commenters should be careful to effective and efficient administration of Special Education and Rehabilitative include in their comments only the program. Services (OSERS) is to improve early information that they wish to make During and after the comment period, childhood, educational, and publicly available. you may inspect all public comments about the proposed priority and employment outcomes and raise FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: requirements by accessing expectations for all people with Meredith Miceli, U.S. Department of Regulations.gov. You may also inspect disabilities, their families, their Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, the comments in person in Room 5010B, communities, and the Nation. As such, Room 5141, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street SW, Potomac Center the Department of Education Washington, DC 20202–5076. Plaza, Washington, DC, between the (Department) proposes a funding Telephone: (202) 245–6028. Email: hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., priority and requirements under the [email protected]. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday Technical Assistance on State Data If you use a telecommunications of each week except Federal holidays. Collection program. The Department device for the deaf (TDD) or a text may use the proposed priority and Assistance to Individuals With telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Disabilities in Reviewing the requirements for competitions in fiscal Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– year (FY) 2020 and later years. We take Rulemaking Record: On request, we will 8339. provide an appropriate accommodation this action to focus attention on an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: or auxiliary aid to an individual with a identified national need to provide Invitation to Comment: We invite you disability who needs assistance to technical assistance (TA) to improve the to submit comments regarding the review the comments or other capacity of States to meet the data proposed priority and requirements. To documents in the public rulemaking collection requirements of the ensure that your comments have record for the proposed priority and Individuals with Disabilities Education maximum effect in developing the requirements. If you want to schedule Act (IDEA). This Data Management notice of final priority and an appointment for this type of Center would help States in collecting, requirements, we urge you to identify accommodation or auxiliary aid, please reporting, and determining how to best clearly the specific section of the contact the person listed under FOR analyze and use their data to establish proposed priority or requirement that FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. and meet high expectations for each each comment addresses. child with a disability by enhancing, We are particularly interested in 1 ‘‘Developed Capacity States’’ are defined as streamlining, and integrating their IDEA comments about whether the proposed States that can demonstrate that their data systems include linkages between special education data Part B data into their State longitudinal priority or any of the proposed data systems and would customize its and other early childhood and K–12 data. Projects requirements would be challenging for funded under this focus area would focus on TA to meet each State’s specific needs. new applicants to meet and, if so, how helping such States utilize those existing linkages DATES: We must receive your comments the proposed priority or requirements to report, analyze, and use IDEA Part B data. on or before January 27, 2020. ‘‘Developing Capacity States’’ are defined as could be revised to address potential States that have a data system that does not include ADDRESSES: Submit your comments challenges and reduce burden. linkages between special education data and other through the Federal eRulemaking Portal Directed Question: The Department early childhood and K–12 data. Projects funded or via postal mail, commercial delivery, seeks input on whether the under this focus area would focus on helping such States develop those linkages to allow for more or hand delivery. We will not accept establishment of two centers (i.e., one accurate and efficient reporting, analysis, and use comments submitted by fax or by email Center addressing the needs of of IDEA Part B data.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP1.SGM 13NOP1 61586 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Purpose of Program: The purpose of agencies (SEAs) and State lead agencies longitudinal data systems. This lack of the Technical Assistance on State Data (LAs) to directly apply for funds integration reduces States’ ability both Collection program is to improve the reserved under section 611(c) to to make full use of their data and to capacity of States to meet IDEA data purchase TA to improve their capacity meet changing reporting needs. States collection and reporting requirements. to meet their IDEA Part B and Part C are seeing the value of integrating IDEA Funding for the program is authorized data collection requirements. A few Part B data into their State longitudinal under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which commenters noted some concerns data systems. Doing so allows States to gives the Secretary the authority to regarding overlap between centers and a standardize data collected across reserve not more than 1⁄2 of 1 percent of need for cross-State collaboration. We programs, assists in meeting Federal the amounts appropriated under Part B addressed these concerns in the reporting requirements, provides for each fiscal year to provide TA proposed priority by including a additional information on the activities authorized under section requirement for the center to offer cross- participation in other programs by 616(i), where needed, to improve the State TA collaboration opportunities. children with disabilities, and supports capacity of States to meet the data Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), program improvement. collection and reporting requirements 1416(i), 1418(c), 1442, and the Currently, most students with under Parts B and C of IDEA. The Department of Defense and Labor, disabilities are educated in the same maximum amount the Secretary may Health and Human Services, and settings as students without disabilities; reserve under this set-aside for any Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and however, the majority of States continue fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019; to separate disability and special adjusted by the rate of inflation. Section Div. B, Title III of Public Law 115–245, education related data from other data 616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019; collected on students (e.g., review the data collection and analysis 132 Stat. 3100 (2018). demographics, assessment data). Some capacity of States to ensure that data Applicable Program Regulations: 34 States are using separate data and information determined necessary CFR 300.702. collections to meet the reporting for implementation of section 616 of requirements under sections 616 and Proposed Priority IDEA are collected, analyzed, and 618 of IDEA (e.g., discipline, accurately reported to the Secretary. It The Assistant Secretary proposes the assessment, educational environments) also requires the Secretary to provide following priority for this program. We rather than including all data elements TA (from funds reserved under section may apply this proposed priority in any needed for Federal reporting in their 611(c)), where needed, to improve the year in which this program is in effect. State longitudinal data systems. At the capacity of States to meet the data IDEA Data Management Center. same time, various programs, districts, collection requirements, which include Background and SEAs are using different collection the data collection and reporting processes to gather data for their requirements in sections 616 and 618 of The purpose of this proposed priority required data submissions, resulting in IDEA. Additionally, the Department of is to establish a TA center to provide TA different degrees of reliability in the Defense and Labor, Health and Human to improve States’ capacity to collect, data collected. Services, and Education Appropriations report, analyze, and use high-quality These situations hinder the States’ Act, 2019 and Continuing IDEA Part B data (including IDEA capacity both to collect and report valid Appropriations Act, 2019 gives the section 618 Part B data and section 616 and reliable data on children with Secretary authority to use funds Part B data) by enhancing, streamlining, disabilities to the Secretary and to the reserved under section 611(c) to and integrating their IDEA Part B data public, which is specifically required by into the State’s longitudinal data IDEA sections 616(b)(2)(B)(i), ‘‘administer and carry out other services 3 and activities to improve data systems. The Data Management 616(b)(2)(C)(ii), and 618(a), and to meet collection, coordination, quality, and Center’s work will comply with the IDEA Part B data collection and use under parts B and C of the IDEA.’’ privacy and confidentiality protections reporting requirements under sections Department of Defense and Labor, in the Family Educational Rights and 616 and 618 of IDEA. Health and Human Services, and Privacy Act (FERPA) and IDEA and will States with fragmented data systems Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and not provide the Department with access are also more likely to have missing or Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019; to child-level data. duplicate data. For example, if a State A majority of States have State Div. B, Title III of Public Law 115–245; collects and maintains data on longitudinal data systems, but, until 132 Stat. 3100 (2018). disciplinary removals of students with To help ensure this program meets recently, very few of those systems disabilities in a special education data State needs, we invited the public to integrated IDEA Part B data, a complex system but maintains data on the provide input on the Technical issue. Specifically, in the IDEA State demographics of all students in another Assistance on State Data Collection Supplemental Survey in school year data system, the State may not be able program from April 24, 2018, through (SY) 2015–16, only 18 of 60 Part B to accurately match all data on May 24, 2018, on the ED.gov OSERS reporting entities responded that all disciplinary removals with the Blog.2 In response to this invitation, we their special education data was in their demographic data needed to meet IDEA received 63 relevant responses, all of statewide longitudinal data system, Part B data collection and reporting which we considered in our rising to 23 Part B reporting entities in requirements. In addition, States with fragmented development of this document. Sixty- SY 2018–19. Therefore, many Part B data systems often lack the capacity to two supported our continuing to fund reporting entities are still not integrating cross-validate related data elements. For TA centers; only one supported one of their IDEA Part B data with their States’ example, if the data on the type of the other options we presented, 3 A State’s longitudinal data system is a State- statewide assessment in which students specifically, to invite State educational managed repository of longitudinal, linked, unit with disabilities participate is housed in record data with connections across programs and 2 See https://sites.ed.gov/osers/2018/04/use-of- sectors to support a comprehensive, integrated view one database and the grade in which part-b-program-funds-for-technical-assistance-to- of students, schools, and programs, and may also students are enrolled is housed in states-on-idea-data-collection/. refer to other statewide data systems. another, the State may not be able to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP1.SGM 13NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61587

accurately match the assessment data to MTDC. However, we note that, in the (a) Increased capacity of States to the grade-level data to meet the Federal absence of a cap, certain entities would integrate IDEA Part B data required reporting requirements, including IDEA likely charge indirect cost rates in under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA Part B reporting requirements under excess of 40 percent of MTDC. Based on within their longitudinal data systems; sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. our analysis, it appears that those (b) Increased use of IDEA Part B data Finally, the demand from States for entities would likely be for-profit and within States by developing products to support from the currently funded Data nonprofit organizations, but these allow States to report their special Management Center to assist them in organizations appear to be outliers when education data to various stakeholders integrating their IDEA Part B data compared to the majority of other large through their longitudinal data systems; within the States’ longitudinal data businesses as well as the entirety of (c) Increased number of States that system far exceeds the number of States OSEP’s grantees. Setting an indirect cost use data governance and data that could be served by the current rate cap of 40 percent would be in line management procedures to increase center. Ten States have received support with the majority of applicants’ existing their capacity to meet the IDEA Part B from the current center while 28 negotiated rates with the cognizant reporting requirements under sections additional States have indicated interest Federal agency. 616 and 618 of IDEA; in integrating their IDEA Part B data This proposed priority aligns with (d) Increased capacity of States to with their States’ longitudinal data two priorities from the Secretary’s Final utilize their State longitudinal data systems. In addition to the interest in Supplemental Priorities and Definitions systems to collect, report, analyze, and integrating data, about 10 percent of for Discretionary Grant Programs, use high-quality IDEA Part B data States reported to the National Center published in the Federal Register on (including data required under sections for Education Statistics through the March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096): Priority 2: 616 and 618 of IDEA); and State longitudinal data program that Promoting Innovation and Efficiency, (e) Increased capacity of States to use they do not yet have non-EDFacts Streamlining Education With an their State longitudinal data systems to special education reporting and are Increased Focus on Improving Student analyze high-quality data on the interested in, or are working towards, Outcomes, and Providing Increased participation and outcomes of children this functionality. About one-third of Value to Students and Taxpayers; and with disabilities across various Federal States reported that they do not yet have Priority 5: Meeting the Unique Needs of programs (e.g., IDEA, Title I of the IDEA Part B data integrated into their Students and Children With Disabilities Elementary and Secondary Education systems and are interested in or are and/or Those With Unique Gifts and Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)) in working on developing this Talents. order to improve IDEA programs and functionality. Projects must be operated in a manner In addition, we propose for this consistent with nondiscrimination the outcomes of children with priority to include an indirect cost cap requirements contained in the U.S. disabilities. that is the lesser of the grantee’s actual Constitution and the Federal civil rights In addition, the Data Management indirect costs as determined by the laws. Center must provide a range of targeted grantee’s negotiated indirect cost rate and general TA products and services Proposed Priority agreement with its cognizant Federal for improving States’ capacity to report agency and 40 percent of the grantee’s The purpose of this proposed priority high-quality IDEA Part B data required modified total direct cost (MTDC) base. is to fund a cooperative agreement to under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA We believe this cap is appropriate as it establish and operate an IDEA Data through their State longitudinal data maximizes the availability of funds for Management Center (Data Management systems. Such TA should include, at a the primary TA purposes of this Center). The Data Management Center minimum— priority, which is to improve the will respond to State needs as States (a) In partnership with the capacity of States to meet the data integrate their IDEA Part B data required Department, supporting, as needed, the collection and reporting requirements to meet the data collection requirements implementation of an existing open under Part B of IDEA and to ultimately in section 616 and section 618 of IDEA, source electronic tool to assist States in benefit programs serving children with including information collected through building EDFacts data files and reports disabilities. The Department has done the IDEA State Supplemental Survey, that can be submitted to the Department an analysis of the indirect cost rates for into their longitudinal data systems. and made available to the public. The all current technical assistance centers This will improve the capacity of States tool will utilize Common Education funded under the Technical Assistance to collect, report, analyze, and use high- Data Standards (CEDS) and meet all and Dissemination and Technical quality IDEA Part B data to establish States’ needs associated with reporting Assistance on State Data Collection and meet high expectations for each the IDEA Part B data required under programs as well as other grantees that child with a disability. The Data sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; are large, midsize, and small businesses Management Center will help States (b) Developing and implementing a and small nonprofit organizations and address challenges with data plan to maintain the appropriate has found that, in general, total indirect management procedures and data functionality of the open source costs charged on these grants by these systems architecture and better meet electronic tool described in paragraph entities were at or below 35 percent of current and future IDEA Part B data (a) as changes are made to data total direct costs (TDC). We recognize collection and reporting requirements. collections, reporting requirements, file that, dependent on the structure of the The Data Management Center’s work specifications, and CEDS (such as links investment and activities, the MTDC will comply with the privacy and within the system to allow TA products base could be much smaller than the confidentiality protections in FERPA developed by other Office of Special TDC, which would imply a higher and IDEA and will not provide the Education Programs (OSEP)/ indirect cost rate than those calculated Department with access to child-level Department-funded centers or here. The Department arrived at a 40 data. contractors); percent rate to address some of that The Data Management Center must be (c) Conducting TA on data governance variation. This would account for a 12 designed to achieve, at a minimum, the to facilitate the use of the open source percent variance between TDC and following expected outcomes: electronic tool and providing training to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP1.SGM 13NOP1 61588 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

State staff to implement the open source preference over other applications (34 the proposed project will achieve its electronic tool; CFR 75.105(c)(1)). intended outcomes that depicts, at a (d) Revising CEDS ‘‘Connections’’ 4 to minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, Proposed Requirements calculate metrics needed to report the and intended outcomes of the proposed IDEA Part B data required under In addition to the programmatic project; sections 616 and 618 of IDEA; requirements contained in the proposed (3) Use a conceptual framework (and (e) Identifying other outputs (e.g., priority, we propose that, to be provide a copy in Appendix A) to considered for funding, applicants must reports, Application Programming develop project plans and activities, meet the following requirements. Interface, new innovations) of an open describing any underlying concepts, source electronic tool that can support Proposed Requirements assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or reporting by States of IDEA Part B data The Assistant Secretary proposes the theories, as well as the presumed to different stakeholder groups (e.g., relationships or linkages among these local educational agencies (LEAs), following requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these variables, and any empirical support for legislative branch, parents); this framework; (f) Supporting the inclusion of other proposed requirements in any year in OSEP/Department-funded TA centers’ which this program is in effect. Note: The following websites provide more products within the open source Applicants must— information on logic models and conceptual (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/ electronic tool or building connections section of the application under logicModel and www.osepideasthatwork.org/ that allow the SEAs to pull IDEA Part ‘‘Significance,’’ how the proposed resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad- B data efficiently into the other TA project will— project-logic-model-and-conceptual- products; (1) Address State challenges framework. (g) Supporting a user group of States associated with State data management that are using an open source electronic (4) Be based on current research and procedures, data systems architecture, make use of evidence-based practices tool for reporting IDEA Part B data and building EDFacts data files and required under sections 616 and 618 of (EBPs).5 To meet this requirement, the reports for timely reporting of the IDEA applicant must describe— IDEA; and Part B data to the Department and the (h) Developing products and public. To meet this requirement the (i) The current research on data presentations that include tools and applicant must— collection strategies, data management solutions to challenges in data (i) Present applicable national, State, procedures, and data systems management procedures and data or local data demonstrating the architecture; and system architecture for reporting the difficulties that States have encountered (ii) How the proposed project will IDEA Part B data required under in the collection and submission of incorporate current research and EBPs sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. valid and reliable IDEA Part B data; in the development and delivery of its Types of Priorities (ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current products and services; educational and technical issues and (5) Develop products and provide When inviting applications for a policy initiatives relating to IDEA Part B competition using one or more services that are of high quality and data collections and EDFacts file sufficient intensity and duration to priorities, we designate the type of each specifications for the IDEA Part B data priority as absolute, competitive achieve the intended outcomes of the collections; and proposed project. To address this preference, or invitational through a (iii) Present information about the notice in the Federal Register. The requirement, the applicant must current level of implementation of describe— effect of each type of priority follows: integrating IDEA Part B data within Absolute priority: Under an absolute State longitudinal data systems and the (i) How it proposes to identify or priority, we consider only applications reporting of high-quality IDEA Part B develop the knowledge base on States’ that meet the priority (34 CFR data to the Department and the public. data management processes and data 75.105(c)(3)). (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative systems architecture; Competitive preference priority: section of the application under (ii) Its proposed approach to Under a competitive preference priority, ‘‘Quality of project services,’’ how the universal, general TA,6 which must we give competitive preference to an proposed project will— identify the intended recipients, application by (1) awarding additional (1) Ensure equal access and treatment including the type and number of points, depending on the extent to for members of groups that have recipients, that will receive the products which the application meets the priority traditionally been underrepresented and services under this approach; (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting based on race, color, national origin, an application that meets the priority gender, age, or disability. To meet this 5 For purposes of these requirements, ‘‘evidence- over an application of comparable merit requirement, the applicant must based practices’’ means practices that, at a that does not meet the priority (34 CFR describe how it will— minimum, demonstrate a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), where a key project component included 75.105(c)(2)(ii)). (i) Identify the needs of the intended in the project’s logic model is informed by research Invitational priority: Under an recipients for TA and information; and or evaluation findings that suggest the project invitational priority, we are particularly (ii) Ensure that services and products component is likely to improve relevant outcomes. interested in applications that meet the meet the needs of the intended 6 ‘‘Universal, general TA’’ means TA and priority. However, we do not give an recipients of the grant; information provided to independent users through (2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and their own initiative, resulting in minimal application that meets the priority a interaction with TA center staff and including one- intended outcomes. To meet this time, invited or offered conference presentations by 4 A Connection is a way of showing which CEDS requirement, the applicant must TA center staff. This category of TA also includes data elements might be necessary for answering a provide— information or products, such as newsletters, data question. For users who have aligned their data (i) Measurable intended project guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded systems to CEDS, States will be able to utilize these from the TA center’s website by independent users. Connections via the Connect tool to see which data outcomes; and Brief communications by TA center staff with elements, in their own systems, would be needed (ii) In Appendix A, the logic model recipients, either by telephone or email, are also to answer any data question. (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by which considered universal, general TA.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP1.SGM 13NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61589

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, (3) Develop a sustainability plan for evaluation plan for the project specialized TA,7 which must identify— the Developing Capacity State to developed in consultation with and (A) The intended recipients, maintain the data management and data implemented by a third-party including the type and number of system integration work in the future; evaluator.9 The evaluation plan must— recipients, that will receive the products and (1) Articulate formative and and services under this approach; (4) Support the Developing Capacity summative evaluation questions, (B) Its proposed approach to measure State’s cybersecurity plan in including important process and the readiness of potential TA recipients collaboration, to the extent appropriate, outcome evaluation questions. These to work with the project, assessing, at a with the Department’s Privacy questions should be related to the minimum, their current infrastructure, Technical Assistance Center; project’s proposed logic model required available resources, and ability to build (C) Its proposed approach to measure in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these capacity at the State and local levels; the readiness of the SEAs to work with requirements; (C) Its proposed approach to the project, including their commitment (2) Describe how progress in and prioritizing TA recipients with a to the initiative, alignment of the fidelity of implementation, as well as primary focus on meeting the needs of initiative to their needs, current project outcomes, will be measured to Developing Capacity States; and infrastructure, available resources, and answer the evaluation questions. (D) The process by which the ability to build capacity at the State and Specify the measures and associated proposed project will collaborate with local district levels; instruments or sources for data other OSEP-funded centers and other (D) Its proposed plan to prioritize appropriate to the evaluation questions. federally funded TA centers to develop Developing Capacity States with the Include information regarding reliability and implement a coordinated TA plan greatest need for intensive TA to receive and validity of measures where when they are involved in a State; and products and services; appropriate; (iv) Its proposed approach to (E) Its proposed plan for assisting (3) Describe strategies for analyzing intensive, sustained TA,8 which must Developing Capacity State LAs and data and how data collected as part of identify— SEAs to build or enhance training this plan will be used to inform and (A) The intended recipients, which systems that include professional improve service delivery over the course must be Developing Capacity States, development based on adult learning of the project and to refine the proposed including the type and number of principles and coaching; logic model and evaluation plan, recipients, that will receive the products (F) Its proposed plan for working with including subsequent data collection; and services under this approach; appropriate levels of the education (4) Provide a timeline for conducting (B) Its proposed approach to address system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA the evaluation, and include staff Developing Capacity States’ challenges providers, districts, local programs, assignments for completing the plan. associated with integrating IDEA Part B families) to ensure that there is The timeline must indicate that the data data within State longitudinal data communication between each level and will be available annually for the State systems and to report high-quality IDEA that there are systems in place to Performance Plan/Annual Performance Part B data to the Department and the support the collection, reporting, Report (SPP/APR) and at the end of Year public, which should, at a minimum, analysis, and use of high-quality IDEA 2 for the review process; and include providing on-site consultants to Part B data, as well as State data (5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each SEAs to— management procedures and data budget year to cover the costs of (1) Model and document data systems architecture for building developing or refining the evaluation management and data system EDFacts data files and reports for timely plan in consultation with a third-party integration policies, procedures, reporting of the IDEA Part B data to the evaluator, as well as the costs associated processes, and activities within the Department and the public; and with the implementation of the Developing Capacity State; (G) The process by which the evaluation plan by the third-party (2) Support the Developing Capacity proposed project will collaborate and evaluator. State’s use of an open source electronic coordinate with other OSEP-funded (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative tool and provide technical solutions to centers and other Department-funded section of the application under meet State-specific data needs; TA investments, such as the Institute of ‘‘Adequacy of resources,’’ how— Education Sciences/National Center for (1) The proposed project will 7 ‘‘Targeted, specialized TA’’ means TA services Education Statistics research and encourage applications for employment based on needs common to multiple recipients and development investments, where from persons who are members of not extensively individualized. A relationship is appropriate, to develop and implement groups that have traditionally been established between the TA recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA includes a coordinated TA plan; and underrepresented based on race, color, one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating (6) Develop products and implement national origin, gender, age, or strategic planning or hosting regional or national services that maximize efficiency. To disability, as appropriate; conferences. It can also include episodic, less labor- address this requirement, the applicant (2) The proposed key project intensive events that extend over a period of time, must describe— such as facilitating a series of conference calls on personnel, consultants, and single or multiple topics that are designed around (i) How the proposed project will use subcontractors have the qualifications the needs of the recipients. Facilitating technology to achieve the intended and experience to carry out the communities of practice can also be considered project outcomes; proposed activities and achieve the targeted, specialized TA. (ii) With whom the proposed project project’s intended outcomes; 8 ‘‘Intensive, sustained TA’’ means TA services will collaborate and the intended often provided on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA center staff outcomes of this collaboration; and 9 A ‘‘third-party’’ evaluator is an independent and and the TA recipient. ‘‘TA services’’ are defined as (iii) How the proposed project will impartial program evaluator who is contracted by negotiated series of activities designed to reach a use non-project resources to achieve the the grantee to conduct an objective evaluation of the valued outcome. This category of TA should result intended project outcomes. project. This evaluator must not have participated in changes to policy, program, practice, or in the development or implementation of any operations that support increased recipient capacity (c) In the narrative section of the project activities, except for the evaluation or improved outcomes at one or more systems application under ‘‘Quality of the activities, nor have any financial interest in the levels. project evaluation,’’ include an outcome of the evaluation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP1.SGM 13NOP1 61590 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(3) The applicant and any key management plan described in the Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and partners have adequate resources to narrative; 13771 carry out the proposed activities; (2) Include, in the budget, attendance Regulatory Impact Analysis (4) The proposed costs are reasonable at the following: in relation to the anticipated results and (i) A one and one-half day kick-off Under Executive Order 12866, the benefits, and how funds will be spent in meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt Office of Management and Budget a way that increases their efficiency and of the award, and an annual planning (OMB) determines whether this cost-effectiveness, including by meeting in Washington, DC, with the regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, reducing waste or achieving better OSEP project officer and other relevant therefore, subject to the requirements of outcomes; and staff during each subsequent year of the the Executive order and subject to (5) The applicant will ensure that it project period. review by OMB. Section 3(f) of will recover the lesser of: (A) Its actual Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the Executive Order 12866 defines a indirect costs as determined by the award, a post-award teleconference must be ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an grantee’s negotiated indirect cost rate held between the OSEP project officer and action likely to result in a rule that agreement with its cognizant Federal the grantee’s project director or other may— agency; and (B) 40 percent of its authorized representative; (1) Have an annual effect on the modified total direct cost (MTDC) base (ii) A two and one-half day project economy of $100 million or more, or as defined in 2 CFR 200.68. directors’ conference in Washington, adversely affect a sector of the economy, DC, during each year of the project productivity, competition, jobs, the Note: The MTDC is different from the total environment, public health or safety, or amount of the grant. Additionally, the MTDC period; and is not the same as calculating a percentage of (iii) Three annual two-day trips to State, local, or Tribal governments or each or a specific expenditure category. If the attend Department briefings, communities in a material way (also grantee is billing based on the MTDC base, Department-sponsored conferences, and referred to as an ‘‘economically the grantee must make its MTDC other meetings, as requested by OSEP; significant’’ rule); documentation available to the program (3) Include, in the budget, a line item (2) Create serious inconsistency or office and the Department’s Indirect Cost for an annual set-aside of five percent of otherwise interfere with an action taken Unit. If a grantee’s allocable indirect costs the grant amount to support emerging or planned by another agency; exceed 40 percent of its MTDC as defined in needs that are consistent with the (3) Materially alter the budgetary 2 CFR 200.68, the grantee may not recoup the proposed project’s intended outcomes, impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, excess by shifting the cost to other grants or or loan programs or the rights and contracts with the U.S. Government, unless as those needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the obligations of recipients thereof; or specifically authorized by legislation. The (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues grantee must use non-Federal revenue OSEP project officer. With approval sources to pay for such unrecovered costs. from the OSEP project officer, the arising out of legal mandates, the project must reallocate any remaining President’s priorities, or the principles (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative stated in the Executive order. section of the application under funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each OMB has determined that this ‘‘Quality of the management plan,’’ proposed regulatory action is not a how— budget period; (4) Maintain a high-quality website, significant regulatory action subject to (1) The proposed management plan with an easy-to-navigate design, that review by OMB under section 3(f) of will ensure that the project’s intended meets government or industry- Executive Order 12866. outcomes will be achieved on time and recognized standards for accessibility; Under Executive Order 13771, for within budget. To address this (5) Include, in Appendix A, an each new rule that the Department requirement, the applicant must assurance to assist OSEP with the proposes for notice and comment or describe— transfer of pertinent resources and otherwise promulgates that is a (i) Clearly defined responsibilities for products and to maintain the continuity significant regulatory action under key project personnel, consultants, and of services to States during the Executive Order 12866 and that imposes subcontractors, as applicable; and transition to this new award period and total costs greater than zero, it must (ii) Timelines and milestones for at the end of this award period, as identify two deregulatory actions. For accomplishing the project tasks; appropriate; and FY 2020, any new incremental costs (2) Key project personnel and any (6) Budget to provide intensive, associated with a new rule must be fully consultants and subcontractors will be sustained TA to at least 25 States. offset by the elimination of existing allocated and how these allocations are costs through deregulatory actions. appropriate and adequate to achieve the Final Priority and Requirements However, Executive Order 13771 does project’s intended outcomes; We will announce the final priority not apply to ‘‘transfer rules’’ that cause (3) The proposed management plan and requirements in a document in the only income transfers between will ensure that the products and Federal Register. We will determine the taxpayers and program beneficiaries, services provided are of high quality, final priority and requirements after such as those regarding discretionary relevant, and useful to recipients; and considering responses to this document grant programs. Because the proposed (4) The proposed project will benefit and other information available to the priority and requirements would be from a diversity of perspectives, Department. This document does not utilized in connection with a including those of families, educators, preclude us from proposing additional discretionary grant program, Executive TA providers, researchers, and policy priorities or requirements subject to Order 13771 does not apply. makers, among others, in its meeting applicable rulemaking We have also reviewed this proposed development and operation. requirements. regulatory action under Executive Order (f) Address the following application 13563, which supplements and Note: This document does not solicit requirements: applications. In any year in which we choose explicitly reaffirms the principles, (1) Include, in Appendix A, to use this proposed priority and one or more structures, and definitions governing personnel-loading charts and timelines, of these requirements, we invite applications regulatory review established in as applicable, to illustrate the through a notice in the Federal Register. Executive Order 12866. To the extent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP1.SGM 13NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61591

permitted by law, Executive Order In addition, we have considered the prepare an application would likely be 13563 requires that an agency— potential benefits of this regulatory the same. (1) Propose or adopt regulations only action and have noted these benefits in This proposed regulatory action upon a reasoned determination that the background section of this would not have a significant economic their benefits justify their costs document. impact on a small entity once it receives (recognizing that some benefits and Regulatory Flexibility Act a grant because it would be able to meet costs are difficult to quantify); Certification: The Secretary certifies that (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the the costs of compliance using the funds this proposed regulatory action would provided under this program. We invite least burden on society, consistent with not have a significant economic impact comments from small eligible entities as obtaining regulatory objectives and on a substantial number of small to whether they believe this proposed taking into account—among other things entities. The U.S. Small Business regulatory action would have a and to the extent practicable—the costs Administration Size Standards define of cumulative regulations; ‘‘small entities’’ as for-profit or significant economic impact on them (3) In choosing among alternative nonprofit institutions with total annual and, if so, request evidence to support regulatory approaches, select those revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are that belief. approaches that maximize net benefits institutions controlled by small Intergovernmental Review: This (including potential economic, governmental jurisdictions (that are program is subject to Executive Order environmental, public health and safety, comprised of cities, counties, towns, 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR and other advantages; distributive townships, villages, school districts, or part 79. One of the objectives of the impacts; and equity); special districts), with a population of Executive order is to foster an (4) To the extent feasible, specify less than 50,000. intergovernmental partnership and a performance objectives, rather than the The small entities that this proposed behavior or manner of compliance a strengthened federalism. The Executive regulatory action would affect are SEAs; regulated entity must adopt; and order relies on processes developed by (5) Identify and assess available LEAs, including charter schools that State and local governments for alternatives to direct regulation, operate as LEAs under State law; coordination and review of proposed including economic incentives—such as institutions of higher education (IHEs); Federal financial assistance. other public agencies; private nonprofit user fees or marketable permits—to This document provides early organizations; freely associated States encourage the desired behavior, or notification of our specific plans and and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or provide information that enables the actions for this program. public to make choices. Tribal organizations; and for-profit Accessible Format: Individuals with Executive Order 13563 also requires organizations. We believe that the costs an agency ‘‘to use the best available imposed on an applicant by the disabilities can obtain this document in techniques to quantify anticipated proposed priority and requirements an accessible format (e.g., braille, large present and future benefits and costs as would be limited to paperwork burden print, audiotape, or compact disc) on accurately as possible.’’ The Office of related to preparing an application and request to the contact person listed Information and Regulatory Affairs of that the benefits of this proposed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OMB has emphasized that these priority and these proposed CONTACT. techniques may include ‘‘identifying requirements would outweigh any costs Electronic Access to This Document: changing future compliance costs that incurred by the applicant. The official version of this document is might result from technological Participation in the Technical the document published in the Federal innovation or anticipated behavioral Assistance on State Data Collection Register. You may access the official program is voluntary. For this reason, changes.’’ edition of the Federal Register and the the proposed priority and requirements We are issuing the proposed priority Code of Federal Regulations at would impose no burden on small and requirements only on a reasoned www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can determination that their benefits justify entities unless they applied for funding under the program. We expect that in view this document, as well as all other their costs. In choosing among documents of this Department alternative regulatory approaches, we determining whether to apply for Technical Assistance on State Data published in the Federal Register, in selected those approaches that text or Portable Document Format maximize net benefits. Based on the Collection program funds, an eligible (PDF). To use PDF you must have analysis that follows, the Department entity would evaluate the requirements Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is believes that this regulatory action is of preparing an application and any available free at the site. consistent with the principles in associated costs, and weigh them Executive Order 13563. against the benefits likely to be achieved You may also access documents of the We have also determined that this by receiving a Technical Assistance on Department published in the Federal regulatory action does not unduly State Data Collection program grant. An Register by using the article search interfere with State, local, and Tribal eligible entity would probably apply feature at www.federalregister.gov. governments in the exercise of their only if it determines that the likely Specifically, through the advanced governmental functions. benefits exceed the costs of preparing an search feature at this site, you can limit In accordance with both Executive application. your search to documents published by orders, the Department has assessed the We believe that the proposed priority the Department. potential costs and benefits, both and requirements would not impose any quantitative and qualitative, of this additional burden on a small entity Mark Schultz, regulatory action. The potential costs applying for a grant than the entity Delegated the authority to perform the are those resulting from statutory would face in the absence of the functions and duties of the Assistant requirements and those we have proposed action. That is, the length of Secretary for the Office of Special Education determined as necessary for the applications those entities would and Rehabilitative Services. administering the Department’s submit in the absence of the proposed [FR Doc. 2019–24640 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] programs and activities. regulatory action and the time needed to BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13NOP1.SGM 13NOP1 61592 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION restricted by statute. Multimedia County Council, ‘‘‘County Council’ AGENCY submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be means the Council of Allegheny County, accompanied by a written comment. Pennsylvania.’’ The amendments to 40 CFR Part 52 The written comment is considered the section 2109.02 revised the reference to [EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0483; FRL–10001– official comment and should include ‘‘Board of County Commissioners’’ to 97–Region 3] discussion of all points you wish to ‘‘County Executive’’ in paragraphs (a)(5) make. EPA will generally not consider and (a)(6). Approval and Promulgation of Air comments or comment contents located In section 2109.03, the amendments Quality Implementation Plans; outside of the primary submission (i.e. include revising references from ‘‘Board Pennsylvania; Allegheny County on the web, cloud, or other file sharing of County Commissioners’’ to ‘‘County Administrative Revisions to system). For additional submission Council,’’ as well as an additional Definitions, Remedies, and methods, please contact the person signatory option for enforcement orders Enforcement Orders Sections and identified in the FOR FURTHER in paragraph (b)(1). The language in Incorporation by Reference of National INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the paragraph (b)(1) was revised from ‘‘Be in Ambient Air Quality Standards full EPA public comment policy, written form and be signed by the information about CBI or multimedia Director or the Deputy Director, Bureau AGENCY: Environmental Protection submissions, and general guidance on of Environmental Quality’’ to ‘‘Be in Agency (EPA). making effective comments, please visit written form and be signed by the ACTION: Proposed rule. https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ Director, the Deputy Director of the commenting-epa-dockets. Bureau of Environmental Quality, or the SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Manager of the Air Quality Program, or Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a Malone, Planning & Implementation their respective designee.’’ Lastly, in the state implementation plan (SIP) revision Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation provisions of paragraph (d)(1), Hearings, formally submitted by the Division, U.S. Environmental Protection the ‘‘Bureau of Environmental Quality Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Division of Air Quality’’ was revised to behalf of Allegheny County. These Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The the ‘‘Air Quality Program of the revisions include administrative telephone number is (215) 814–2190. Department’’ to specify that such amendments made to the Allegheny Ms. Malone can also be reached via hearings cannot be held before County Health Department (ACHD) electronic mail at [email protected]. employees of the Department who are Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, Air SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: assigned to the Air Quality Program. Pollution Control. Specifically, the EPA’s review of this material revisions added a definition for ‘‘County I. Background indicates the February 15, 2019 Council;’’ deleted its current listing of On February 15, 2019, the submittal is approvable as it meets ambient air quality standards and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requirements of the CAA under section added, through incorporation by formally submitted, on behalf of 110(a) and contains the deletion/ reference, all national ambient air Allegheny County, a revision to the addition of language incorporating by quality standards (NAAQS) Pennsylvania SIP (Revision 73).1 The reference all of the NAAQS promulgated promulgated by EPA; revised references revision consists of administrative and by EPA and other administrative to the ‘‘Board of County definition amendments, as well as revisions to regulations that were Commissioners’’ to ‘‘County Executive’’ incorporation by reference of the previously included in the Pennsylvania or ‘‘County Council;’’ added the NAAQS to ACHD Rules and SIP. None of these deletions, additions, ‘‘Manager of the Air Quality Program or Regulations, Article XXI, Air Pollution or revisions affect emissions of air their respective designee’’ as a signatory Control. The revision was adopted by pollutants, and none of the deletions, for enforcement orders; and revised a ACHD and became effective September additions, or revisions will interfere reference from the ‘‘Bureau of 25, 2013. with any applicable requirement Environmental Quality Division of Air concerning attainment of reasonable II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Quality’’ to ‘‘Air Quality Program of the further progress or any other applicable Analysis Department.’’ This action is being taken requirements in the CAA. Thus, EPA under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The February 15, 2019 submittal finds the revision approvable DATES: Written comments must be includes amended versions of ACHD specifically for section 110(l) of the received on or before December 13, Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, Air CAA. 2019. Pollution Control, sections 2101.10 A detailed summary of EPA’s review Ambient Air Quality Standards, 2101.20 and rationale for approving the February ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, Definitions, 2109.02 Remedies, and 15, 2019 submittal may be found in the identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 2109.03 Enforcement Orders. The technical support document (TSD) for OAR–2019–0483 at https:// amendment to section 2101.10 deleted this proposed rulemaking action, www.regulations.gov, or via email to ACHD’s existing list of NAAQS and available online at www.regulations.gov, [email protected]. For added, through incorporation by docket number EPA–R03–OAR–2019– comments submitted at Regulations.gov, reference, all NAAQS promulgated by 0483. follow the online instructions for the EPA under the CAA at 40 CFR part III. Proposed Action submitting comments. Once submitted, 50. The amendment to section 2101.20 comments cannot be edited or removed added the following definition for EPA’s review of this material from Regulations.gov. For either manner indicates the February 15, 2019 of submission, EPA may publish any 1 On April 28, 2017, ACHD submitted Revision 73 submittal is approvable as it meets the comment received to its public docket. to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental requirements of the CAA under section Do not submit electronically any Protection (PADEP). PADEP, on behalf of Allegheny 110(a) and includes the deletion/ County, also submitted a clarification letter dated information you consider to be June 24, 2019 to EPA to further clarify the revisions addition of language incorporating by confidential business information (CBI) to sections 2101.10 and 2101.20 of Article XXI of reference all of the NAAQS promulgated or other information whose disclosure is ACHD’s Rules and Regulations. by EPA and other administrative

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP1.SGM 13NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61593

revisions to regulations that were V. Statutory and Executive Order • Is not a significant regulatory action previously included in the Pennsylvania Reviews subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the Under the CAA, the Administrator is 28355, May 22, 2001); February 15, 2019 submittal, which required to approve a SIP submission • Is not subject to requirements of includes administrative deletions, that complies with the provisions of the section 12(d) of the National additions, and revisions to ACHD Rules CAA and applicable Federal regulations. Technology Transfer and Advancement and Regulations, Article XXI, Air 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because Pollution Control, sections 2101.10 Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, application of those requirements would Ambient Air Quality Standards, 2101.20 EPA’s role is to approve state choices, be inconsistent with the CAA; and Definitions, 2109.02 Remedies, and provided that they meet the criteria of • Does not provide EPA with the 2109.03 Enforcement Orders, as a the CAA. Accordingly, this action discretionary authority to address, as revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is merely approves state law as meeting appropriate, disproportionate human soliciting public comments on the Federal requirements and does not health or environmental effects, using issues discussed in this document. impose additional requirements beyond practicable and legally permissible These comments will be considered those imposed by state law. For that methods, under Executive Order 12898 before taking final rulemaking action. reason, this proposed action: (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). • IV. Incorporation by Reference Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory In addition, this proposed rule, action’’ subject to review by the Office proposing approval of administrative In this document, EPA is proposing to of Management and Budget under include in a final EPA rule regulatory revisions to ACHD Rules and Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Regulations, Article XXI, Air Pollution text that includes incorporation by October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, reference. In accordance with Control, sections 2101.10 Ambient Air January 21, 2011); Quality Standards, 2101.20 Definitions, requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 2109.02 Remedies, and 2109.03 proposing to incorporate by reference FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory Enforcement Orders, does not have the revisions to ACHD Rules and action because SIP approvals are tribal implications as specified by Regulations, Article XXI, Air Pollution exempted under Executive Order 12866. Control, sections 2101.10 Ambient Air • Does not impose an information Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, Quality Standards, 2101.20 Definitions, collection burden under the provisions November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 2109.02 Remedies, and 2109.03 of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 not approved to apply in Indian country Enforcement Orders discussed in U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); located in the state, and EPA notes that Section II of this preamble. Also, in this • Is certified as not having a it will not impose substantial direct document, as described in the proposed significant economic impact on a costs on tribal governments or preempt amendments to 40 CFR part 52, EPA is substantial number of small entities tribal law. proposing to remove provisions of the under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 EPA-Approved Pennsylvania U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Regulations and Statutes from the • Does not contain any unfunded Environmental protection, Air Pennsylvania State Implementation mandate or significantly or uniquely pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Plan, which is incorporated by reference affect small governments, as described Incorporation by reference, in accordance with the requirements of in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 1 CFR part 51. of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate EPA has made, and will continue to • Does not have Federalism matter, Sulfur oxides. make, these materials generally implications as specified in Executive Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. available through https:// Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 1999); Dated: October 30, 2019. Region III Office (please contact the • Is not an economically significant Cosmo Servidio, person identified in the FOR FURTHER regulatory action based on health or Regional Administrator, Region III. INFORMATION CONTACT section of this safety risks subject to Executive Order [FR Doc. 2019–24575 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] preamble for more information). 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13NOP1.SGM 13NOP1 61594

Notices Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 219

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER An agency may not conduct or Total Burden Hours: 5,644. contains documents other than rules or sponsor a collection of information Ruth Brown, proposed rules that are applicable to the unless the collection of information Departmental Information Collection public. Notices of hearings and investigations, displays a currently valid OMB control committee meetings, agency decisions and Clearance Officer. number and the agency informs rulings, delegations of authority, filing of [FR Doc. 2019–24647 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] potential persons who are to respond to petitions and applications and agency BILLING CODE 3410–20–P statements of organization and functions are the collection of information that such examples of documents appearing in this persons are not required to respond to section. the collection of information unless it DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Business-Cooperative Service DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Notice of Solicitation of Applications Submission for OMB Review; for Inviting Applications for the Rural Comment Request Title: Survey of Irrigation Economic Development Loan and Organizations. November 7, 2019. Grant Programs for Fiscal Year 2020 OMB Control Number: 0535–NEW. The Department of Agriculture will AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative submit the following information Summary of Collection: On April 4, Service, USDA. 2017, the USDA National Agricultural collection requirement(s) to OMB for ACTION: Notice of solicitation for review and clearance under the Statistics Service (NASS) and the applications; Amendment Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Economic Research Service (ERS), Public Law 104–13 on or after the date signed a Memorandum of SUMMARY: The Rural Business- of publication of this notice. Comments Understanding. This agreement is for Cooperative Service (RBS) announces are requested regarding: Whether the the development and implementation of that the maximum loan amount collection of information is necessary a survey of irrigation organizations— awarded for applications competing in for the proper performance of the defined to include irrigation districts the Second, Third, and Fourth Quarter functions of the agency, including and other entities that supply water funding cycles of fiscal year (FY) 2020 whether the information will have (primarily surface water) directly to will be $1 million. practical utility; the accuracy of the agricultural users, as well as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The agency’s estimate of burden including groundwater management districts that Rural Development office for the state in the validity of the methodology and may influence the supply of which the applicant is located. A list of assumptions used; ways to enhance the groundwater for irrigation. The new Rural Development State Office contacts quality, utility and clarity of the survey of irrigation organizations will is provided at the following link: http:// information to be collected; and ways to collect local, district-scale information, www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state- minimize the burden of the collection of including the adoption of alternative offices. information on those who are to types of water allocation institutions SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RBS respond, including through the use of and conservation policies that impact published a Notice of Solicitation of appropriate automated, electronic, farm-level drought resilience and Applications for the Rural Economic mechanical, or other technological adaptation to long-run water scarcity. Development Loan and Grant Programs collection techniques or other forms of for FY 2020 on July 18, 2019, (FR Vol. Need and Use of the Information: information technology should be 84, 34333) Section B states that: ‘‘The NASS will be collecting information on addressed to: Desk Officer for Agency anticipates the following Agriculture, Office of Information and facilities, operation type, revenue, costs, maximum amounts per award: Loans— Regulatory Affairs, Office of and practices for irrigation $2,000,000; Grants—$300,000.’’ Management and Budget (OMB), New organizations. The data obtained by the Based on the total amount of loan Executive Office Building, Washington, survey will complement farm-level data applications submitted in FY 2019 far DC; New Executive Office Building, collections efforts, providing a more exceeding the available allocated funds 725–17th Street NW, Washington, DC comprehensive look at the water and the number of submitted but 20503. Commenters are encouraged to situation and drought preparedness of unfunded applications that will be submit their comments to OMB via the United States. The absence of the competing for funding in the First _ email to: OIRA Submission@ data would certainly affect irrigation Quarter of FY 2020, the Agency has omb.eop.gov or fax (202) 395–5806 and policy decisions, Federal programs, determined that lowering the maximum to Departmental Clearance Office, legislation, and impact studies would be loan amount to $1 million for the USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, subject to greater uncertainty and error. Second, Third, and Fourth Quarter Washington, DC 20250–7602. Description of Respondents: application periods would allow for Comments regarding these Businesses or other for-profit; Not for additional project opportunities and a information collections are best assured profit institutions. broader geographic distribution of of having their full effect if received by Program funding. December 13, 2019. Copies of the Number of Respondents: 6,500. The following are the deadlines for submission(s) may be obtained by Frequency of Responses: Reporting: FY 2020 complete loan applications to calling (202) 720–8681. Annually. be received in the USDA Rural

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61595

Development State Office no later than to evaluate the results of questionnaire Dated: November 5, 2019. 4:30 p.m. (local time): Second Quarter, testing. Andrew McGilvray, December 31, 2019; Third Quarter, Affected Public: Individuals and Executive Secretary. March 31, 2020; and Fourth Quarter, households. [FR Doc. 2019–24643 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] June 30, 2020. Completed loan Frequency: Once. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P applications that exceed $1 million but Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. are not funded in the FY 2020 First Legal Authority: Data collection for Quarter competition will be allowed to this project is authorized under the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE compete for Second Quarter funding authorizing legislation for the with the submission of a revised scope questionnaire being tested. This may be Foreign-Trade Zones Board of work plan and budget for a loan Title 13, Sections 131, 141, 161, 181, [B–70–2019] amount not to exceed $1 million. 182, 193, and 301 for Census Bureau sponsored surveys, and Title 13 and 15 Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 183—Austin, Bette B. Brand, for surveys sponsored by other Federal Texas; Notification of Proposed Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative agencies. Production Activity; Flextronics Service. This information collection request America, LLC; (Automated Data [FR Doc. 2019–24597 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Processing Machines); Austin, Texas BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P Follow the instructions to view Flextronics America, LLC Department of Commerce collections (Flextronics), submitted a notification of currently under review by OMB. proposed production activity to the FTZ DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Written comments and Board for its facility in Austin, Texas. recommendations for the proposed The notification conforming to the Census Bureau information collection should be sent requirements of the regulations of the within 30 days of publication of this FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was Submission for OMB Review; notice to OIRA_Submission@ Comment Request received on November 3, 2019. omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806. Flextronics already has authority to The Department of Commerce will Sheleen Dumas, produce automated data processing submit to the Office of Management and Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the machines within FTZ 183. The current Budget (OMB) for clearance the Chief Information Officer, Commerce request would add foreign status following proposal for collection of Department. components to the scope of authority. information under the provisions of the [FR Doc. 2019–24590 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), Paperwork Reduction Act. BILLING CODE 3510–07–P additional FTZ authority would be Agency: U.S. Census Bureau. limited to the specific foreign-status Title: Generic Clearance for Census components described in the submitted Bureau Field Tests and Evaluations. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE notification (as described below) and OMB Control Number: 0607–0971. subsequently authorized by the FTZ Form Number(s): TBD. Foreign-Trade Zones Board Board. Type of Request: Reinstatement, with Production under FTZ procedures [S–183–2019] change, of a previously approved could exempt Flextronics from customs collection for which approval has Approval of Subzone Status; Patterson duty payments on the foreign-status expired. Pump Company; Toccoa, Georgia materials/components used in export Number of Respondents: 294,738 per production. On its domestic sales, for year (884,213 total). On September 17, 2019, the Executive the foreign-status components noted Average Hours per Response: 10.56 Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones below, Flextronics would be able to minutes. (FTZ) Board docketed an application choose the duty rates during customs Burden Hours: 27,771 hours annually submitted by Georgia Foreign-Trade entry procedures that apply to (83,313 hours total). Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 26, requesting automated data processing machines Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census subzone status subject to the existing (duty-free). Flextronics would be able to Bureau is committed to conducting activation limit of FTZ 26, on behalf of avoid duty on foreign-status research towards census and survey Patterson Pump Company, in Toccoa, components which become scrap/waste. operations that costs less while Georgia. Customs duties also could possibly be maintaining high quality results. The The application was processed in deferred or reduced on foreign-status Census Bureau requests a reinstatement, accordance with the FTZ Act and production equipment. with change, of our previous OMB Regulations, including notice in the The components sourced from abroad approval to conduct a series of studies Federal Register inviting public include: Labels; corrugated pack boxes; to research and evaluate how to improve comment (84 FR 49717, September 23, print bundles—instruction manuals and data collection activities for data 2019). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed start-up directions; caster wheel collection programs at the Census the application and determined that it assemblies; keyboards; computer mice; Bureau. These studies will explore how meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant trackpads; graphics processing modules; the Census Bureau can improve to the authority delegated to the FTZ main logic boards; graphics performance efficiency, data quality, and response Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. enhancers; basic input/output system rates and reduce respondent burden in 400.36(f)), the application to establish (BIOS) printed circuit boards; structural future census and survey operations, Subzone 26Q was approved on frames for automatic data processing evaluations and experiments. This November 5, 2019, subject to the FTZ machines; structural enclosures for research program is for respondent Act and the Board’s regulations, automatic data processing machines; communication, questionnaire and including Section 400.13, and further main logic board stiffener assemblies; procedure development and evaluation subject to FTZ 26’s 2,000-acre activation internal component support units; and, purposes. We will use data tabulations limit. power supply units (duty rate ranges

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61596 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

from duty-free to 5.8%). The request SUMMARY: The SEDAR 65 assessment of stock assessment scientists, biologists, indicates that the following components the Atlantic stock of Blacktip Shark will and researchers; constituency are subject to an antidumping/ consist of a series of workshops and representatives including fishermen, countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order if webinars: Data Workshop; Assessment environmentalists, and non- imported from certain countries: labels; Webinars; and a Review governmental organizations (NGOs); caster wheel assemblies; structural DATES: The SEDAR 65-Post Data international experts; and staff of frames for automatic data processing Workshop Webinar has been scheduled Councils, Commissions, and state and machines; structural enclosures for for Thursday, December 5, 2019, from federal agencies. automatic data processing machines; 10 a.m. until 4 p.m., EDT. The items of discussion at the Post main logic board stiffener assemblies; ADDRESSES: Data workshop webinar are as follows: and, internal component support units. Meeting Address: The meeting will be Participants will finalize data The FTZ Board’s regulations (15 CFR held via webinar. The webinar is open recommendations from the Data 400.14(e)) require that merchandise to members of the public. Registration is Workshop. subject to AD/CVD orders, or items available online at: https:// Although non-emergency issues not which would be otherwise subject to attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/ contained in this agenda may come suspension of liquidation under AD/ 1146385310550424331. before this group for discussion, those CVD procedures if they entered U.S. SEDAR address: South Atlantic issues may not be the subject of formal customs territory, be admitted to the Fishery Management Council, 4055 action during this meeting. Action will zone in privileged foreign status (19 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. be restricted to those issues specifically CFR 146.41). The request also indicates Charleston, SC 29405; identified in this notice and any issues that certain components are subject to www.sedarweb.org. arising after publication of this notice special duties under Section 301 of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: that require emergency action under Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), Kathleen Howington, SEDAR section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens depending on the country of origin. The Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Fishery Conservation and Management applicable Section 301 decisions require Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; Act, provided the public has been subject merchandise to be admitted to phone: (843) 571–4366; email: notified of the intent to take final action FTZs in privileged foreign status. [email protected]. to address the emergency. Public comment is invited from SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf Special Accommodations interested parties. Submissions shall be of Mexico, South Atlantic, and addressed to the Board’s Executive Caribbean Fishery Management This meeting is accessible to people Secretary and sent to: [email protected]. The Councils, in conjunction with NOAA with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary closing period for their receipt is Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf aids should be directed to the South December 23, 2019. States Marine Fisheries Commissions, Atlantic Fishery Management Council A copy of the notification will be have implemented the Southeast Data, office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 available for public inspection in the Assessment and Review (SEDAR) business days prior to the meeting. ‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s process, a multi-step method for Note: The times and sequence specified in website, which is accessible via determining the status of fish stocks in this agenda are subject to change. www.trade.gov/ftz. the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three- For further information, contact step process including: (1) Data Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Christopher Wedderburn at Workshop; (2) Assessment Process Dated: November 6, 2019. [email protected] or (202) utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Tracey L. Thompson, 482–1963. Workshop. The product of the Data Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Dated: November 6, 2019. Workshop is a data report which Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Andrew McGilvray, compiles and evaluates potential [FR Doc. 2019–24591 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Executive Secretary. datasets and recommends which BILLING CODE 3510–22–P datasets are appropriate for assessment [FR Doc. 2019–24641 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] analyses. The product of the Assessment BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Process is a stock assessment report DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE which describes the fisheries, evaluates National Oceanic and Atmospheric DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future Administration National Oceanic and Atmospheric population conditions, and recommends Administration research and monitoring needs. The [RTID 0648–XV127] assessment is independently peer [RTID 0648–XV125] Pacific Fishery Management Council; reviewed at the Review Workshop. The Public Meeting product of the Review Workshop is a Fisheries of the Atlantic; Southeast Summary documenting panel opinions AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Data, Assessment, and Review regarding the strengths and weaknesses Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and (SEDAR); Public Meeting of the stock assessment and input data. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Participants for SEDAR Workshops are Commerce. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South ACTION: Notice of public meeting Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery (webinar). Commerce. Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery ACTION: Notice of scheduled SEDAR 65 Highly Migratory Species Management Management Council’s (Pacific Council) Post Data Workshop Webinar for Highly Division, and Southeast Fisheries Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW) Migratory Species Atlantic Blacktip Science Center. Participants include: Workgroup (Workgroup) will host a Shark. Data collectors and database managers; webinar, which is open to the public.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61597

DATES: The webinar meeting will be publication of this document that phone: (843) 571–4366; email: held Tuesday, December 10, 2019, from require emergency action under section [email protected]. 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time) 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf or until business for the day has been Conservation and Management Act, of Mexico, South Atlantic, and completed. provided the public has been notified of Caribbean Fishery Management the intent to take final action to address ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held Councils, in conjunction with NOAA the emergency. via webinar. A public listening station Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf is available at the Pacific Council office Special Accommodations States Marine Fisheries Commissions, (address below). To attend the webinar This meeting is physically accessible have implemented the Southeast Data, (1) join the webinar by visiting this link Assessment and Review (SEDAR) https://www.gotomeeting.com/webinar to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other process, a multi-step method for (click ‘‘Join a Webinar’’ in top right determining the status of fish stocks in corner of page), (2) enter the Webinar auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt, (503) 820–2411, at the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three- ID: 672–213–339, and (3) enter your step process including: (1) Data name and email address (required). least 10 business days prior to the meeting date. Workshop; (2) Assessment Process After logging in to the webinar, please utilizing webinars; and (3) Review (1) dial this TOLL number 1–415–655– Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Workshop. The product of the Data 0060 (not a toll-free number), (2) enter Dated: November 7, 2019. Workshop is a data report which the attendee phone audio access code Tracey L. Thompson, compiles and evaluates potential 680–970–929, and (3) enter the provided datasets and recommends which audio PIN after joining the webinar. You Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. datasets are appropriate for assessment must enter this PIN for audio access. analyses. The product of the Assessment NOTE: We have disabled Mic/Speakers [FR Doc. 2019–24626 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Process is a stock assessment report as an option and require all participants which describes the fisheries, evaluates to use a telephone or cell phone to the status of the stock, estimates participate. Technical Information and DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE biological benchmarks, projects future system requirements: PC-based population conditions, and recommends attendees are required to use Windows® ® National Oceanic and Atmospheric research and monitoring needs. The 10, 8, 7, Vista, or XP; Mac -based Administration assessment is independently peer ® attendees are required to use Mac OS reviewed at the Review Workshop. The X 10.5 or newer; Mobile attendees are [RTID 0648–XV129] ® ® product of the Review Workshop is a required to use iPhone , iPad , Summary documenting panel opinions TM Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Android phone or Android tablet (See regarding the strengths and weaknesses https://www.gotomeeting.com/webinar/ Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting of the stock assessment and input data. ipad-iphone-android-webinar-apps.) Participants for SEDAR Workshops are You may send an email to Mr. Kris AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Kleinschmidt at Kris.Kleinschmidt@ Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery noaa.gov or contact him at (503) 820– Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Management Councils and NOAA 2280, extension 411 for technical Commerce. Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, assistance. ACTION: Notice of scheduled SEDAR 59 Highly Migratory Species Management Council address: Pacific Fishery Division, and Southeast Fisheries Management Council, 7700 NE Assessment Webinar II for Greater Amberjack. Science Center. Participants include: Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, Data collectors and database managers; OR 97220. SUMMARY: The SEDAR 59 assessment of stock assessment scientists, biologists, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. the South Atlantic stock of Greater and researchers; constituency Robin Ehlke, Pacific Council; telephone: Amberjack will consist of a series of representatives including fishermen, (503) 820–2410. Data and Assessment webinars. environmentalists, and non- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DATES: The SEDAR 59-Assessment governmental organizations (NGOs); purpose of the webinar will be to Webinar II has been scheduled for international experts; and staff of discuss data needs, analysis, document December 16, 2019, from 9 a.m. to 12 Councils, Commissions, and state and development, work plans, and progress p.m., EST. federal agencies. made on assigned tasks, including the ADDRESSES: The items of discussion at the risk analysis. The Workgroup may also Meeting address: The meeting will be Assessment webinar II are as follows: discuss and prepare for future held via webinar. The webinar is open • Workgroup meetings and future Continue discussion about model to members of the public. Registration is meetings with the Pacific Council and structure. available online at: https:// its advisory bodies. Although non-emergency issues not attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/ This is a public meeting and not a contained in this agenda may come 5352185512159200525. public hearing. Public comments will be before this group for discussion, those SEDAR address: South Atlantic taken at the discretion of the Workgroup issues may not be the subject of formal Fishery Management Council, 4055 co-chairs as time allows. action during this meeting. Action will Although non-emergency issues not Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N be restricted to those issues specifically contained in the meeting agenda may be Charleston, SC 29405; identified in this notice and any issues discussed, those issues may not be the www.sedarweb.org. arising after publication of this notice subject of formal action during this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: that require emergency action under meeting. Action will be restricted to Kathleen Howington, SEDAR section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens those issues specifically listed in this Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Fishery Conservation and Management document and any issues arising after Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; Act, provided the public has been

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61598 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

notified of the intent to take final action the Council to consider. An agenda and I. Abstract to address the emergency. background documents will be posted at This request is for extension of a the Council’s website (www.mafmc.org) Special Accommodations currently approved information prior to the meeting. The meeting is collection. This meeting is accessible to people physically accessible to people with with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary Regulations pertaining to gear disabilities. Requests for sign language markings are set forth at 50 CFR part aids should be directed to the South interpretation or other auxiliary aid Atlantic Fishery Management Council 679 and in the annual management should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, measures published in the Federal office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 (302) 526–5251, at least 5 days prior to business days prior to the meeting. Register pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. the meeting date. This information collection contains the Note: The times and sequence specified in Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. following gear identification this agenda are subject to change. Dated: November 7, 2019. requirements for participants in the Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Tracey L. Thompson, groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska and for Dated: November 7, 2019. Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. vessels using longline pot gear to fish Tracey L. Thompson, for individual fishing quota (IFQ) [FR Doc. 2019–24624 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable sablefish in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P [FR Doc. 2019–24625 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Marker Buoys BILLING CODE 3510–22–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE All hook-and line, longline pot, and pot-and-line marker buoys carried on National Oceanic and Atmospheric board or used by any vessel regulated DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Administration under 50 CFR part 679 must be marked with the vessel’s Federal Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Proposed Information Collection; Permit number or Alaska Department of Administration Comment Request; Alaska Region Fish and Game vessel registration [RTID 0648–XV128] Gear Identification Requirements number. Regulations that marker buoys be marked with identification Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management AGENCY: National Oceanic and information are essential to facilitate Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), fisheries enforcement and actions Commerce. concerning damage, loss, and civil AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries ACTION: Notice. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and proceedings. The ability to link fishing Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), gear to the vessel owner or operator is SUMMARY: The Department of crucial to enforcement of regulations. Commerce. Commerce, as part of its continuing ACTION: Notice; public meeting. effort to reduce paperwork and Longline Pot Gear Vessel Registration respondent burden, invites the general and Tags SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery public and other Federal agencies to Management Council’s Surfclam and A vessel owner using longline pot comment on proposed and/or Ocean Quahog Committee (Committee) gear to fish for IFQ sablefish in the GOA continuing information collections, as will hold a public meeting. must annually register their vessel with required by the Paperwork Reduction the National Marine Fisheries Service DATES: The meeting will be held on Act of 1995. (NMFS) and be assigned pot tags for that Monday, December 2, 2019, from 9 a.m. DATES vessel. Each pot tag is printed with a until 12:30 p.m. : To ensure consideration, written or on-line comments must be submitted unique serial number for identification, ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held on or before January 13, 2020. and is specific to the IFQ regulatory area via webinar. Details on the proposed ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to which the tag is registered and where agenda, connection information, and the pot gear will be fished. A valid pot briefing materials will be posted at the to Adrienne Thomas, PRA Officer, NOAA, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 159, tag must be securely attached to each MAFMC’s website: www.mafmc.org. pot used to fish for IFQ sablefish in the Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Asheville, NC 28801 (or via the internet GOA. Management Council, 800 N State at [email protected]). All Vessel owners submit the form Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; comments received are part of the ‘‘Vessel Registration and Request for telephone: (302) 674–2331; public record. Comments will generally IFQ Sablefish Pot Gear Tags’’ to www.mafmc.org. be posted without change. All Personally Identifiable Information (for annually register their vessels and to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: example, name and address) voluntarily request new pot tags if a vessel does not Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive submitted by the commenter may be have previously issued tags. Tags Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery publicly accessible. Do not submit assigned to a vessel in previous years Management Council, telephone: (302) Confidential Business Information or are valid as long as the tag can be 526–5255. otherwise sensitive or protected secured to a pot and the serial number SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Mid- information. is legible. Vessel owners submit the Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s form ‘‘Request for Replacement of Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Committee FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Longline Pot Gear Tags’’ if previously will meet to review the Atlantic Requests for additional information issued tags need to be replaced. Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Excessive should be directed to Gabrielle Aberle, NMFS requires all vessel operators Shares Amendment prior to formal National Marine Fisheries Service, P.O. using longline pot gear in the GOA action by the Council. In addition, if Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. sablefish IFQ fishery to complete appropriate, the Committee will Telephone (907) 586–7228. logbooks (see OMB Control Numbers recommend preferred alternatives for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 0648–0213). When the number of pots

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61599

deployed by a vessel is self-reported or other forms of information I. Abstract through logbooks, the use of pot tags technology. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act provides an additional enforcement tool Comments submitted in response to (AIA), Public Law 112–29 § 32 (2011) to ensure that the pot limits are not this notice will be summarized and/or directs the USPTO to work with and exceeded. The use of pot tags allows at- included in the request for OMB support intellectual property law sea enforcement and post-trip approval of this information collection; associations across the country in the verification of the number of pots they also will become a matter of public establishment of pro bono programs fished. record. designed to assist financially under- II. Method of Collection Sheleen Dumas, resourced independent inventors and small businesses. To support this, the Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the The forms to request pot gear tags and USPTO—in collaboration with various register a vessel are available on the Chief Information Officer, Commerce Department. non-profit organizations—has NMFS Alaska Region website at https:// established a series of autonomous [FR Doc. 2019–24578 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska as regional hubs that act as matchmakers to fillable PDFs and may be downloaded BILLING CODE 3510–22–P help connect low-income inventors with and printed. These forms are submitted volunteer patent attorneys across the to NMFS by mail, fax, or delivery. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States. The regional hubs Marker buoys are marked with comprise law school IP clinics, bar identification information. United States Patent and Trademark associations, innovation/entrepreneurial III. Data Office organizations, and arts-focused lawyer OMB Control Number: 0648–0353. referral services that are strategically Pro Bono Survey Form Number(s): None. located to provide access to patent pro Type of Review: Regular submission bono services across all fifty states and (extension of a current information ACTION: Notice of renewal of information the District of Columbia. Additionally, collection). collection; comment request. the Study of Underrepresented Classes Affected Public: Individuals or Chasing Engineering and Science SUMMARY: households; Business or other for-profit The United States Patent and Success Act (SUCCESS Act), Public Law organizations. Trademark Office (USPTO), as required 115–273 (2018) directs the agency to Estimated Number of Respondents: by the Paperwork Reduction Act of provide recommendations on how to 988. 1995, invites comments on a proposed increase the number of women, Estimated Time per Response: revision and extension of an existing minorities, and veterans who apply for Marking longline pot gear marker buoys, information collection: 0651–0082 (Pro and obtain patents. 15 minutes per buoy; marking Bono Survey). To support the purposes described groundfish hook-and-line marker buoys, DATES: Written comments must be above, the pro bono survey would 10 minutes per buoy; 15 minutes each submitted on or before January 13, 2020. continue to collect information for the Vessel Registration and Request regarding the activity of the regional ADDRESSES: You may submit comments for IFQ Sablefish Pot Gear Tags form hubs. The USPTO has worked with the by any of the following methods: Pro Bono Advisory Council (PBAC) to and for the Request for Replacement of • Longline Pot Gear Tags form. These Email: InformationCollection@ determine what information is estimates are based on the most recent uspto.gov. Include ‘‘0651–0082 necessary to ascertain the effectiveness supporting statement prepared for this comment’’ in the subject line of the of each regional pro bono hub’s information collection in 2017. This message. matchmaking operations. PBAC is a supporting statement is available on • Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// well-established group of patent NOAA’s Paperwork Reduction Act web www.regulations.gov. practitioners and patent pro bono page at https://www.cio.noaa.gov/ • Mail: Marcie Lovett, Chief, Records regional hub administrators who have itmanagement/pdfs/0353ext2017.pdf. and Information Governance Branch, committed to provide support and Estimated Total Annual Burden Office of the Chief Administrative guidance to patent pro bono programs Hours: 1,841 hours. Officer, United States Patent and across the country. The data presently Estimated Total Annual Cost to Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, gathered, and which would continue, Public: $11,310 in recordkeeping and Alexandria, VA 22313–1450. provides USPTO with valuable reporting costs. information, including the number of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: inventor inquires, referral sources, IV. Request for Comments Requests for additional information number of applicants successfully Comments are invited on: (a) Whether should be directed to James M. matched with attorneys, and types of the proposed collection of information Silbermann, Senior Counsel for patent filing activity. PBAC, in is necessary for the proper performance Enrollment and Intellectual Property conjunction with the regional hubs, is of the functions of the agency, including Legal Services, Office of Enrollment and responsible for the collection of this whether the information shall have Discipline, United States Patent and information, which is collected on a practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, quarterly basis. The information, at its agency’s estimate of the burden Alexandria, VA 22313–1450; by highest level, will allow PBAC and the (including hours and cost) of the telephone at (571) 272–4097; or by USPTO to ascertain whether the proposed collection of information; (c) email to [email protected] regional hubs are matching qualified ways to enhance the quality, utility, and with ‘‘0651–0082 comment’’ in the low-income inventors with volunteer clarity of the information to be subject line. Additional information patent attorneys and help establish the collected; and (d) ways to minimize the about this collection is also available at total economic benefit derived by low- burden of the collection of information http://www.reginfo.gov under income inventors in the form of donated on respondents, including through the ‘‘Information Collection Review.’’ legal services. This information also use of automated collection techniques SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: helps the USPTO determine which

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61600 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

regional hubs are operating efficiently III. Data needed to gather the necessary and which programs need additional OMB Number: 0651–0082. information, enter it into the support by ascertaining the effectiveness IC Instruments and Forms: The information collection instrument, and of each individual regional hub with individual instrument in this collection, submit it. The USPTO estimates that it respect to their matchmaking efforts. will take approximately one minute for Additionally, USPTO is proposing to as well as its associated form, is listed in the table below. applicants to answer the demographic revise the existing information questions. collection to gather information Type of Review: Extension of an regarding gender, ethnicity, race, and existing information collection. Estimated Total Annual Respondent veteran status. Each regional hub will be Affected Public: Not-for-profit Burden Hours: 177.10 hours. requesting demographic information for institutions. Estimated Total Annual Respondent Estimated Number of Respondents: those seeking assistance that will be (Hourly) Cost Burden: $8,866.44.00. The 1106 total respondents. An estimated 20 self-identified by the applicant. This USPTO expects that regional program regional hubs will provide quarterly requested standardized demographic administrators will complete these information will be part of the overall responses to USPTO (the PBAC Administrator Survey). This results in applications. The professional hourly application materials that each rate for a regional program administrator independent inventor fills out when 80 responses from regional hubs per year. In addition, an estimated 1026 is $50.11. The rate for administrators seeking pro bono assistance. This (BLS 11–0000) is based the BLS 2018 information will also be used to help applicants will provide demographic National Occupation and Employment determine the extent to which the pro data in their applications directly to the and Wage Estimates. The hourly rate for bono program is helping women, regional hubs as part of their individual minorities, and veterans apply for applications for pro bono assistance, the demographic survey uses the patents. resulting in 1026 responses from estimated rate for independent applicants per year. inventors (the average of mean rates for II. Method of Collection Estimated Time per Response: The Engineers and Scientists). Using this This survey will be conducted USPTO estimates that it will take two hourly rate, the USPTO estimates that electronically through a web form hours to complete the PBAC the total respondent cost burden for this created to support this survey. Administrator Survey, including time collection is $8,866.44.00 per year.

Estimated time for Estimated Estimated Rate IC No. Information collection instrument response annual annual burden ($/hr) Totals (minutes) responses hours

(a) (b) ((a × (b) / 60) = (c) (d) (c × d) = (e)

1 ...... Regional Program Administrator Survey ...... 120 80 160 $50.11 $8,017.60 2 ...... Demographic survey...... 1 1,026 17.1 49.64 848.84

Total ...... 1,106 177.1 ...... 8,866.44

Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) (b) Accuracy of the agency’s estimate DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Respondent Cost Burden: $26,666.66. of the burden (including hours and cost) There is a startup cost for each regional of the proposed collection of United States Patent and Trademark hub to update their data collection form information, including the validity of Office to capture demographic data. The the methodology and assumptions used; USPTO estimates that each regional hub Post Allowance and Refiling (c) Ways to enhance the quality, (20) will require, on average, $4,000.00 utility, and clarity of the information to ACTION: Notice of renewal of information to update their web collection form. A collection; request for comment. total one-time cost of $80,000.00 is be collected; and annualized over a three (3) year (d) Ways to minimize the burden of SUMMARY: The United States Patent and collection period, for an annual cost of the collection of information on Trademark Office (USPTO), as required $26,666.66. There are no maintenance, respondents, e.g, including through the by the Paperwork Reduction Act of or operating fees associated with this use of appropriate automated, 1995, invites comments on the collection, nor are there postage costs, electronic, mechanical, or other extension of an existing information filing fees, or processing fees. technological collection techniques or collection: 0651–0033 (Post Allowance IV. Request for Comments other forms of information technology, and Refiling). e.g., permitting electronic submission of DATES: Written comments must be Comments submitted in response to responses. submitted on or before January 13, 2020. this notice will be summarized and/or ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Marcie Lovett, included in the request for OMB by any of the following methods: approval. All comments will become a Director, Records and Information • Email: InformationCollection@ matter of public record. USPTO invites Governance Branch, Office of the Chief uspto.gov. Include ‘‘0651–0033 public comments on: Administrative Officer, USPTO. comment’’ in the subject line of the (a) Whether the collection of [FR Doc. 2019–24618 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] message. information is necessary for the proper BILLING CODE 3510–16–P • Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// performance of the functions of the www.regulations.gov. agency, including whether the • Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records and information will have practical utility; Information Governance Branch, Office

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61601

of the Chief Administrative Officer, PTO/SB/64) is approved under Type of Review: Extension of a United States Patent and Trademark information collection 0651–0031). The currently approved collection. Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA rules outlining the procedures for Affected Public: Individuals or 22313–1450. payment of the issue fee and issuance of households; businesses or other for- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: a patent are found at 37 CFR 1.18 and profits; and not-for-profit institutions. Requests for additional information 1.311–1.317. should be directed to Raul Tamayo, This collection of information also Estimated Number of Respondents: Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent covers several transactions that may be 392,149 responses per year. The USPTO Legal Administration, United States taken after issuance of a patent, estimates that approximately 25% Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box pursuant to Chapter 25 of Title 35 (98,037) of these responses will be from 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450; by U.S.C. A certificate of correction may be small entities (22%) and micro entities telephone at 571–272–7728; or by email requested to correct an error or errors in (3%). to [email protected]. Additional the patent. If the USPTO determines Estimated Time per Response: The information about this collection is also that the request should be approved, the USPTO estimates that it will take the available at http://www.reginfo.gov USPTO will issue a certificate of public from 12 minutes (0.20 hours) to under ‘‘Information Collection Review.’’ correction. For an original patent that is 5 hours to gather the necessary believed to be wholly or partly SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: information, prepare the appropriate inoperative or invalid, the original form or document, and submit the I. Abstract patentee, or the current patent owner if information to the USPTO. This collection of information covers there has been a subsequent assignment, may apply for reissue of the patent, Estimated Total Annual Respondent the submission of issue fee payments to Burden Hours: 213,789.50 hours. the United States Patent and Trademark which entails several formal Office (USPTO). The USPTO is required requirements, including provision of an Estimated Total Annual Respondent by 35 U.S.C. 131 and 151 to examine oath or declaration specifically Cost Burden: $37,691,207.50. The applications and, when appropriate, identifying at least one error being USPTO expects that the information in relied upon as the basis for reissue and allow applications and issue them as this collection will be prepared by stating the reason for the belief that the patents. When an application for a attorneys at an estimated rate of $438 original patent is wholly or partly patent is allowed by the USPTO, the per hour, except for the Issue Fee inoperative or invalid (e.g., a defective USPTO issues a notice of allowance and Transmittal, which will be prepared by specification or drawing, or claiming the applicant must pay the specified paraprofessionals at an estimated rate of more or less than the patentee had the issue fee within three months to avoid $125 per hour. The attorney rates are right to claim in the patent). The rules abandonment of the application. If the found in the 2017 Report of the outlining these procedures are found at appropriate fees are paid within the Economic Survey of the America 37 CFR 1.171–1.178 and 1.322–1.325. proper time period, the USPTO can then Intellectual Property Law Association issue the patent. If the fees are not paid II. Method of Collection (AIPLA). The paraprofessional rate is within the designated time period, the By mail, facsimile, hand delivery, or found in the 2016 National Utilization application is abandoned (applicant electronically to the USPTO. and Compensation Survey Report may petition the Director to accept a published by the National Association delayed payment and revive the III. Data of Legal Assistants (NALA). Therefore, application with a statement that the OMB Number: 0651–0033. the USPTO estimates that the delay was unintentional; the Petition for Form Number(s): PTO/SB/44/50/51/ respondent cost burden for this Revival of an Application for Patent 51S/52/53/56/141, PTO/AIA/05/06/07, collection will be approximately Abandoned Unintentionally (Form and PTOL–85B. $37,691,207.50 per year.

Estimated time for Estimated Estimated Rate Total cost IC No. Item response annual annual ($/hr) burden (hr) responses burden hours ($/hr)

(a) (b) (a) × (b) = (c) (d) (c) × (d) = (e)

1 ...... Certificate of Correction (PTO/SB/44) ...... 1 ...... 29,000 29,000.00 $438.00 $12,702,000.00 2 ...... Petition to Correct Assignee After Payment of 0.50 (30 minutes) ...... 800 400.00 438.00 175,200.00 Issue Fee (37 CFR 3.81(b)) (PTO/SB/141). 3 ...... Reissue Documentation ...... 5 ...... 900 4,500.00 438.00 1,971,000.00 4 ...... Reissue Patent Application Transmittal (PTO/SB/ 0.20 (12 minutes) ...... 900 180.00 438.00 78,840.00 50)Office (RO/US) (PTO–1382). 5 ...... Reissue Application Declaration by the Inventor or 0.50 (30 minutes) ...... 1,150 575.00 438.00 251,850.00 the Assignee (PTO/SB/51/52 and PTO/AIA/05/ 06) or Substitute Statement in Lieu of an Oath or Declaration for Reissue Patent Application (35 U.S.C. § 115(d) and 37 CFR 1.64) (PTO/ AIA/07). 6 ...... Supplemental Declaration for Reissue Patent Ap- 0.30 (18 minutes) ...... 50 15.00 438.00 6,570.00 plication to Correct ‘‘Errors’’ Statement (37 CFR 1.175) (PTO/SB/51S). 7 ...... Reissue Application: Consent of Assignee; State- 0.20 (12 minutes) ...... 950 190.00 438.00 83,220.00 ment of Non-assignment (PTO/SB/53). 8 ...... Reissue Application Fee Transmittal Form (PTO/ 0.20 (12 minutes) ...... 900 180.00 438.00 78,840.00 SB/56). 9 ...... Issue Fee Transmittal (PTOL–85B) ...... 0.50 (30 minutes) ...... 35,750 17,875.00 125.00 2,234,375.00 10 ...... Issue Fee Transmittal (electronic) (PTOL–85B) .... 0.50 (30 minutes) ...... 321,749 160,874.50 125.00 20,109,312.50

Totals ...... 392,149 213,789.50 ...... 37,691,207.50

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61602 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

Estimated Total Annual Non-hour associated with this information Filing Fees: There are filing fees Respondent Cost Burden: $305,708,615. collection. However, this collection associated with this collection. The There are no capital start-up, does have annual (non-hour) costs in items with filing fees are listed in the maintenance, or recordkeeping costs the form of filing fees and postage costs. table below.

Estimated Total non-hour IC No. Information collection instrument annual Filing fee cost burden responses ($) (yr)

(a) (b) (a) × (b) = (c)

1 ...... Certificate of correction ...... 10,395 $150.00 $1,559,250.00 3 ...... Basic filing fee—Reissue (Large entity) ...... 672 300.00 201,600.00 3 ...... Basic filing fee—Reissue (Small entity) ...... 225 150.00 33,750.00 3 ...... Basic filing fee—Reissue (Micro entity) ...... 11 75.00 825.00 3 ...... Reissue Search Fee (Large entity) ...... 669 660.00 441,540.00 3 ...... Reissue Search Fee (Small entity) ...... 226 330.00 74,580.00 3 ...... Reissue Search Fee (Micro entity) ...... 11 165.00 1,815.00 3 ...... Reissue independent claims in excess of three (Large entity) ...... 694 460.00 319,240.00 3 ...... Reissue independent claims in excess of three (Small entity) ...... 228 230.00 52,440.00 3 ...... Reissue independent claims in excess of three (Micro entity) ...... 10 115.00 1,150.00 3 ...... Reissue claims in excess of 20 (Large entity) ...... 5,374 100.00 537,400.00 3 ...... Reissue claims in excess of 20 (Small entity) ...... 1,588 50.00 79,400.00 3 ...... Reissue claims in excess of 20 (Micro entity) ...... 82 25.00 2,050.00 3, 4 ...... Reissue Application Size Fee—for each additional 50 sheets that exceeds 41 400.00 16,400.00 100 sheets (Large entity). 3, 4 ...... Reissue Application Size Fee—for each additional 50 sheets that exceeds 9 200.00 1,800.00 100 sheets (Small entity). 3, 4 ...... Reissue Application Size Fee—for each additional 50 sheets that exceeds 1 100.00 100.00 100 sheets (Micro entity). 3 ...... Reissue Examination Fee (Large entity) ...... 670 2,200.00 1,474,000.00 3 ...... Reissue Examination Fee (Small entity) ...... 222 1,100.00 244,200.00 3 ...... Reissue Examination Fee (Micro entity) ...... 11 550.00 6,050.00 9, 10 ...... Utility issue fee (Large entity) ...... 248,775 1,000.00 248,775,000.00 9, 10 ...... Utility issue fee (Small entity) ...... 63,994 500.00 31,997,000.00 9, 10 ...... Utility issue fee (Micro entity) ...... 7,952 250.00 1,988,000.00 9, 10 ...... Design issue fee (Large entity) ...... 16,668 700.00 11,667,600.00 9, 10 ...... Design issue fee (Small entity) ...... 12,415 350.00 4,345,250.00 9, 10 ...... Design issue fee (Micro entity) ...... 2,586 175.00 452,550.00 9, 10 ...... Plant issue fee (Large entity) ...... 768 800.00 614,400.00 9, 10 ...... Plant issue fee (Small entity) ...... 650 400.00 260,000.00 9, 10 ...... Plant issue fee (Micro entity) ...... 15 200.00 3,000.00 9, 10 ...... Reissue issue fee (Large entity) ...... 463 1,000.00 463,000.00 9, 10 ...... Reissue issue fee (Small entity) ...... 132 500.00 66,000.00 9, 10 ...... Reissue issue fee (Micro entity) ...... 2 250.00 500.00

Total ...... 375,559 ...... 305,679,890

Postage Costs: Customers may also (a) Whether the collection of e.g., permitting electronic submission of incur postage costs when submitting the information is necessary for the proper responses. information in this collection by the performance of the functions of the Marcie Lovett, USPTO by mail. The USPTO estimates agency, including whether the the average USPS Priority Mail postage Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, information will have practical utility; Records and Information Governance Branch, cost for a legal flat rate envelop is (b) Accuracy of the agency’s estimate USPTO. estimated to be $7.65 and that of the burden (including hours and cost) [FR Doc. 2019–24617 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] approximately 1% (3,755) of the submissions will be mailed to the of the proposed collection of BILLING CODE 3510–16–P USPTO per year, for a total estimated information, including the validity of postage cost of $28,725 per year. the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, The total annual (non-hour) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE respondent cost burden for this utility, and clarity of the information to collection is estimated to be be collected; and Department of the Army approximately $305,708,615 per year. (d) Ways to minimize the burden of IV. Request for Comments the collection of information on [Docket ID: USA–2019–HQ–0030] respondents, e.g, including through the Comments submitted in response to use of appropriate automated, Proposed Collection; Comment this notice will be summarized and/or electronic, mechanical, or other Request included in the request for OMB technological collection techniques or AGENCY: Department of the Army, approval. All comments will become a other forms of information technology, Network Enterprise Technology, DoD. matter of public record. ACTION: Information collection notice. USPTO invites public comments on:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61603

SUMMARY: In compliance with the System (MARS) Station. The MARS proposed collection of information is Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the program is a civilian auxiliary necessary for the proper performance of Department of the Army, Network consisting primarily of licensed amateur the functions of the agency, including Enterprise Technology announces a radio operators who are interested in whether the information shall have proposed public information collection assisting the military with practical utility; the accuracy of the and seeks public comment on the communications on a local, national, agency’s estimate of the burden of the provisions thereof. Comments are and international basis as an adjunct to proposed information collection; ways invited on: Whether the proposed normal communications and providing to enhance the quality, utility, and collection of information is necessary worldwide auxiliary emergency clarity of the information to be for the proper performance of the communications during times of need. collected; and ways to minimize the functions of the agency, including The information collection requirement burden of the information collection on whether the information shall have is necessary not only an application to respondents, including through the use practical utility; the accuracy of the join ARMY MARS, but to maintain an of automated collection techniques or agency’s estimate of the burden of the accurate roster of civilians enrolled in other forms of information technology. proposed information collection; ways the program for the purpose of DATES: Consideration will be given to all to enhance the quality, utility, and providing contingency communications comments received by January 13, 2020. clarity of the information to be support to the Department of Defense. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, collected; and ways to minimize the Additionally, the collected information identified by docket number and title, burden of the information collection on is used by the MARS program manager by any of the following methods: respondents, including through the use to determine an individual’s eligibility Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// of automated collection techniques or for the program, as well as to initiate a www.regulations.gov. Follow the other forms of information technology. background investigation should a instructions for submitting comments. DATES: Consideration will be given to all security clearance be required; used to Mail: Department of Defense, Office of comments received by January 13, 2020. show the geographic dispersion of the the Chief Management Officer, ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, members who participate in the global Directorate for Oversight and identified by docket number and title, High Frequency radio network in Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, by any of the following methods: support of the Department of Defense; Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// and to ensure our radio spectrum VA 22350–1700. www.regulations.gov. Follow the authorizations cover the geographic Instructions: All submissions received instructions for submitting comments. areas from which our members will must include the agency name, docket Mail: Department of Defense, Office of operate. The information is also used number and title for this Federal the Chief Management Officer, periodically to email informational Register document. The general policy Directorate for Oversight and updates about the MARS program. for comments and other submissions Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Affected Public: Individuals and from members of the public is to make Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, households. these submissions available for public VA 22350–1700. Annual Burden Hours: 137.5. viewing on the internet at http:// Instructions: All submissions received Number of Respondents: 550. www.regulations.gov as they are must include the agency name, docket Responses per Respondent: 1. received without change, including any number and title for this Federal Annual Responses: 550. personal identifiers or contact Register document. The general policy Average Burden per Response: 15 information. for comments and other submissions minutes. Frequency: On Occasion. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To from members of the public is to make request more information on this Dated: November 6, 2019. these submissions available for public proposed information collection or to viewing on the internet at http:// Aaron T. Siegel, obtain a copy of the proposal and www.regulations.gov as they are Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison associated collection instruments, received without change, including any Officer, Department of Defense. please write to the USACE personal identifiers or contact [FR Doc. 2019–24589 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Infrastructure Team, ATTN: Sandra information. BILLING CODE 5001–06–P Stroud, CECW–I (3K87), 441 G Street FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To NW, Washington, DC 20314, or by email request more information on this to CW. Infrastructure.Team@ proposed information collection or to DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE usace.army.mil. Tel: (571) 515–0231. obtain a copy of the proposal and Department of the Army SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: associated collection instruments, Title; Associated Form; and OMB please write to the Headquarters, [Docket ID USA–2019–HQ–0031] Number: Corps Water Infrastructure Network Enterprise Technology Financing Program (CWIFP) Preliminary Command, Military Auxiliary Radio Proposed Collection; Comment Application and Application; OMB System, Salado, TX 76571, ATTN: Paul Request Control Number 0710–XXXX. English, or call 254–947–3141. AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Needs and Uses: The Preliminary SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DoD. Application information collection Title; Associated Form; and OMB ACTION: Information collection notice. requirement is necessary to (1) validate Number: Application to Operate a the eligibility of the prospective Military Auxiliary Radio System SUMMARY: In compliance with the borrower and the proposed project, (2) (MARS) Station, Army MARS Form Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the perform a preliminary creditworthiness AM–1, OMB Control Number 0702– U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) assessment, (3) perform a preliminary 0140. announces a proposed public engineering and environmental Needs and Uses: The information information collection and seeks public feasibility assessment, and (4) evaluate collection requirement is necessary to comment on the provisions thereof. the project against the selection criteria operate a Military Auxiliary Radio Comments are invited on: Whether the and identify which projects USACE will

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61604 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

invite to submit applications. The the burden of the proposed information Responses per Respondent: 1. Preliminary Application addresses the collection; ways to enhance the quality, Annual Responses: 100. CWIFP eligibility criteria, CWIFP utility, and clarity of the information to Average Burden per Response: 20 selection criteria, and identifies other be collected; and ways to minimize the Minutes. specific information that must be burden of the information collection on Frequency: Annually. provided to USACE to be considered for respondents, including through the use Executive Order 12656 (Assignment credit assistance. The Preliminary of automated collection techniques or of Emergency Preparedness Application provides USACE with other forms of information technology. Responsibilities) assigns Federal departments and agencies sufficient information to make a project DATES: Consideration will be given to all responsibilities during emergency selection and invite prospective comments received by January 13, 2020. situations. In its supporting role to the borrowers to submit applications. Based ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, on evaluation of the Preliminary Departments of State and Health and identified by docket number and title, Human Services (HHS), the Department Application, USACE will invite to by any of the following methods: submit an Application only those of Defense will assist in planning for the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// protection, evacuation and repatriation eligible projects that it expects to www.regulations.gov. Follow the proceed to closing. Only those entities of U.S. citizens in threatened areas instructions for submitting comments. overseas. The DD Form 2585, who are invited by USACE to submit an Mail: Department of Defense, Office of Application should proceed with the ‘‘Repatriation Processing Center the Chief Management Officer, Processing Sheet,’’ has numerous Application process. The Application Directorate for Oversight and provides USACE with information to functions, but is primarily used for Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, personnel accountability of all evacuees assess the creditworthiness of both the Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, applicant and project, identify the who process through designated VA 22350–1700. Repatriation Centers. During processing, project’s engineering and financial risk, Instructions: All submissions received evacuees are provided emergency negotiate the terms and conditions of must include the agency name, docket human services, including food, the credit assistance, and calculate the number and title for this Federal clothing, lodging, family reunification, amount of budget authority that will be Register document. The general policy social services and financial assistance needed to fund the project(s). for comments and other submissions through federal entitlements, loans or Affected Public: Individuals & from members of the public is to make emergency aid organizations. The households. these submissions available for public information, once collected, is input Annual Burden Hours: 50. viewing on the internet at http:// into the Automated Repatriation Number of Respondents: 15. www.regulations.gov as they are Reporting System, and is available to Responses per Respondent: 1. received without change, including any Annual Responses: 15. designated offices throughout personal identifiers or contact Average Burden per Response: 3.33 Departments of Defense, State, Health information. Hours. and Human Services, the American Red Frequency: On occasion. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To Cross and State government emergency Dated: November 6, 2019. request more information on this planning offices for operational proposed information collection or to Aaron T. Siegel, inquiries and reporting and future obtain a copy of the proposal and planning purposes. Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison associated collection instruments, Officer, Department of Defense. Dated: November 6, 2019. please write to the Office of the Under [FR Doc. 2019–24599 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Aaron T. Siegel, BILLING CODE 5001–06–P Readiness), Military Personnel Policy, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management, ATTN: Lt Col Debra [FR Doc. 2019–24609 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Lovette, USAF, 4000 Defense Pentagon, BILLING CODE 5001–06–P Office of the Secretary Washington, DC 20301–4000 or call (703) 697–4959. [Docket ID DoD–2019–OS–0123] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Title; Associated Form; and OMB Proposed Collection; Comment National Assessment Governing Board Request Number: Automated Repatriation Reporting System; DD Form 2585; OMB AGENCY: National Assessment AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of Control Number 0704–0334. Governing Board, U.S. Department of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Needs and Uses: The information Education. DoD. collection requirement is necessary for ACTION: Announcement of open and ACTION: Information collection notice. personnel accountability of all evacuees, closed meetings. regardless of nationality, who are SUMMARY: In compliance with the processed through designated SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Repatriation Centers throughout the agenda for the November 14–16, 2019 OUSD(P&R) announces a proposed United States. The information obtained Quarterly Board Meeting of the National public information collection and seeks from the DD Form 2585 is entered into Assessment Governing Board (hereafter public comment on the provisions an automated system; a series of reports referred to as Governing Board). This thereof. Comments are invited on: is accessible to DoD Components, notice provides information to members Whether the proposed collection of Federal and State agencies and Red of the public who may be interested in information is necessary for the proper Cross, as required. attending the meeting or providing performance of the functions of the Affected Public: Individuals or written comments related to the work of agency, including whether the Households. the Governing Board. Notice of this information shall have practical utility; Annual Burden Hours: 33. meeting is required under § 10(a) (2) of the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of Number of Respondents: 100. the Federal Advisory Committee Act

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61605

(FACA). This notice is being posted late Detailed Meeting Agenda: November will then provide remarks and introduce because of challenges in ensuring the 14–16, 2019 new members. Thereafter, Secretary of availability of members to constitute a Education, Betsy DeVos, will administer November 14: Committee Meetings quorum. the oath of office to the new members Executive Committee: Open Session: and then address the Governing Board. DATES: The Quarterly Board Meeting 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Closed Session Newly appointed members will then will be held on the following dates: 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. provide introductory remarks. • November 14, 2019 from 4:00 p.m. From 9:30 a.m. to 9:35 a.m., standing November 15: Full Governing Board and to 6:00 p.m. committee chairs will provide a preview Committee Meetings • November 15, 2019 from 8:30 a.m. of committee meeting agendas. At 9:35 to 5:30 p.m. Full Governing Board: Open Session: a.m., the Governing Board will recess • November 16, 2019 from 7:30 a.m. 8:30 a.m. to 9:35 a.m. Closed Session: for a 10-minute break and meet to 12:00 p.m. 12:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.; Open Session: thereafter in committee meetings from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: Westin Arlington Gateway, 9:45 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. Committee Meetings: 9:40 a.m. to ADC and R&D will convene in open 801 N. Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22203 11:45 a.m. session from 9:45 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assessment Development Committee conduct regular business. COSDAM will Munira Mwalimu, Executive Officer/ (ADC): Open Session: 9:45 a.m. to 11:45 meet in open session from 9:45 a.m. to Designated Federal Official for the a.m. 10:30 a.m. to discuss COSDAM Governing Board, 800 North Capitol Committee on Standards, Design and priorities and current activities. From Street NW, Suite 825, Washington, DC Methodology (COSDAM): Open Session: 10:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. COSDAM will 20002, telephone: (202) 357–6938, fax: 9:45 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.; Closed Session: meet in closed session to discuss plans (202) 357–6945, email: 10:30 a.m.–11:45 a.m.; for the design of 2021 NAEP [email protected]. Reporting and Dissemination assessments. The presentation contains SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Committee (R&D): Open Session: 9:45 secure materials from the Reading and a.m. to 11:45 a.m.; Statutory Authority and Function: Mathematics assessments. Public The Governing Board is established November 16: Full Governing Board and disclosure of secure materials would under the National Assessment of Committee Meetings significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if Educational Progress Authorization Act, Nominations Committee: Closed Title III of Pub. L. 107–279. Information conducted in open session. Such Session: 7:30 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. matters are protected by exemption 9(B) on the Governing Board and its work Full Governing Board: Open Session: can be found at www.nagb.gov. of § 552b of Title 5 U.S.C. 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.; Following the committee meetings, on The Governing Board is established to On Thursday, November 14, 2019, the Friday, November 15, 2019, the formulate policy for the National Executive Committee will convene in Governing Board will convene in closed Assessment of Educational Progress open session from 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. session from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. (NAEP) administered by the National and thereafter in closed session from During this session, the Governing Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. During the closed Board will receive a briefing and discuss The Governing Board’s responsibilities session, the Executive Committee will the NAEP Budget vis-a`-vis the NAEP include the following: Selecting subject discuss the NAEP Assessment Schedule Assessment Schedule, as well as discuss areas to be assessed, developing and budget implications for future the status of the NAEP design and assessment frameworks and NAEP assessments based on the potential impact to the NAEP budget specifications, developing appropriate approved NAEP Assessment Schedule with long-term implications for the student achievement levels for each and independent government cost NAEP Assessment Schedule and grade and subject tested, developing estimates. This meeting must be Budget. The discussions will involve a standards and procedures for interstate conducted in closed session because briefing on confidential design change and national comparisons, improving public disclosure of this information costs via-a-vis independent government the form and use of NAEP, developing would likely have an adverse financial cost estimates for assessing NAEP guidelines for reporting and effect on the NAEP program by subjects on the recently approved NAEP disseminating results, and releasing providing detailed proprietary contract Assessment Schedule. This meeting initial NAEP results to the public. costs of current NAEP contractors to the must be conducted in closed session as Written comments related to the work public and disclose independent discussion of the independent of the Governing Board may be government cost estimates for future government cost estimates for NAEP submitted electronically or in hard copy NAEP assessments. Discussion of this design changes that impact current and to the attention of the Executive Officer/ information would be likely to future NAEP contracts are confidential. Designated Federal Official (see contact significantly impede implementation of Public disclosure of secure data would information noted above). a proposed agency action if conducted significantly impede implementation of November 14–16, 2019—Committee in open session. Such matters are the NAEP assessment program if Meetings protected by exemption 9(B) of section conducted in open session. Such 552b of Title 5 U.S.C. matters are protected by exemption 9(B) The Governing Board’s standing On Friday, November 15, 2019, the of § 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United committees will meet to conduct Governing Board will meet in open States Code. regularly scheduled work based on session from 8:30 a.m. to 9:35 a.m. to The Governing Board will take a 15- agenda items planned for this Quarterly review and approve the November 15– minute break and reconvene in closed Board Meeting and follow-up items as 16, 2019 Quarterly Board Meeting session from 1:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to reported in the Governing Board’s agenda and meeting minutes from the receive an ethics briefing from the committee meeting minutes available at August 2019 Quarterly Board meeting. Office of General Counsel. This briefing https://www.nagb.gov/governing-board/ The Governing Board will be welcomed will involve a question and answer quarterly-board-meetings.html. by the Governing Board Vice Chair who session on Governing Board member

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61606 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

ethics matters. The discussions pertain open discussion on Governing Board DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY solely to internal personnel rules and priorities and topics that members will practices of an agency and information bring up for future discussions. From Environmental Management Advisory of a personal nature where disclosure 11:45 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Governing Board would constitute a clearly unwarranted Board member Dana Boyd will provide AGENCY: Office of Environmental invasion of personal privacy. As such, a preview of the upcoming March 2020 Management, Department of Energy. the discussions are protected by Governing Board meeting scheduled to ACTION: Notice of open meeting. exemptions 2 and 6 of § 552b(c) of Title be held in El Paso, Texas. 5 of the United States Code. SUMMARY: This notice announces a Following a 15 minute break, the The November 16, 2019 session of the meeting of the Environmental Governing Board will meet in open Governing Board meeting will adjourn Management Advisory Board (EMAB). session from 2:30 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. The at 12:00 p.m. The Federal Advisory Committee Act Governing Board will receive an update Access to Records of the Meeting: requires that public notice of this on the NAEP Mathematics Framework Pursuant to FACA requirements, the meeting be announced in the Federal and an overview of the NAEP public may also inspect the meeting Register. Postsecondary Preparedness work. materials at www.nagb.gov beginning on DATE: Tuesday, December 3, 2019; 8:30 Following these sessions, the Governing November 11, 2019, by 10:00 a.m. EST. a.m.–4:30 p.m. Board will take a 15-minute recess and The official verbatim transcripts of the meet in small groups to discuss post- ADDRESSES: public meeting sessions will be Canopy by Hilton–The secondary preparedness from 4:30 p.m. Wharf, 975 7th Street Southwest, available for public inspection no later to 5:30 p.m. Washington, District of Columbia 20024. The November 15, 2019 session of the than 30 calendar days following the meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Governing Board meeting will adjourn David Borak, EMAB Designated Federal at 5:30 p.m. Reasonable Accommodations: The Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, On Saturday, November 16, 2019, the meeting site is accessible to individuals 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Nominations Committee will meet from with disabilities. If you will need an Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 7:30 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. in closed session auxiliary aid or service to participate in 586–9928; email: david.borak@ to discuss a briefing on applications the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, em.doe.gov. received and reviewed for the 2020 assistive listening device, or materials in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: nominations cycle for Governing Board an alternate format), notify the contact appointments for terms that will begin Purpose of the Board: The purpose of person listed in this notice no later than October 1, 2020. The discussions the Board is provide the Assistant Monday, November 11, 2019. pertain solely to internal personnel Secretary for Environmental rules and practices of an agency and Electronic Access to this Document: Management (EM) with advice and information of a personal nature where The official version of this document is recommendations on corporate issues disclosure would constitute a clearly the document published in the Federal confronting the EM program. EMAB unwarranted invasion of personal Register. Internet access to the official contributes to the effective operation of privacy. As such, the discussions are edition of the Federal Register and the the program by providing individual protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of Code of Federal Regulations is available citizens and representatives of § 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States via the Federal Digital System at: interested groups an opportunity to Code. www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can present their views on issues facing EM On November 16, 2019, the Governing view this document, as well as all other and by helping to secure consensus Board will meet in open session from documents of this Department recommendations on those issues. 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. From 8:30 a.m. published in the Federal Register, in Tentative Agenda Topics to 9:00 a.m. the Governing Board will text or Adobe Portable Document discuss highlights from the prior day’s Æ Technology Development Update Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must breakout group meetings and engage in Æ Waste Disposition and Regulatory have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is discussion on post-secondary Affairs Update available free at the Adobe website. You Æ preparedness. From 9:00 a.m. to 9:20 Budget and Planning Update Æ a.m., the Governing Board will receive may also access documents of the Discussion of EMAB Subcommittee an update on a proposed statement of Department published in the Federal Report—Accelerating Cleanup the intended meaning of NAEP results. Register by using the article search Completion and Closure Across the From 9:20 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., the feature at: www.federalregister.gov. EM Complex by Facilitating Governing Board will receive an update Specifically, through the advanced Workforce/Community Engagement on the work of the Achievement Levels search feature at this site, you can limit and Transition your search to documents published by Æ Public Comment working Group, following which the Æ Governing Board will recess for a 15 the Department. Board Business minutes break. Authority: Pub. L. 107–279, Title III— Public Participation: The meeting is From 10:15 a.m. to 10:45 a.m., National Assessment of Educational Progress open to the public. The EMAB Executive Director, Lesley Muldoon will § 301. welcomes the attendance of the public provide an update on the Governing at their advisory committee meetings Board’s work. Committee reports will be Lesley Muldoon, and will make every effort to provided from 10:45 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. Executive Director, National Assessment accommodate persons with physical with an action item submitted by the Governing Board (NAGB), U. S. Department disabilities or special needs. If you Assessment Development Committee to of Education. require special accommodations due to approve the 2025 NAEP Mathematics [FR Doc. 2019–24637 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] a disability, please contact David Borak Framework. BILLING CODE P at least seven days in advance of the From 11:15 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. the meeting at the phone number listed Governing Board has set aside time for above. Written statements may be filed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61607

either before or after the meeting with notice for additional information on by these States and territories are clearly the Designated Federal Officer, David attending the public meeting. marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver’s Borak, at the address or telephone listed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John License); a military ID or other Federal above. Individuals who wish to make Cymbalsky, ASRAC Designated Federal government-issued Photo-ID card. oral statements pertaining to agenda Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, In addition, you can attend the public items should also contact David Borak. Building Technologies Program, EE–5B, meeting via webinar. Webinar Requests must be received five days 1000 Independence Avenue SW, registration information, participant prior to the meeting and reasonable Washington, DC 20585–0121, email: instructions, and information about the provision will be made to include the [email protected]. capabilities available to webinar presentation in the agenda. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The participants will be published on DOE’s Designated Federal Officer is primary focus of this meeting will be the website: https://www.energy.gov/eere/ empowered to conduct the meeting in a discussion and prioritization of topic buildings/appliance-standards-and- fashion that will facilitate the orderly areas that ASRAC can assist the rulemaking-federal-advisory-committee. conduct of business. Individuals Appliance and Equipment Standards Participants are responsible for wishing to make public comment will Program with. DOE plans to hold this ensuring their systems are compatible be provided a maximum of five minutes public meeting to gather advice and with the webinar software. to present their comments. recommendations to the Energy Minutes: Minutes will be available by Department on the development of Procedure for Submitting Prepared writing or calling David Borak at the standards and test procedures for General Statements for Distribution address or phone number listed above. residential appliances and commercial Any person who has plans to present Minutes will also be available at the equipment. (The final agenda will be a prepared general statement may following website: https:// available for public viewing at https:// request that copies of his or her www.energy.gov/em/listings/emab- www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE- statement be made available at the meetings. 2013-BT-NOC-0005.) public meeting. Such persons may Signed in Washington, DC, on November 7, Public Participation submit requests, along with an advance 2019 electronic copy of their statement in LaTanya Butler, Attendance at Public Meeting PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Deputy Committee Management Officer. The time, date and location of the Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file [FR Doc. 2019–24650 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] public meeting are listed in the DATES format, to the appropriate address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION BILLING CODE 6450–01–P and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If you plan to attend CONTACT section at the beginning of this the public meeting, please notify the notice. The request and advance copy of DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ASRAC staff at [email protected]. statements must be received at least one Please note that foreign nationals week before the public meeting and may [EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0005] participating in the public meeting are be emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by subject to advance security screening mail. DOE prefers to receive requests Appliance Standards and Rulemaking procedures which require advance and advance copies via email. Please Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of notice prior to attendance at the public include a telephone number to enable Public Meeting meeting. If a foreign national wishes to DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, participate in the public meeting, please if needed. AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and inform DOE as soon as possible by Conduct of Public Meeting Renewable Energy, Department of contacting Ms. Regina Washington at Energy. (202) 586–1214 or by email: ASRAC’s Designated Federal Officer ACTION: Notice of open meeting and [email protected] so that will preside at the public meeting and webinar. the necessary procedures can be may also use a professional facilitator to completed. aid discussion. The meeting will not be SUMMARY: This notice announces a Due to the REAL ID Act implemented a judicial or evidentiary-type public public meeting of the Appliance by the Department of Homeland hearing, but DOE will conduct it in Standards and Rulemaking Federal Security (DHS), there have been recent accordance with section 336 of EPCA Advisory Committee (ASRAC). The changes regarding ID requirements for (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will Federal Advisory Committee Act individuals wishing to enter Federal be present to record the proceedings and (FACA), requires that agencies publish buildings from specific States and U.S. prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the notice of an advisory committee meeting territories. DHS maintains an updated right to schedule the order of in the Federal Register. website identifying the State and presentations and to establish the DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting territory driver’s licenses that currently procedures governing the conduct of the on December 5, 2019 from 10 a.m. to 4 are acceptable for entry into DOE public meeting. p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting facilities at https://www.dhs.gov/real-id- The public meeting will be conducted will also be broadcast as a webinar. See enforcement-brief. A driver’s license in an informal, conference style. DOE the Public Participation section of this from a State or territory identified as not will present summaries of comments notice for webinar registration compliant by DHS will not be accepted received before the public meeting, information, participant instructions, for building entry and one of the allow time for prepared general and information about the capabilities alternate forms of ID listed below will statements by participants, and available to webinar participants. be required. Acceptable alternate forms encourage all interested parties to share ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be of Photo-ID include U.S. Passport or their views. Each participant will be held at the National Renewable Energy Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver’s allowed to make a general statement Laboratory, 901 D Street SW, Suite 930, License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by (within time limits determined by DOE), Washington, DC 20024. Please see the States and territories as identified on the before the discussion of specific topics. Public Participation section of this DHS website (Enhanced licenses issued DOE will permit, as time permits, other

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61608 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

participants to comment briefly on any and site management in the areas of DATES: Thursday, December 12, 2019; general statements. environmental restoration, waste 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. At the end of all prepared statements management, and related activities. ADDRESSES: Willard Intercontinental on a topic, DOE will permit participants Tentative Agenda Washington, DC, 1401 Pennsylvania to clarify their statements briefly and Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004, comment on statements made by others. 1. Educational Session: DOE and Nuclear Room: Grand Ballroom. Participants should be prepared to Regulatory Commission (NRC) Waste answer questions by DOE and by other Classification Systems FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participants concerning these issues. 2. Briefing for Waste Verification Strategy— Nancy Johnson, U.S. Department of Work Plan Item #1 DOE representatives may also ask 3. Follow-up to Audit Determination Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas questions of participants concerning Process—Work Plan Item from Fiscal Year (FE–30), Washington, DC 20585; other relevant matters. The official 2019 telephone (202) 586–5600 or facsimile conducting the public meeting will (202) 586–6221; email: [email protected]. accept additional comments or Public Participation: The meeting is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: questions from those attending, as time open to the public. The EM SSAB, permits. The presiding official will Nevada, welcomes the attendance of the Purpose of the Committee: To provide announce any further procedural rules public at its advisory committee advice, information, and or modification of the above procedures meetings and will make every effort to recommendations to the Secretary of that may be needed for the proper accommodate persons with physical Energy on matters relating to oil and conduct of the public meeting. disabilities or special needs. If you natural gas, or the oil and natural gas A transcript of the public meeting will require special accommodations due to industries. a disability, please contact Barbara be included on DOE’s website: https:// Tentative Agenda: energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance- Ulmer at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone number standards-and-rulemaking-federal- • Call to Order and Introductory advisory-committee. listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or Remarks In addition, any person may buy a • copy of the transcript from the after the meeting. Individuals who wish Remarks by the Department of Energy transcribing reporter. to make oral presentations pertaining to • Report from the NPC Committee on agenda items should contact Barbara U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Signed in Washington, DC, on November 4, Ulmer at the telephone number listed Transportation Infrastructure 2019. above. The request must be received five • Report from the NPC Committee on Alex N. Fitzsimmons, days prior to the meeting and reasonable Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy provision will be made to include the Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable presentation in the agenda. The Deputy • Administrative Matters Energy. Designated Federal Officer is • Discussion of Any Other Business [FR Doc. 2019–24645 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] empowered to conduct the meeting in a Properly Brought Before the National BILLING CODE 6450–01–P fashion that will facilitate the orderly Petroleum Council conduct of business. Individuals • Adjournment wishing to make public comments can DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY do so during the 15 minutes allotted for Public Participation: The meeting is public comments. open to the public. The Chair of the Environmental Management Site- Council will conduct the meeting to Specific Advisory Board, Nevada Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing to Barbara Ulmer at the address facilitate the orderly conduct of AGENCY: Office of Environmental listed above or at the following website: business. Members of the public who Management, Department of Energy. http://www.nnss.gov/NSSAB/pages/ wish to make oral statements pertaining _ to agenda items should contact Ms. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. MM FY20.html. Nancy Johnson at the address or Signed in Washington, DC, on November 7, telephone number listed above. Request SUMMARY: This notice announces a 2019. for oral statements must be received at meeting of the Environmental LaTanya Butler, Management Site-Specific Advisory least three days prior to the meeting. Deputy Committee Management Officer. Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal Those not able to attend the meeting or Advisory Committee Act requires that [FR Doc. 2019–24652 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] having insufficient time to address the public notice of this meeting be BILLING CODE 6450–01–P Council are invited to send a written announced in the Federal Register. statement to [email protected]. Any member of the public who wishes to file a DATES: Wednesday, January 15, 2020; DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 4:00 p.m. written statement to the Council will be permitted to do so, either before or after ADDRESSES: Valley Electric Association, National Petroleum Council the meeting. Valley Conference Center, 800 East AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, Highway 372, Pahrump, Nevada 89041. Transcripts: Transcripts of the Department of Energy. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: meeting will be available by contacting ACTION: Notice of open meeting. Barbara Ulmer, Board Administrator, Ms. Johnson at the address above, or [email protected]. 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1750, Las SUMMARY: This notice announces a Vegas, Nevada 89106. Phone: (702) 523– meeting of the National Petroleum Signed in Washington, DC, on November 7, 0894; Fax (702) 724–0981 or Email: Council. The Federal Advisory 2019. [email protected]. Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. LaTanya Butler, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of 770) requires that public notice of this Deputy Committee Management Officer. the Board: The purpose of the Board is meeting be announced in the Federal [FR Doc. 2019–24639 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] to make recommendations to DOE–EM Register. BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61609

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY listed above. Written statements may be assumptions of liability, is November filed with the Board either before or 26, 2019. Environmental Management Site- after the meeting. Individuals who wish The Commission encourages Specific Advisory Board, Hanford to make oral statements pertaining to electronic submission of protests and agenda items should contact JoLynn interventions in lieu of paper, using the AGENCY: Office of Environmental Garcia at the address or telephone FERC Online links at http:// Management, Department of Energy. number listed above. Requests must be www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic ACTION: Notice of open meeting. received five days prior to the meeting service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be SUMMARY: This notice announces a and reasonable provision will be made meeting of the Environmental to include the presentation in the listed as a contact for an intervenor Management Site-Specific Advisory agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal must create and validate an Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the eRegistration account using the Advisory Committee Act requires that meeting in a fashion that will facilitate eRegistration link. Select the eFiling public notice of this meeting be the orderly conduct of business. link to log on and submit the announced in the Federal Register. Individuals wishing to make public intervention or protests. comments will be provided a maximum Persons unable to file electronically DATES: Wednesday, December 4, 2019; of five minutes to present their should submit an original and 5 copies 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m.; Thursday, comments. of the intervention or protest to the December 5, 2019; 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m. Minutes: Minutes will be available by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, ADDRESSES: Best Western Plus, 1515 writing or calling JoLynn Garcia’s office 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC George Washington Way, Richland, WA at the address or telephone number 20426. 99354. listed above. Minutes will also be The filings in the above-referenced FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: available at the following website: proceeding are accessible in the JoLynn Garcia, Federal Coordinator, http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/hab/ Commission’s eLibrary system by U.S. Department of Energy, Office of FullBoardMeetingInformation. clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for River Protection, P.O. Box 450, H6–60, Signed in Washington, DC, on November 7, Richland, WA 99354; Phone: (509) 376– 2019. electronic review in the Commission’s _ _ Public Reference Room in Washington, 6244; or Email: jolynn m garcia@ LaTanya Butler, orp.doe.gov. DC. There is an eSubscription link on Deputy Committee Management Officer. the website that enables subscribers to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [FR Doc. 2019–24648 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] receive email notification when a Purpose of the Board: The purpose of BILLING CODE 6450–01–P document is added to a subscribed the Board is to make recommendations docket(s). For assistance with any FERC to DOE–EM and site management in the Online service, please email areas of environmental restoration, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [email protected]. or call waste management, and related (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call activities. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (202) 502–8659. Tentative Agenda Dated: November 6, 2019. [Docket No. ER20–319–000] • Potential Draft Hanford Advisory Kimberly D. Bose, Board Advice Kimball Wind LLC; Supplemental Secretary. D Consider Draft Advice on 100 B/C Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate [FR Doc. 2019–24631 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Proposed Plan • Filing Includes Request for Blanket BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Potential Draft EM SSAB Chairs’ Section 204 Authorization Recommendation(s) D Vote on Recommendation(s) from This is a supplemental notice in the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY October 2019 Meeting above-referenced proceeding of Kimball • Discussion Topics Wind LLC’s application for market- Federal Energy Regulatory D Tri-Party Agreement Agencies’ based rate authority, with an Commission Updates accompanying rate tariff, noting that D Presentation on 324 Building such application includes a request for Combined Notice of Filings Progress blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Take notice that the Commission has D Presentation on Workforce part 34, of future issuances of securities received the following Natural Gas Recruitment, Retention and and assumptions of liability. Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: Transition Any person desiring to intervene or to D Hanford Advisory Board Committee protest should file with the Federal Filings Instituting Proceedings Reports Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Docket Numbers: CP20–9–000. D Board Business First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Public Participation: The meeting is in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 Pipe Line Company, LLC. open to the public. The EM SSAB, of the Commission’s Rules of Practice Description: Abbreviated Application Hanford, welcomes the attendance of and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and for Abandonment of Service for City of the public at its advisory committee 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to Danville, Virginia of Transcontinental meetings and will make every effort to intervene or protest must serve a copy Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC. accommodate persons with physical of that document on the Applicant. Filed Date: 10/31/19. disabilities or special needs. If you Notice is hereby given that the Accession Number: 20191031–5048. require special accommodations due to deadline for filing protests with regard Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/19. a disability, please contact JoLynn to the applicant’s request for blanket Docket Numbers: RP20–204–000. Garcia at least seven days in advance of authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of Applicants: Southern Natural Gas the meeting at the telephone number future issuances of securities and Company, L.L.C.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61610 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

Description: Compliance filing Description: Application for Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Abandon Rate Schedule X–45 Authorization Under Section 203 of the Emera Maine. Compliance Filing CP19–510 to be Federal Power Act, et al. of Prairie Description: Tariff Amendment: Tariff effective 1/1/2020. Breeze Wind Energy II LLC, et al. Record Reserved For Future Use to be Filed Date: 11/5/19. Filed Date: 11/5/19. effective 10/1/2019. Accession Number: 20191105–5046. Accession Number: 20191105–5187. Filed Date: 11/6/19. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/19. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/19. Accession Number: 20191106–5023. Docket Numbers: RP20–205–000. Take notice that the Commission Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/19. Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply received the following exempt Docket Numbers: ER20–318–000. Corporation. wholesale generator filings: Applicants: PJM Interconnection, Description: Tariff Cancellation: Docket Numbers: EG20–22–000. L.L.C. Cancellation of the X–9 Rate Schedule Applicants: Sun Streams 2, LLC. Description: Tariff Cancellation: to be effective 12/5/2019. Description: Notice of Self- Notice of Cancellation of WMPS/SA No. Filed Date: 11/5/19. Certification of Exempt Wholesale 4380; Queue No. AB1–043 to be Accession Number: 20191105–5113. Generator Status of Sun Streams 2, LLC. effective 11/12/2019. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/19. Filed Date: 11/5/19. Filed Date: 11/5/19. Docket Numbers: RP20–206–000. Accession Number: 20191105–5159. Accession Number: 20191105–5141. Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/19. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/19. Company, L.L.C. Docket Numbers: EG20–23–000. Docket Numbers: ER20–319–000. Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Firm Applicants: Sun Streams 4, LLC. Applicants: Kimball Wind LLC. Transportation Service Options to be Description: Notice of Self- Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: effective 12/5/2019. Certification of Exempt Wholesale Kimball Wind LLC MBR Application to Filed Date: 11/5/19. Generator Status of Sun Streams 4, LLC. be effective 11/6/2019. Accession Number: 20191105–5140. Filed Date: 11/5/19. Filed Date: 11/5/19. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/19. Accession Number: 20191105–5161. Accession Number: 20191105–5143. The filings are accessible in the Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/19. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/19. Commission’s eLibrary system by Docket Numbers: EG20–24–000. Docket Numbers: ER20–320–000. clicking on the links or querying the Applicants: Sun Streams PVS, LLC. Applicants: ISO New England Inc., docket number. Description: Notice of Self- Emera Maine. Any person desiring to intervene or Certification of Exempt Wholesale Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: First protest in any of the above proceedings Generator Status of Sun Streams PVS, Revised Amendment of TSA–EMERA– must file in accordance with Rules 211 LLC. 18–01 to be effective 10/1/2019. and 214 of the Commission’s Filed Date: 11/5/19. Filed Date: 11/6/19. Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Accession Number: 20191105–5164. Accession Number: 20191106–5024. 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/19. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/19. time on the specified comment date. Docket Numbers: EG20–25–000. Docket Numbers: ER20–321–000. Protests may be considered, but Applicants: Sun Streams Expansion, Applicants: Midcontinent intervention is necessary to become a LLC. Independent System Operator, Inc., party to the proceeding. Description: Notice of Self- Ameren Illinois Company. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed Certification of Exempt Wholesale Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: information relating to filing Generator Status of Sun Streams 2019–11–06_SA 3028 Ameren IL-Prairie requirements, interventions, protests, Expansion, LLC. Power Project#19 Griggsville to be service, and qualifying facilities filings Filed Date: 11/5/19. effective 1/6/2020. can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ Accession Number: 20191105–5167. Filed Date: 11/6/19. docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/19. Accession Number: 20191106–5054. other information, call (866) 208–3676 Take notice that the Commission Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/19. (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. received the following electric rate Docket Numbers: ER20–322–000. Dated: November 6, 2019. filings: Applicants: PJM Interconnection, Kimberly D. Bose, Docket Numbers: ER10–1987–003. L.L.C. Secretary. Applicants: Ontario Power Generation Description: Tariff Cancellation: [FR Doc. 2019–24628 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Energy Trading, Inc. Notice of Cancellation of WMPA/SA No. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Description: Notice of Change in 4381; Queue No. AB1–044 to be Status of Ontario Power Generation effective 11/12/2019. Energy Trading, Inc. Filed Date: 11/6/19. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Filed Date: 11/5/19. Accession Number: 20191106–5065. Accession Number: 20191105–5190. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/19. Federal Energy Regulatory Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/19. Docket Numbers: ER20–323–000. Commission Docket Numbers: ER10–2126–005. Applicants: Helix Ravenswood LLC, Combined Notice of Filings #1 Applicants: Idaho Power Company. Ravenswood Development LLC. Description: Second Supplement to Description: Request for Limited Take notice that the Commission June 21, 2019 Updated Market Power Waiver of Helix Ravenswood, LLC, et al. received the following electric corporate Analysis for the Northwest Region of Filed Date: 11/6/19. filings: Idaho Power Company. Accession Number: 20191106–5082. Docket Numbers: EC20–14–000. Filed Date: 11/5/19. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/19. Applicants: Prairie Breeze Wind Accession Number: 20191105–5178. Docket Numbers: ER20–324–000. Energy II LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/19. Applicants: PJM Interconnection, Energy III LLC. Docket Numbers: ER19–2907–001. L.L.C.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61611

Description: Tariff Cancellation: Company (Northern) filed a proposal to will consider all filed comments during Notice of Cancellation of WMPA/SA No. abandon in-place Northern’s A-line the preparation of the EA. 4382; Queue No. AB1–045 to be facilities consisting of approximately This notice is being sent to the effective 11/12/2019. 92.76 miles of 26-inch-diameter Commission’s current environmental Filed Date: 11/6/19. pipeline, 15.74 miles of 24-inch- mailing list for the Project. State and Accession Number: 20191106–5106. diameter pipeline, and other local government representatives should Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/19. appurtenant facilities in Clay, Cloud, notify their constituents of this Take notice that the Commission Ellsworth, Lincoln, Ottowa and Rice proposed Project and encourage them to received the following public utility Counties, Kansas. The proposed comment on their areas of concern. holding company filings: Bushton to Clifton A-line Abandonment Northern provided landowners with a Docket Numbers: PH20–3–000. Project (Project) also involves fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled Applicants: Ontario Power Generation construction and operation of ‘‘An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On Inc. compression facilities by Northern in My Land? What Do I Need To Know?’’ Description: Ontario Power Ottawa County, Kansas. Following This fact sheet addresses a number of Generation Inc. submits FERC 65–B Northern’s proposed abandonment typically asked questions, including Waiver Notification under PH20–3. activities, including the restoration of how to participate in the Commission’s Filed Date: 11/6/19. disturbed land, Northern indicates that proceedings. It is also available for Accession Number: 20191106–5104. the abandoned pipeline will be viewing on the FERC website Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/19. purchased and removed by a third-party (www.ferc.gov) at https://www.ferc.gov/ The filings are accessible in the salvage company. resources/guides/gas/gas.pdf. As indicated in the previous NOI, the Commission’s eLibrary system by Public Participation FERC staff will prepare an clicking on the links or querying the The Commission offers a free service docket number. environmental assessment (EA) to address the environmental impacts of called eSubscription which makes it Any person desiring to intervene or easy to stay informed of all issuances protest in any of the above proceedings the Project. The Commission will use the EA in its decision-making process to and submittals regarding the dockets/ must file in accordance with Rules 211 projects to which you subscribe. These and 214 of the Commission’s determine whether to authorize the Project. We prepared this supplemental instant email notifications are the fastest Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and NOI to notify property owners along the way to receive notification and provide 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern proposed A-line abandonment whose a link to the document files which can time on the specified comment date. land could be involved in the planned reduce the amount of time you spend Protests may be considered, but salvage operation who were researching proceedings. To sign up go intervention is necessary to become a inadvertently excluded from the July 15, to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ party to the proceeding. 2019 NOI environmental mailing list. esubscription.asp. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed This Supplemental NOI opens a new 30- For your convenience, there are three information relating to filing day scoping period for interested parties methods you can use to submit your requirements, interventions, protests, to file comments on environmental comments to the Commission. The service, and qualifying facilities filings issues specific to the proposed action. Commission encourages electronic filing can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ By this notice, the Commission requests of comments and has staff available to docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For public comments on the scope of issues assist you at (866) 208–3676 or other information, call (866) 208–3676 to address in the EA. To ensure that [email protected]. Please (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. your comments are timely and properly carefully follow these instructions so Dated: November 6, 2019. recorded, please submit your comments that your comments are properly Kimberly D. Bose, so that the Commission receives them in recorded. Secretary. Washington, DC on or before 5:00pm (1) You can file your comments [FR Doc. 2019–24634 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Eastern Time on December 6, 2019. electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the BILLING CODE 6717–01–P The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to Commission’s website (www.ferc.gov) take into account the environmental under the link to Documents and DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY impacts that could result from its action Filings. Using eComment is an easy whenever it considers the issuance of a method for submitting brief, text-only Federal Energy Regulatory Certificate of Public Convenience and comments on a project; Commission Necessity. NEPA also requires the (2) You can file your comments Commission to discover concerns the electronically by using the eFiling [Docket No. CP19–479–000] public may have about proposals. This feature, which is located on the Northern Natural Gas Company; process is referred to as scoping. The Commission’s website (www.ferc.gov) Supplemental Notice of Intent To main goal of the scoping process is to under the link to Documents and Prepare an Environmental Assessment focus the analysis in the EA on the Filings. With eFiling, you can provide for the Proposed Bushton to Clifton A- important environmental issues. You comments in a variety of formats by Line Abandonment Project can make a difference by submitting attaching them as a file with your your specific comments or concerns submission. New eFiling users must On July 15, 2019, the Federal Energy about the Project. Your comments first create an account by clicking on Regulatory Commission (FERC or should focus on the potential ‘‘eRegister.’’ You will be asked to select Commission) issued in Docket No. environmental effects, reasonable the type of filing you are making; a CP19–479–000 a Notice of Intent to alternatives, and measures to avoid or comment on a particular project is Prepare an Environmental Assessment lessen environmental impacts. Your considered a Comment on a Filing; or for the Proposed Bushton to Clifton A- input will help the Commission staff (3) You can file a paper copy of your line Abandonment Project (NOI). In its determine what issues they need to comments by mailing them to the application, Northern Natural Gas evaluate in the EA. Commission staff following address. Be sure to reference

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61612 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

the project docket number (CP19–479– Land Requirements for Construction comments provided under the Public 000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Construction disturbance associated Participation section of this notice. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy with discrete locations to disconnect the Consultation Under Section 106 of the Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street abandoned pipelines and at the National Historic Preservation Act NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426 proposed compressor station upgrade In accordance with the Advisory Summary of the Proposed Project would disturb about 55.4 acres, Council on Historic Preservation’s Northern is proposing to abandon in- including 54.5 acres of land for implementing regulations for section place the A-line facilities consisting of temporary work space and about 0.9 106 of the National Historic approximately 92.76 miles of 26-inch- acre for access roads. Two of the Preservation Act, the Commission is diameter pipeline on Northern’s M640A pipeline disconnect locations are using this notice to initiate consultation and M630A and 15.74 miles of 24-inch- located inside existing compressor with the applicable State Historic diameter pipeline on its M640J pipeline station facilities which is owned by Preservation Office, and to solicit their systems and other appurtenant facilities. Northern, and the remaining disconnect views and those of other government The Project would consist of the locations are located along the A-line agencies, interested Indian tribes, and following pipelines and facilities: which is collocated with other Northern the public on the Project’s potential pipelines. No new land would be effects on historic properties.3 The EA • The M640A and M630A-Lines obtained or required for the Project. for this project will document findings The M640 A-line in Kansas consists of The EA Process on the impacts on historic properties abandonment of approximately 45.64 and summarize the status of miles of 26-inch-diameter pipeline The EA will discuss impacts that consultations under section 106. beginning at Northern’s Bushton could occur as a result of the Compressor Station located in Ellsworth abandonment, construction, and Environmental Mailing List County, Kansas, and ending near the operation of the proposed Project under The environmental mailing list Tescott Compressor Station in Ottawa these general headings: includes federal, state, and local • County, Kansas. The M630 A-line in Geology and soils; government representatives and Kansas consists of abandonment of • water resources and wetlands; agencies; elected officials; approximately 47.12 miles of 26-inch- • vegetation and wildlife; environmental and public interest diameter pipeline beginning at the • threatened and endangered species; groups; Native American Tribes; other Tescott Compressor Station in, Ottawa • cultural resources; interested parties; and local libraries County, Kansas, and ending at • land use; and newspapers. This list also includes Northern’s Clifton Compressor Station • air quality and noise; all affected landowners (as defined in located in Clay County, Kansas. • public safety; and the Commission’s regulations) who are • potential right-of-way grantors along • The M640 J-Line cumulative impacts. Commission staff will also evaluate Northern’s existing pipeline system, The M640 J-line in Kansas consists of reasonable alternatives to the proposed whose property may be used abandonment of approximately 15.74 Project or portions of the Project, and temporarily for project purposes, or who miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline make recommendations on how to own homes within certain distances of beginning at Block Valve JBJ04 located lessen or avoid impacts on the various aboveground facilities, and anyone who in Ellsworth County, Kansas, and resource areas. submits comments on the Project. ending near Block Valve JXA07 located The EA will present Commission Commission staff will update the in Ottawa County, Kansas. staffs’ independent analysis of the environmental mailing list as the • Tescott Compressor Station issues. The EA will be available in analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this Northern proposes to construct and electronic format in the public record 1 environmental review are sent to all operate an additional natural gas-driven through eLibrary and the Commission’s website (https:// individuals, organizations, and ISO rated 11,152 horsepower Solar Mars government entities interested in and/or turbine unit (Unit No. 6) at the existing www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/ eis.asp). If eSubscribed, you will receive potentially affected by the proposed Tescott Compressor Station located in Project. If the Commission issues the EA Ottawa County, Kansas. The unit will instant email notification when the EA is issued. The EA may be issued for an for an allotted public comment period, tie into station piping that is connected a Notice of Availability of the EA will to Northern’s existing mainlines. allotted public comment period. Commission staff will consider all be sent to the environmental mailing list Approximately 85 feet of 24-inch- and will provide instructions to access diameter station piping, approximately comments on the EA before making recommendations to the Commission. the electronic document on the FERC’s 40 feet of 36-inch-diameter station website (www.ferc.gov). piping, and approximately 80 feet of 8- With this notice, the Commission is inch-diameter station piping will be asking agencies with jurisdiction by law Additional Information removed to accommodate tie-ins. and/or special expertise with respect to Additional information about the After abandonment, Northern states the environmental issues of this project Project is available from the that the abandoned pipeline will be to formally cooperate in the preparation 2 Commission’s Office of External Affairs, purchased and removed by a third-party of the EA. Agencies that would like to at (866) 208–FERC, or on the FERC salvage company. Northern will request cooperating agency status website at www.ferc.gov using the continue to operate the other pipelines should follow the instructions for filing in its right-of-way and maintain its 3 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s pipeline easements with the exception 1 For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal of a segment of J-line that will be to the last page of this notice. Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define 2 The Council on Environmental Quality historic properties as any prehistoric or historic abandoned in place. The general regulations addressing cooperating agency district, site, building, structure, or object included location of the Project facilities is shown responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register in appendix 1. Regulations, Part 1501.6. of Historic Places.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61613

eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, field to access the document. For comments in support of or in opposition click on General Search and enter the assistance, contact FERC at to this project. The Commission will docket number in the Docket Number [email protected] or call consider these comments in field, excluding the last three digits (i.e., toll-free, (866) 208–3676 or TTY, (202) determining the appropriate action to be CP19–479–000. Be sure you have 502–8659. taken, but the filing of a comment alone selected an appropriate date range. For Any questions regarding this will not serve to make the filer a party assistance, please contact FERC Online application may be directed to Dave to the proceeding. The Commission’s Support at [email protected] Hammel, Director, Commercial and rules require that persons filing or (866) 208–3676, or for TTY, contact Regulatory Law, ANR Pipeline comments in opposition to the project (202) 502–8659. The eLibrary link also Company, 700 Louisiana Street Suite provide copies of their protests only to provides access to the texts of all formal 700, Houston, Texas 77002–2700, by the party or parties directly involved in documents issued by the Commission, telephone at (832) 320–5583, or by the protest. such as orders, notices, and email at [email protected]. Persons who wish to comment only rulemakings. Pursuant to section 157.9 of the on the environmental review of this Commission’s rules (18 CFR 157.9), Dated: November 6, 2019. project should submit an original and within 90 days of this Notice, the two copies of their comments to the Kimberly D. Bose, Commission staff will either: Complete Secretary. Secretary of the Commission. its environmental assessment (EA) and Environmental commentors will be [FR Doc. 2019–24629 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] place it into the Commission’s public placed on the Commission’s BILLING CODE 6717–01–P record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or environmental mailing list, and will be issue a Notice of Schedule for notified of any meetings associated with Environmental Review. If a Notice of DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY the Commission’s environmental review Schedule for Environmental Review is process. Environmental commentors Federal Energy Regulatory issued, it will indicate, among other will not be required to serve copies of Commission milestones, the anticipated date for the filed documents on all other parties. Commission staff’s issuance of the EA However, the non-party commentors [Docket No. CP20–8–000] for this proposal. The filing of the EA will not receive copies of all documents in the Commission’s public record for filed by other parties or issued by the Notice of Application; ANR Pipeline this proceeding or the issuance of a Company Commission and will not have the right Notice of Schedule for Environmental to seek court review of the Take notice that on October 28, 2019, Review will serve to notify federal and Commission’s final order. ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 700 state agencies of the timing for the As of the February 27, 2018 date of Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, completion of all necessary reviews, and the Commission’s order in Docket No. Texas 77002–2700, filed an abbreviated the subsequent need to complete all CP16–4–001, the Commission will application under sections 7(c) and 7(b) federal authorizations within 90 days of apply its revised practice concerning of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157, the date of issuance of the Commission out-of-time motions to intervene in any Subpart A, of the Commission’s staff’s EA. new Natural Gas Act section 3 or section There are two ways to become regulations, requesting authorization to 7 proceeding.2 Persons desiring to involved in the Commission’s review of construct, own, and operate the Grand become a party to a certificate this project. First, any person wishing to Chenier XPress Project (Project). proceeding are to intervene in a timely obtain legal status by becoming a party Specifically, ANR’s Project consist of: (i) manner. If seeking to intervene out-of- Modifications to the existing Eunice and to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date time, the movant is required to show Grand Chenier Compressor Stations, (ii) good cause why the time limitation construction and operation of a new stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 should be waived, and should provide compressor station (Mermentau justification by reference to factors set Compressor Station), (iii) modifications First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance forth in Rule 214(d)(1) of the to ANR’s Mermentau River GCX Meter 3 with the requirements of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations. Station,1 and (iv) installation of various The Commission strongly encourages appurtenant and auxiliary facilities. The Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) electronic filings of comments, protests, Project will provide open access firm and interventions in lieu of paper using transportation service on 400,000 and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of status will be placed on the service list Persons unable to file electronically incremental capacity from ANR’s maintained by the Secretary of the should submit an original and 3 copies Southeast Head station to the Commission and will receive copies of of the protest or intervention to the Mermentau River GCX Meter Station, all all documents filed by the applicant and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as more fully set forth in the application by all other parties. A party must submit 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC which is on file with the Commission 3 copies of filings made with the 20426. and open to public inspection. Commission and must provide a copy to Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern The filing is available for review at Time on November 27, 2019. the Commission in the Public Reference the applicant and to every other party. Dated: November 6, 2019. Room or may be viewed on the Only parties to the proceeding can ask Commission’s website at http:// for court review of Commission orders Kimberly D. Bose, www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. in the proceeding. Secretary. However, a person does not have to Enter the docket number excluding the [FR Doc. 2019–24633 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] intervene in order to have comments last three digits in the docket number BILLING CODE 6717–01–P considered. The second way to 1 ANR states that the Mermentau River GCX participate is by filing with the 2 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 162 Meter Station will be installed pursuant to the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as FERC 61,167 at 50 (2018). automatic provisions of its blanket certificate. possible, an original and two copies of 3 18 CFR 385.214(d)(1).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61614 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first Vegetation Management (OMB Control page of any filing should include the No. 1902–0263). Federal Energy Regulatory relevant docket number(s): P–2386–004, Docket No. for Ongoing PRA Renewal: Commission P–2387–003, and/or P–2388–004. IC19–32. An emergency extension request and [Project Nos. 2386–004; 2387–003; 2388– For further information, contact Kyle 004] Olcott at (202) 502–8963. justification (for three additional months) were electronically submitted Dated: November 6, 2019. to OMB on September 20, 2019. OMB City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Kimberly D. Bose, Department; Notice of Availability of disapproved the emergency extension Secretary. Environmental Assessment request and collection on October 2, [FR Doc. 2019–24632 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] 2019. FERC then submitted a formal In accordance with the National BILLING CODE 6717–01–P request to OMB on October 8, 2019,1 for Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and an emergency reinstatement and three- the Federal Energy Regulatory month extension. The request is still Commission’s (Commission) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY pending at OMB. regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office Titles: FERC–516A, Standardization Federal Energy Regulatory of Energy Projects has reviewed the of Small Generator Interconnection Commission application for licenses for the Holyoke Agreements and Procedures (OMB Number 1, Holyoke Number 2, and Control No. 1902–0203); and FERC–539, Holyoke Number 3 Hydroelectric [Docket Nos. IC19–32–000, IC19–33–000, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Import and Projects, located on the Holyoke Canal and IC19–40–000] Export Related Applications (OMB System in the City of Holyoke, Control No. 1902–0062). Hampden County, Massachusetts, and Commission Information Collection Docket Nos. for Ongoing PRA has prepared an Environmental Activities; Requests for Emergency Renewals: IC19–40 (for FERC–516A) Assessment (EA) for the projects. Extensions for FERC–725M, FERC– and IC19–33 (for FERC–539). The EA contains the staff’s analysis of 516A, and FERC–539 FERC submitted formal requests to the potential environmental impacts of AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory OMB on October 29, 2019, for the projects and concludes that Commission, DOE. emergency three-month extensions (to licensing the projects would not January 31, 2020). On October 31, 2019, ACTION: Notice of requests for constitute a major federal action that OMB approved two-month extensions to emergency extensions. would significantly affect the quality of December 31, 2019, for FERC–516A and the human environment. SUMMARY: In compliance with the FERC–539. A copy of the EA is available for requirements of the Paperwork Dated: November 1, 2019. review at the Commission in the Public Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Kimberly D. Bose, Reference Room or may be viewed on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the Commission’s website at http:// Secretary. (Commission or FERC) has solicited [FR Doc. 2019–24615 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. public comments on three information BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Enter the docket number excluding the collections: FERC–725M (Mandatory last three digits in the docket number Reliability Standard: FAC–003–4, field to access the document. For Vegetation Management), FERC–516A DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY assistance, contact FERC Online (Standardization of Small Generator Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ Interconnection Agreements and Federal Energy Regulatory ferc.gov, (866) 208–3676 (toll free), or Procedures), and FERC–539 (Gas Commission (202) 502–8659 (TTY). Pipeline Certificates: Import and Export You may also register online at http:// Related Applications). FERC submitted Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ requests to the Office of Management esubscription.asp to be notified via Docket Nos. and Budget (OMB) for short-term email of new filings and issuances emergency extensions for the three Marion County Solar Farm I EL20–6–000 related to this or other pending projects. information collections to ensure they LLC. For assistance, contact FERC Online remain active while FERC completes the Marion County Solar Farm I QF20–83–001 Support. LLC. pending PRA renewal processes. No Any comments should be filed within Marion County Solar Farm II QF20–84–001 changes are being made to the reporting LLC. 30 days from the date of this notice. and recordkeeping requirements. Taylor County Solar LLC ...... QF20–85–001 The Commission strongly encourages Plum Solar Farm LLC ...... QF20–123–001 electronic filing. Please file comments FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stillmore Solar Farm LLC ...... QF20–121–001 using the Commission’s eFiling system Ellen Brown may be reached by email Plum Solar Farm LLC ...... QF20–122–001 at [email protected] and Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–86–001 at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–87–001 efiling.asp. Commenters can submit telephone at (202) 502–8663. Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–88–001 brief comments up to 6,000 characters, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–89–001 without prior registration, using the renewal process for each of the three Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–90–001 Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–91–001 eComment system at http:// information collections is ongoing. To Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–92–001 www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ ensure that OMB approvals of the Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–93–001 ecomment.asp. You must include your current information collections remain Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–94–001 name and contact information at the end active during the PRA renewal process, Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–95–001 Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–96–001 of your comments. For assistance, FERC has submitted requests to the Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–97–001 please contact FERC Online Support. In OMB for short-term emergency Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–98–001 lieu of electronic filing, please send a extensions. Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–99–001 paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Title: FERC–725M, Mandatory Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street Reliability Standard: FAC–003–4, 1 The letter is dated October 7, 2019.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61615

Docket Nos. 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC Attendee.’’ Your email should include 20426. your name, address, and telephone Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–100–001 Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–101–001 This filing is accessible on-line at number. Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–102–001 http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary Members of the public attending the Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–103–001 link and is available for review in the meeting must present an unexpired, Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–104–001 Commission’s Public Reference Room in government-issued photo identification Taylor Solar LLC ...... QF20–105–001 Fulton Mill Solar Farm LLC ...... QF20–125–001 Washington, DC. There is an (ID) that comports with requirements of Fulton Mill Solar Farm LLC ...... QF20–124–001 eSubscription link on the website that the REAL ID Act, be screened through Fulton Mill Solar Farm LLC ...... QF20–126–001 enables subscribers to receive email security equipment, sign in, and be Cook Solar LLC ...... QF20–106–001 verified/met in the lobby by an EPA Cook Solar LLC ...... QF20–107–001 notification when a document is added Cook Solar LLC ...... QF20–108–001 to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance employee. Please Note: Driver’s licenses Cook Solar LLC ...... QF20–109–001 with any FERC Online service, please from some states may not be compliant Cook Solar LLC ...... QF20–110–001 email [email protected], or with the REAL ID Act and, therefore, Cook Solar LLC ...... QF20–111–001 will not be accepted; alternative ID Cook Solar LLC ...... QF20–112–001 call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, Cook Solar LLC ...... QF20–113–001 call (202) 502–8659. documents will be necessary in those Cook Solar LLC ...... QF20–114–001 Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time cases. Foreign national visitors are Cook Solar LLC ...... QF20–115–001 on December 5, 2019. strongly encouraged to provide advance Cook Solar LLC ...... QF20–116–001 notice of attendance, must present a Cook Solar LLC ...... QF20–117–001 Dated: November 6, 2019. Cook Solar LLC ...... QF20–118–001 valid passport for entry, and must meet Cook Solar LLC ...... QF20–119–001 Kimberly D. Bose, all pre-clearance requirements. All Cook Solar LLC ...... QF20–120–001 Secretary. members of the public attending the [FR Doc. 2019–24630 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] meeting are reminded to allow time for Take notice that on November 5, BILLING CODE 6717–01–P the security screening and sign-in 2019, pursuant to Rule 207 of the process when entering the building. Federal Energy Regulatory The EPA will allocate one hour for the Commission’s (Commission) Rules of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION public to present comments at the Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, AGENCY meeting on December 4, 2019. Oral Marion County Solar Farm I LLC, statements will be limited to five Marion County Solar Farm II LLC, [FRL–10002–08–OW] minutes per person during the public Taylor County Solar LLC, Plum Solar comment period. It is preferred that Meeting of the National Drinking Water Farm LLC, Stillmore Solar Farm LLC, only one person present a statement on Advisory Council Taylor Solar LLC, Fulton Mill Solar behalf of a group or organization. Farm LLC, and Cook Solar LLC, (jointly, AGENCY: Environmental Protection Individuals or organizations interested Petitioners) filed a petition for a Agency (EPA). in presenting an oral statement should declaratory order seeking limited waiver ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. notify Elizabeth Corr, the NDWAC DFO, of the filing requirements applicable to by email at: [email protected], no small power production facilities set SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental later than November 22, 2019. Any forth in section 292.203(a)(3) of the Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing person who wishes to file a written Commission’s regulations for varying a meeting of the National Drinking statement can do so before or after the time periods beginning when these Water Advisory Council (NDWAC or Council meeting. Send written facilities were placed in service up to Council) as authorized under the Safe statements to: Elizabeth Corr, NDWAC October 21, 2019 when Petitioners filed Drinking Water Act. The purpose of the DFO, Office of Ground Water and FERC Form 556s, as more fully meeting is to allow the EPA to present Drinking Water (Mail Code 4601), U.S. explained in the petition. an overview of the Agency’s Safe Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Any person desiring to intervene or to Drinking Water Act programs for the Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, protest this filing must file in fiscal year 2020 and to consult with the DC 20460; or email at: corr.elizabeth@ accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of NDWAC on a National Primary Drinking epa.gov. the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Water Regulation for perchlorate and on Written statements intended for the Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule. meeting must be received before Protests will be considered by the November 22, 2019, to be distributed to DATES: The meeting will be held on Commission in determining the all members of the Council for their appropriate action to be taken, but will December 4, 2019, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., eastern time; and on consideration. Statements received on not serve to make protestants parties to or after the date specified will become the proceeding. Any person wishing to December 5, 2019, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., eastern time. part of the permanent file for the become a party must file a notice of meeting and will be forwarded to the intervention or motion to intervene, as ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Council members after conclusion of the appropriate. Such notices, motions, or Protection Agency, 1201 Constitution meeting. protests must be filed on or before the Avenue NW, WJC South, Room 6226, Special Accommodations: For comment date. Anyone filing a motion ARS NETI Training Room, Washington, information on access or services for to intervene or protest must serve a copy DC 20004. individuals with disabilities, please of that document on the Petitioner. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: contact Elizabeth Corr at: (202) 564– The Commission encourages Details about Attending the Meeting: 3798 or by email at: corr.elizabeth@ electronic submission of protests and The meeting is open to the general epa.gov. To request an accommodation interventions in lieu of paper using the public. If you wish to attend the for a disability, please contact Elizabeth eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. meeting, you may register by sending an Corr at least 15 days prior to the meeting Persons unable to file electronically email to Elizabeth Corr, the NDWAC date to allow the EPA as much time as should submit an original and 5 copies Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at: possible to attend to your request. of the protest or intervention to the [email protected]. The email National Drinking Water Advisory Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, subject line should read: ‘‘NDWAC 2019 Council: The NDWAC was created by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61616 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

Congress on December 16, 1974, as part Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve GENERAL SERVICES of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) System, November 6, 2019. ADMINISTRATION of 1974, Public Law 93–523, 42 U.S.C. Yao-Chin Chao, 300j–5, and is operated in accordance Assistant Secretary of the Board. [Notice AD–2019–01; Docket No. 2019–0002; with the provisions of the Federal [FR Doc. 2019–24607 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Sequence No. 29] Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 BILLING CODE 6210–01–P U.S.C. App. 2. The NDWAC was Notice of 2020 Presidential Transition established under the SDWA to provide Directory practical and independent advice, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM consultation, and recommendations to AGENCY: Presidential Transition; the EPA Administrator on the activities, Formations of, Acquisitions by, and General Services Administration (GSA). functions, policies, and regulations Mergers of Bank Holding Companies required by the SDWA. ACTION: Notice of availability of the GSA Dated: November 5, 2019. The companies listed in this notice 2020 Presidential Transition Directory. Jennifer L. McLain, have applied to the Board for approval, SUMMARY: Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking pursuant to the Bank Holding Company The Presidential Transition Water. Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) Directory website is designed to help [FR Doc. 2019–24680 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part candidates in the 2020 Presidential BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 225), and all other applicable statutes election get quick and easy access to key and regulations to become a bank resources about the federal government holding company and/or to acquire the structure and key policies related to FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM assets or the ownership of, control of, or Presidential Transition. The creation of the power to vote shares of a bank or the Presidential Transition Directory is Change in Bank Control Notices; bank holding company and all of the mandated by the Presidential Transition Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or banks and nonbanking companies Act of 1963, as amended. Bank Holding Company owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. DATES: Applicable: November 13, 2019. The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank The applications listed below, as well FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and as other related filings required by the GSA Presidential Transition Team at § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 Board, if any, are available for [email protected]. immediate inspection at the Federal CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The or bank holding company. The factors Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for Presidential Transition Directory that are considered in acting on the (presidentialtransition.gsa.gov) website notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may is designed to help candidates in the the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 2020 Presidential election get quick and The applications listed below, as well express their views in writing on the as other related filings required by the standards enumerated in the BHC Act easy access to key resources about the Board, if any, are available for (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). federal government structure and key policies related to Presidential immediate inspection at the Federal Comments regarding each of these Transition. Reserve Bank indicated. The applications must be received at the applications will also be available for Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of The creation of the Presidential inspection at the offices of the Board of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Transition Directory is mandated by the Governors. Interested persons may Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Presidential Transition Act of 1963, as express their views in writing on the Street and Constitution Avenue NW, amended. Connecting resources from standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of Washington, DC 20551–0001, not later the Office of Personnel Management, the Act. than December 6, 2019. National Archives and Records Comments regarding each of these Administration, U.S. Office of applications must be received at the A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Government Ethics and others, the site Federal Reserve Bank indicated or the (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 will also help future political offices of the Board of Governors, Ann East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th 44101–2566. Comments can also be sent appointees better understand key Street and Constitution Avenue NW, electronically to aspects of their roles and some of the Washington, DC 20551–0001, not later [email protected]: key policies and aspects of federal than November 26, 2019. 1. The Old Fort Banking Company service. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Employee Stock Ownership and 401(k) The site will be continuously updated (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice Plan, Old Fort, Ohio; to acquire as new information becomes available to President) 701 East Byrd Street, additional voting shares of Gillmor help ensure candidates and their staffs Richmond, Virginia 23219. Comments Financial Services, Inc., and thereby have access to the best information can also be sent electronically to or indirectly acquire additional voting possible. [email protected]: shares of The Old Fort Banking 1. The John W. Dwyer CFB Irrevocable Company, both of Old Fort, Ohio. Dated: October 31, 2019. Trust, Daniel S. Baird, Baltimore, Mary D. Gibert, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Maryland, as trustee; to acquire voting System, November 6, 2019. Director, Presidential Transition, General shares of Capital Funding Bancorp, Inc., Services Administration. Yao-Chin Chao, Baltimore, Maryland, and thereby [FR Doc. 2019–24596 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Assistant Secretary of the Board. indirectly acquire voting shares of CFG BILLING CODE 6820–AZ–P Community Bank, Lutherville, [FR Doc. 2019–24608 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Maryland. BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61617

GENERAL SERVICES Instructions: Please submit comments The Global Lease model uses the GSA ADMINISTRATION only and cite Information Collection Form 1364. The 1364 captures all rental 3090–0086, Proposal to Lease Space, components, including the pricing for [OMB Control No. 3090–0086; Docket No. 2019–0001; Sequence No. 9] GSA Form 1364 and Lessor’s Annual the initial tenant improvements. The Cost Statement, GSA Form 1217, in all global nature of the 1364 provides General Services Administration correspondence related to this flexibility in capturing tenant Acquisition Regulation; Submission collection. All comments received will improvement pricing based on either for OMB Review; Proposal To Lease be posted without change to http:// allowance or turnkey pricing, as Space, GSA Form 1364 and Lessor’s www.regulations.gov, including any required by the solicitation. Annual Cost Statement, GSA Form personal and/or business confidential The Simplified Lease Model uses the 1217 information provided. GSA Forms 1364A and 1364A–1. This FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. model obtains a firm, fixed price for AGENCY: Office of the Chief Acquisition Christina Mullins, Procurement Analyst, rent, which includes the cost of tenant Officer, General Services General Services Acquisition Policy improvement construction. Therefore, Administration (GSA). Division, 202–969–4066 or via email at leases using the Simplified model do ACTION: Notice of request for comments [email protected]. not include post-award tenant regarding an extension to an existing SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: improvement cost information on the OMB clearance. form. The 1364A includes rental rate A. Purpose components and cost data that becomes SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the The General Services Administration part of the lease contract and that is Regulatory Secretariat Division will be has various mission responsibilities necessary to satisfy GSA pricing policy submitting to the Office of Management related to the acquisition, management, requirements. The 1364A–1 is a checklist that and Budget (OMB) a request to review and disposal of real and personal and approve an extension of a property. These mission responsibilities addresses technical requirements as previously approved information include developing requirements, referenced in the Request for Lease collection requirement for Proposal to solicitation of lease offers and the award Proposals. The 1364A–1 is separate Lease Space, GSA Form 1364 and of real property lease contracts. from the proposal itself and is Lessor’s Annual Cost Statement, GSA Individual solicitations and resulting maintained in the lease file; it does not Form 1217. contracts may impose unique become an exhibit to the lease. The 1364A–1 may contain proprietary DATES: Submit comments on or before: information collection/reporting offeror information that cannot be December 13, 2019. requirements on contractors, not required by regulation, but necessary to released under the Freedom of ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding Information Act. this burden estimate or any other aspect (1) evaluate whether the physical attributes of offered properties meet the The Warehouse Lease Model uses of this collection of information, GSA Form 1364WH. This model is including suggestions for reducing this Government’s requirements and (2) evaluate the owner/offeror’s price specifically designed to accommodate burden, to GSA by any of the following the special characteristics of warehouse methods: proposal. The approval requested • includes four versions of the GSA Form space and is optimized for space whose Regulations.gov: http:// predominant use is for storage, www.regulations.gov. 1364; GSA Forms 1364, 1364A, 1364A– distribution, or manufacturing. The Submit comments via the Federal 1, and 1364WH. These forms are used 1364WH captures building eRulemaking portal by inputting to obtain information for offer characteristics unique to warehouse ‘‘Information Collection 3090–0086, evaluation and lease award purposes facilities and allows for evaluation of Proposal to Lease Space, GSA Form regarding property being offered for offers based on either area or volume 1364 and Lessor’s Annual Cost lease to house Federal agencies. This calculations. Statement, GSA Form 1217’’ under the includes financial aspects of offers for The Global and Warehouse Lease heading ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ and analysis and negotiation, such as real Models use the GSA Form 1217. GSA selecting ‘‘Search’’. Select the link estate taxes, adjustments for vacant Form 1217 captures the estimated ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that corresponds space, and offeror construction annual cost of services and utilities and with ‘‘Information Collection 3090– overhead fees. the estimated costs of ownership, 0086, Proposal to Lease Space, GSA A total of seven lease contract models exclusive of capital charges. These costs Form 1364 and Lessor’s Annual Cost have been developed to meet the needs are listed for both the entire building Statement, GSA Form 1217’’. Follow the of the national leased portfolio. Three of and the area proposed for lease to the instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit a these lease models require offerors to Government, broken down into specific Comment’’ screen. Please include your complete a GSA Form 1364 and two categories. name, company name (if any), and require a GSA Form 1217. The GSA ‘‘Information Collection 3090–0086, Form 1364 versions require the B. Annual Reporting Burden Proposal to Lease Space, GSA Form submission of information specifically Respondents: 426. 1364 and Lessor’s Annual Cost aligned with certain leasing models and Responses per Respondent: 3.36 Statement, GSA Form 1217’’ on your avoids mandating submission of (weighted average). attached document. information that is not required for use Total Responses: 1,430. • Mail: General Services in evaluation and award under each Hours per Response: 4.11 (weighted Administration, Regulatory Secretariat model. The GSA Form 1217 requires the average). Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, submission of information specific to Total Burden Hours: 5,877. Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. the services and utilities of a building in Mandell/IC 3090–0086, Proposal to support of the pricing detailed under C. Public Comments Lease Space, GSA Form 1364 and GSA Form 1364. The forms relate to A 60-day notice was published in the Lessor’s Annual Cost Statement, GSA individual lease procurements and no Federal Register at 84 FR 44306 on Form 1217. duplication exists. August 23, 2019. No comments were

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61618 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

received. Public comments are ADDRESSES: The December 3rd meeting Meeting Agenda for March 3, 2020 particularly invited on: Whether this will be telephonic. The public may dial b Call to Order, Opening Remarks, Roll collection of information is necessary; into the meeting by calling 1–510–338– Call whether it will have practical utility; 9438 Meeting number (access code): 791 b Housekeeping Announcement whether our estimate of the public 307 540. b Approval of Meeting Minutes burden of this collection of information The March 3rd meeting will be held b is accurate, and based on valid at the Library of Congress—Thomas Executive Director Update b assumptions and methodology; ways to Jefferson Building Room 119, 10 First Presentation enhance the quality, utility, and clarity St. SE, Washington, DC 20540. The b Communications Update of the information to be collected; and public may also dial into the meeting by b Subcommittee Updates ways in which we can minimize the calling 1–510–338–9438 Meeting b Lunch Break (Presentation) burden of the collection of information number (access code): 793 954 344. b Public Comment on those who are to respond, through FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: b Wrap Up/Next Steps the use of appropriate technological Stephanie Marsellos, Designated Federal b Adjourn collection techniques or other forms of Officer, Women’s Suffrage Centennial The meetings are open to the public, but information technology. Commission, P.O. Box 2020, pre-registration is required. Any Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Washington, DC 20013; phone: 202–707 individual who wishes to attend the Requesters may obtain a copy of the 0106; email: stephanie@ meeting should register via email at information collection documents from womensvote100.org. [email protected] or the General Services Administration, telephone 202–707–0106. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Interested persons may choose to Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, Background make a public comment at the meeting telephone 202–501–4755. Please cite Congress passed legislation to create during the designated time for this OMB Control No. 3090–0086, Proposal the Women’s Suffrage Centennial purpose. Public comments shall be to Lease Space, GSA Form 1364 and Commission Act, a bill, ‘‘to ensure a limited by minutes based on the number Lessor’s Annual Cost Statement, GSA suitable observance of the centennial of of participants signed up to comment Form 1217, in all correspondence. the passage and ratification of the 19th for the allotted time, and subject to Jeffrey A. Koses, Amendment of the Constitution of the agenda time changes based on the speed of the commission’s work through the Senior Procurement Executive, Office of United States providing for women’s Acquisition Policy, Office of Government- suffrage.’’ agenda. Speakers who wish to expand wide Policy. The duties of the Commission, as upon their oral statements, or those who [FR Doc. 2019–24621 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] written in the law, include: (1) To had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may BILLING CODE 6820–61–P encourage, plan, develop, and execute programs, projects, and activities to submit written statements up to 30 days commemorate the centennial of the after the meeting. GENERAL SERVICES passage and ratification of the 19th Members of the public may also ADMINISTRATION Amendment; (2) to encourage private choose to submit written comments by organizations and State and local mailing them to Stephanie Marsellos, Designated Federal Officer, P.O. Box [Notice–WSCC–2019–05; Docket No. 2019– Governments to organize and participate 0004; Sequence No. 5] in activities commemorating the 2020, Washington, DC 20013, or via centennial of the passage and email at [email protected]. Women’s Suffrage Centennial ratification of the 19th Amendment; (3) Please contact Ms. Marsellos at the Commission; Notification of Public to facilitate and coordinate activities email address above to obtain meeting Meeting throughout the United States relating to materials. All written comments the centennial of the passage and received will be provided to the AGENCY: Women’s Suffrage Centennial ratification of the 19th Amendment; (4) Commission. Detailed minutes of the Commission, General Services to serve as a clearinghouse for the meeting will be available for public Administration. collection and dissemination of inspection within 90 days of the ACTION: Meeting notice. information about events and plans for meeting. the centennial of the passage and Individuals requiring special SUMMARY: Notice is being provided ratification of the 19th Amendment; and accommodations to access the public according to the requirements of the (5) to develop recommendations for meeting should contact Ms. Marsellos at Federal Advisory Committee Act. This Congress and the President for least five business days prior to each notice provides the schedule and commemorating the centennial of the meeting, so that appropriate agenda for the December 3, 2019, passage and ratification of the 19th arrangements can be made. telephonic meeting of the Women’s Amendment. Suffrage Centennial Commission Public Disclosure of Comments (Commission), and the March 3, 2020, Meeting Agenda for December 3, 2019 Before including your address, phone in-person meeting of the Commission. b Call to Order, Opening Remarks, Roll number, email address, or other These meetings are open to the public. Call personally identifiable information (PII) DATES: The telephonic meeting will be b Housekeeping Announcement in your comment, you should be aware held on Tuesday, December 3, 2019, b Approval of Meeting Minutes that your entire comment—including beginning at 1:00 p.m., ET (Eastern b Executive Director Update your PII—may be made publicly Time) and ending no later than 3:00 b Communications Update available at any time. p.m., ET. The in-person meeting will be b Subcommittee Updates While you can ask us in your held on Tuesday, March 3, 2020, b Public Comment comment to withhold your PII from beginning at 9:30 a.m., ET and ending b Wrap Up/Next Steps public review, we cannot guarantee that no later than 4:00 p.m., ET. b Adjourn we will be able to do so.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61619

Dated: October 31, 2019. amount of the inpatient hospital EHR users and are expected to receive Anna Laymon, deductible and the hospital and the full market basket update. Acting Executive Director, Women’s Suffrage extended care services coinsurance Under section 1886 of the Act, the Centennial Commission. amounts applicable for services percentage increase used to update the [FR Doc. 2019–24593 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] furnished in the following calendar year payment rates (or target amounts, as BILLING CODE 3420–37–P (CY). applicable) for FY 2020 for hospitals excluded from the inpatient prospective II. Computing the Inpatient Hospital payment system is as follows: Deductible for CY 2020 • The percentage increase for long DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Section 1813(b) of the Act prescribes term care hospitals is the market basket HUMAN SERVICES the method for computing the amount of percentage increase reduced by the MFP the inpatient hospital deductible. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid adjustment (see section 1886(m)(3)(A) of inpatient hospital deductible is an Services the Act). In addition, these hospitals amount equal to the inpatient hospital may also be impacted by the quality [CMS–8071–N] deductible for the preceding CY, reporting adjustments and the site- adjusted by our best estimate of the neutral payment rates (see sections RIN 0938–AT76 payment-weighted average of the 1886(m)(5) and 1886(m)(6) of the Act). applicable percentage increases (as • The percentage increase for Medicare Program; CY 2020 Inpatient defined in section 1886(b)(3)(B) of the inpatient rehabilitation facilities is the Hospital Deductible and Hospital and Act) used for updating the payment market basket percentage increase Extended Care Services Coinsurance rates to hospitals for discharges in the reduced by a productivity adjustment in Amounts fiscal year (FY) that begins on October accordance with section AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 1 of the same preceding CY, and 1886(j)(3)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act. In Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. adjusted to reflect changes in real case- addition, these hospitals may also be impacted by the quality reporting ACTION: Notice. mix. The adjustment to reflect real case- mix is determined on the basis of the adjustments (see section 1886(j)(7) of SUMMARY: This notice announces the most recent case-mix data available. The the Act). • inpatient hospital deductible and the amount determined under this formula The percentage increase used to hospital and extended care services is rounded to the nearest multiple of $4 update the payment rate for inpatient coinsurance amounts for services (or, if midway between two multiples of psychiatric facilities is the market furnished in calendar year (CY) 2020 $4, to the next higher multiple of $4). basket percentage increase reduced by under Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Under section 1886(b)(3)(B)(i)(XX) of 0.75 percentage points and the MFP Program (Medicare Part A). The the Act, the percentage increase used to adjustment (see sections Medicare statute specifies the formulae update the payment rates for FY 2020 1886(s)(2)(A)(i), 1886(s)(2)(A)(ii), and used to determine these amounts. For for hospitals paid under the inpatient 1886(s)(3)(E) of the Act). In addition, CY 2020, the inpatient hospital prospective payment system is the these hospitals may also be impacted by deductible will be $1,408. The daily market basket percentage increase, the quality reporting adjustments (see otherwise known as the market basket section 1886(s)(4) of the Act). coinsurance amounts for CY 2020 will • be: $352 for the 61st through 90th day update, reduced by an adjustment based The percentage increase used to of hospitalization in a benefit period; on changes in the economy-wide update the target amounts for other $704 for lifetime reserve days; and $176 productivity (the multifactor types of hospitals that are excluded for the 21st through 100th day of productivity (MFP) adjustment) (see from the inpatient prospective payment extended care services in a skilled section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act). system and that are paid on a reasonable nursing facility in a benefit period. Under section 1886(b)(3)(B)(viii) of the cost basis, subject to a rate-of-increase Act, for FY 2020, the applicable ceiling, is the inpatient prospective DATES: The deductible and coinsurance percentage increase for hospitals that do payment system operating market basket amounts announced in this notice are not submit quality data as specified by percentage increase, which is described effective on January 1, 2020. the Secretary is reduced by one quarter at section 1886(b)(3)(B)(ii)(VIII) of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of the market basket update. We are Act and 42 CFR 413.40(c)(3). These Yaminee Thaker, (410) 786–7921 for estimating that after accounting for other types of hospitals include cancer general information. Gregory J. Savord, those hospitals receiving the lower hospitals, children’s hospitals, extended (410) 786–1521 for case-mix analysis. market basket update in the payment- neoplastic disease care hospitals, and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: weighted average update, the calculated hospitals located outside the 50 states, deductible will not be affected, since the the District of Columbia, and Puerto I. Background majority of hospitals submit quality data Rico. Section 1813 of the Social Security and receive the full market basket The inpatient prospective payment Act (the Act) provides for an inpatient update. Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(ix) of the system market basket percentage hospital deductible to be subtracted Act requires that any hospital that is not increase for FY 2020 is 3.0 percent and from the amount payable by Medicare a meaningful electronic health record the MFP adjustment is 0.4 percentage for inpatient hospital services furnished (EHR) user (as defined in section point, as announced in the final rule to a beneficiary. It also provides for 1886(n)(3) of the Act) will have three- that appeared in the Federal Register on certain coinsurance amounts to be quarters of the market basket update August 16, 2019 entitled, ‘‘Hospital subtracted from the amounts payable by reduced by 100 percent for FY 2017 and Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems Medicare for inpatient hospital and each subsequent fiscal year. We are for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long- extended care services. Section estimating that after accounting for Term Care Hospital Prospective 1813(b)(2) of the Act requires the these hospitals receiving the lower Payment System and Policy Changes Secretary of the Department of Health market basket update, the calculated and Fiscal Year 2020 Rates; Quality and Human Services (the Secretary) to deductible will not be affected, since the Reporting Requirements for Specific determine and publish each year the majority of hospitals are meaningful Providers; Medicare and Medicaid

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61620 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

Promoting Interoperability Programs 2019. These bills represent a total of payment rates of 1.0258 multiplied by Requirements for Eligible Hospitals and about 7.1 million Medicare discharges the increase in real case-mix of 1.005, Critical Access Hospitals’’ (84 FR for FY 2019 and provide the most recent which equals $1,406.19 and is rounded 42343). Therefore, the percentage case-mix data available at this time. to $1,408. increase for hospitals paid under the Based on these bills, the change in III. Computing the Inpatient Hospital inpatient prospective payment system average case-mix in FY 2019 is 0.6 and Extended Care Services that submit quality data and are percent. Based on these bills and past Coinsurance Amounts for CY 2020 meaningful EHR users is 2.6 percent experience, we expect the overall case (that is, the FY 2020 market basket mix change to be 1.0 percent as the year The coinsurance amounts provided update of 3.0 percent less the MFP progresses and more FY 2019 data for in section 1813 of the Act are adjustment of 0.4 percentage point). The become available. defined as fixed percentages of the average payment percentage increase for Section 1813 of the Act requires that inpatient hospital deductible for hospitals excluded from the inpatient the inpatient hospital deductible be services furnished in the same CY. The prospective payment system is 2.44 adjusted only by that portion of the increase in the deductible generates case-mix change that is determined to percent. This average includes long term increases in the coinsurance amounts. be real. Real case-mix is that portion of care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation For inpatient hospital and extended care case-mix that is due to changes in the facilities, and other hospitals excluded services furnished in CY 2020, in mix of cases in the hospital and not due from the inpatient prospective payment accordance with the fixed percentages to coding optimization. Over the past system. Weighting these percentages in defined in the law, the daily several years, we have observed total accordance with payment volume, our coinsurance for the 61st through 90th case mix increases of about 0.5 percent best estimate of the payment-weighted day of hospitalization in a benefit per year and have assumed that they are average of the increases in the payment period will be $352 (one-fourth of the real. Thus, since we do not have further rates for FY 2020 is 2.58 percent. inpatient hospital deductible as stated information at this time, we expect that To develop the adjustment to reflect 0.5 percent of the 1.0 percent change in in section 1813(a)(1)(A) of the Act); the changes in real case-mix, we first average case-mix for FY 2019 will be daily coinsurance for lifetime reserve calculated an average case-mix for each real. days will be $704 (one-half of the hospital that reflects the relative Thus as stated above, the estimate of inpatient hospital deductible as stated costliness of that hospital’s mix of cases the payment-weighted average of the in section 1813(a)(1)(B) of the Act); and compared to those of other hospitals. applicable percentage increases used for the daily coinsurance for the 21st We then computed the change in updating the payment rates is 2.58 through 100th day of extended care average case-mix for hospitals paid percent, and the real case-mix services in a skilled nursing facility under the Medicare inpatient adjustment factor for the deductible is (SNF) in a benefit period will be $176 prospective payment system in FY 2019 0.5 percent. Therefore, using the (one-eighth of the inpatient hospital compared to FY 2018. (We excluded statutory formula as stated in section deductible as stated in section from this calculation hospitals whose 1813(b) of the Act, we calculate the 1813(a)(3) of the Act). payments are not based on the inpatient inpatient hospital deductible for IV. Cost to Medicare Beneficiaries prospective payment system because services furnished in CY 2020 to be their payments are based on alternate $1,408. This deductible amount is The Table below summarizes the prospective payment systems or determined by multiplying $1,364 (the deductible and coinsurance amounts for reasonable costs.) We used Medicare inpatient hospital deductible for CY CYs 2019 and 2020, as well as the bills from prospective payment 2019 (83 FR 52459)) by the payment- number of each that is estimated to be hospitals that we received as of July weighted average increase in the paid.

PART A DEDUCTIBLE AND COINSURANCE AMOUNTS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2019 AND 2020

Value Number paid (in millions) Type of cost sharing 2019 2020 2019 2020

Inpatient hospital deductible ...... $1,364 $1,408 6.98 7.01 Daily coinsurance for 61st–90th Day ...... 341 352 1.62 1.63 Daily coinsurance for lifetime reserve days ...... 682 704 0.81 0.81 SNF coinsurance ...... 170.50 176.00 32.05 32.17

The estimated total increase in costs the number of deductible and policy (other than a national coverage to beneficiaries is about $590 million coinsurance amounts paid. determination) that establishes or (rounded to the nearest $10 million) due changes a substantive legal standard V. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking to: (1) The increase in the deductible governing the scope of benefits, the and coinsurance amounts; and (2) the We ordinarily publish a notice of payment for services, or the eligibility of increase in the number of deductibles proposed rulemaking in the Federal individuals, entities, or organizations to and daily coinsurance amounts paid. Register and invite public comment furnish or receive services or benefits We determine the increase in cost to prior to a rule taking effect in under Medicare shall take effect unless beneficiaries by calculating the accordance with section 1871 of the Act it is promulgated through notice and difference between the 2019 and 2020 and section 553(b) of the Administrative comment rulemaking. Unless there is a deductible and coinsurance amounts Procedure Act (APA). Section 1871(a)(2) statutory exception, section 1871(b)(1) multiplied by the estimated increase in of the Act provides that no rule, of the Act generally requires the requirement, or other statement of Secretary of the Department of Health

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61621

and Human Services (the Secretary) to establishes both when the deductible the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of provide for notice of a proposed rule in and coinsurance amounts must be 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104–4), the Federal Register and provide a published and the information that the Executive Order 13132 on Federalism period of not less than 60 days for Secretary must factor into the (August 4, 1999), the Congressional public comment before establishing or deductible and coinsurance amounts, so Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), and changing a substantive legal standard we do not have any discretion in that Executive Order 13771 on Reducing regarding the matters enumerated by the regard. We find notice and comment Regulation and Controlling Regulatory statute. Similarly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) procedures to be unnecessary for this Costs (January 30, 2017). of the APA, the agency is required to notice and we find good cause to waive Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 publish a notice of proposed rulemaking such procedures under section 553(b)(B) direct agencies to assess all costs and in the Federal Register before a of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of benefits of available regulatory substantive rule takes effect. Section the Act, if such procedures may be alternatives and, if regulation is 553(d) of the APA and section construed to be required at all. Through necessary, to select regulatory 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act usually this notice, we are simply notifying the approaches that maximize net benefits require a 30-day delay in effective date public of the updates to the inpatient (including potential economic, after issuance or publication of a rule, hospital deductible and the hospital and environmental, public health and safety subject to exceptions. Sections 553(b)(B) extended care services coinsurance effects, distributive impacts, and and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for amounts, in accordance with the statute, equity). Section 3(f) of Executive Order exceptions from the advance notice and for CY 2020. As such, we also note that 12866 defines a ‘‘significant regulatory comment requirement and the delay in even if notice and comment procedures action’’ as an action that is likely to effective date requirements. Sections were required for this notice, for the result in a rule: (1) Having an annual 1871(b)(2)(C) and 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the reasons stated above, we would find effect on the economy of $100 million Act also provide exceptions from the good cause to waive the delay in or more in any 1 year, or adversely and notice and 60-day comment period and effective date of the notice, as additional materially affecting a sector of the the 30-day delay in effective date. delay would be contrary to the public economy, productivity, competition, Section 553(b)(B) of the APA and interest under section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) jobs, the environment, public health or section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act of the Act. Publication of this notice is safety, or state, local or tribal expressly authorize an agency to consistent with section 1813(b)(2) of the governments or communities (also dispense with notice and comment Act, and we believe that any potential referred to as ‘‘economically rulemaking for good cause if the agency delay in the effective date of the notice, significant’’); (2) creating a serious makes a finding that notice and if such delay were required at all, could inconsistency or otherwise interfering comment procedures are impracticable, cause unnecessary confusion both for with an action taken or planned by unnecessary, or contrary to the public the agency and Medicare beneficiaries. another agency; (3) materially altering interest. the budgetary impacts of entitlement The annual inpatient hospital VI. Collection of Information grants, user fees, or loan programs or the deductible and the hospital and Requirements rights and obligations of recipients extended care services coinsurance This document does not impose thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or amounts announcement set forth in this information collection requirements, policy issues arising out of legal notice does not establish or change a that is, reporting, recordkeeping or mandates, the President’s priorities, or substantive legal standard regarding the third-party disclosure requirements. the principles set forth in the Executive matters enumerated by the statute or Consequently, there is no need for Order. A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) constitute a substantive rule which review by the Office of Management and must be prepared for major rules with would be subject to the notice Budget under the authority of the economically significant effects ($100 requirements in section 553(b) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 million or more in any 1 year). Although APA. However, to the extent that an U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). opportunity for public notice and we do not consider this notice to comment could be construed as VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis constitute a substantive rule, this notice is economically significant under required for this notice, we find good A. Statement of Need cause to waive this requirement. section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Section 1813(b)(2) of the Act requires Section 1813(b)(2) of the Act requires As stated in section IV of this notice, we publication of the inpatient hospital the Secretary to publish, between estimate that the total increase in costs deductible and the hospital and September 1 and September 15 of each to beneficiaries associated with this extended care services coinsurance year, the amounts of the inpatient notice is about $590 million due to: (1) amounts between September 1 and hospital deductible and hospital and The increase in the deductible and September 15 of the year preceding the extended care services coinsurance coinsurance amounts; and (2) the year to which they will apply. Further, applicable for services furnished in the increase in the number of deductibles the statute requires that the agency following CY. and daily coinsurance amounts paid. determine and publish the inpatient The RFA requires agencies to analyze B. Overall Impact hospital deductible and hospital and options for regulatory relief of small extended care services coinsurance We have examined the impacts of this entities, if a rule has a significant impact amounts for each calendar year in notice in accordance with Executive on a substantial number of small accordance with the statutory formulae, Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning entities. For purposes of the RFA, small and we are simply notifying the public and Review (September 30, 1993), entities include small businesses, of the changes to the deductible and Executive Order 13563 on Improving nonprofit organizations, and small coinsurance amounts for CY 2020. We Regulation and Regulatory Review governmental jurisdictions. Most have calculated the inpatient hospital (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory hospitals and most other health care deductible and hospital and extended Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, providers and suppliers are small care services coinsurance amounts as 1980, Pub. L. 96 354), section 1102(b) of entities, either by being nonprofit directed by the statute; the statute the Social Security Act, section 202 of organizations or by meeting the Small

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61622 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

Business Administration’s definition of and thus is not a regulatory action for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: a small business (having revenues of the purposes of E.O. 13771. I. Background less than $7.5 million to $38.5 million In accordance with the provisions of in any 1 year). Individuals and states are Executive Order 12866, this notice was Section 1818 of the Social Security not included in the definition of a small reviewed by the Office of Management Act (the Act) provides for voluntary entity. This annual notice announces and Budget. enrollment in the Medicare Hospital the Medicare Part A deductible and Consistent with the Congressional Insurance Program (Medicare Part A), coinsurance amounts for CY 2020 and Review Act provisions of the Small subject to payment of a monthly will have an impact on the Medicare Business Regulatory Enforcement premium, of certain persons aged 65 beneficiaries. As a result, we are not Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et and older who are uninsured under the preparing an analysis for the RFA seq.), this notice has been transmitted to Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability because the Secretary has determined the Congress and the Comptroller Insurance (OASDI) program or the that this notice will not have a General for review. Railroad Retirement Act and do not significant economic impact on a Although this notice does not otherwise meet the requirements for substantial number of small entities. constitute a substantive rule, we entitlement to Medicare Part A. These In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act nevertheless prepared this Impact ‘‘uninsured aged’’ individuals are requires us to prepare a regulatory Analysis section in the interest of uninsured under the OASDI program or impact analysis if a rule may have a ensuring that the impacts of this notice the Railroad Retirement Act, because significant impact on the operations of are fully understood. they do not have 40 quarters of coverage a substantial number of small rural under Title II of the Act (or are/were not hospitals. This analysis must conform to Dated: October 24, 2019. married to someone who did). (Persons the provisions of section 604 of the Seema Verma, insured under the OASDI program or RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of Administrator, Centers for Medicare & the Railroad Retirement Act and certain the Act, we define a small rural hospital Medicaid Services. others do not have to pay premiums for as a hospital that is located outside of Dated: October 28, 2019. Medicare Part A.) a metropolitan statistical area and has Alex M. Azar II, Section 1818A of the Act provides for fewer than 100 beds. This annual notice Secretary, Department of Health and Human voluntary enrollment in Medicare Part announces the Medicare Part A Services. A, subject to payment of a monthly deductible and coinsurance amounts for [FR Doc. 2019–24441 Filed 11–8–19; 4:15 pm] premium for certain disabled individuals who have exhausted other CY 2020 and will have an impact on the BILLING CODE 4120–01–P Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, we entitlement. These are individuals who are not preparing an analysis for section were entitled to coverage due to a 1102(b) of the Act because the Secretary DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND disabling impairment under section has determined that this notice will not HUMAN SERVICES 226(b) of the Act, but who are no longer have a significant impact on the entitled to disability benefits and free operations of a substantial number of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Medicare Part A coverage because they small rural hospitals. Services have gone back to work and their Section 202 of the Unfunded earnings exceed the statutorily defined [CMS–8072–N] Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also ‘‘substantial gainful activity’’ amount requires that agencies assess anticipated RIN 0938–AT77 (section 223(d)(4) of the Act). costs and benefits before issuing any Section 1818A(d)(2) of the Act rule whose mandates require spending Medicare Program; CY 2020 Part A specifies that the provisions relating to in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 Premiums for the Uninsured Aged and premiums under section 1818(d) dollars, updated annually for inflation. for Certain Disabled Individuals Who through section 1818(f) of the Act for In 2019, that threshold is approximately Have Exhausted Other Entitlement the aged will also apply to certain $154 million. This notice does not disabled individuals as described above. AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & impose mandates that will have a Section 1818(d)(1) of the Act requires Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. consequential effect of $154 million or us to estimate, on an average per capita more on state, local, or tribal ACTION: Notice. basis, the amount to be paid from the governments or on the private sector. Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund SUMMARY: This annual notice announces Executive Order 13132 establishes for services incurred in the upcoming Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (Part A) certain requirements that an agency calendar year (CY) (including the premium for uninsured enrollees in must meet when it promulgates a associated administrative costs) on calendar year (CY) 2020. This premium proposed rule (and subsequent final behalf of individuals aged 65 and over is paid by enrollees age 65 and over who rule) that imposes substantial direct who will be entitled to benefits under are not otherwise eligible for benefits requirement costs on state and local Medicare Part A. We must then under Medicare Part A (hereafter known governments, preempts state law, or determine the monthly actuarial rate for as the ‘‘uninsured aged’’) and by certain otherwise has federalism implications. the following year (the per capita disabled individuals who have This notice will not have a substantial amount estimated above divided by 12) exhausted other entitlement. The direct effect on state or local and publish the dollar amount for the monthly Part A premium for the 12 governments, preempt state law, or monthly premium in the succeeding CY. months beginning January 1, 2020 for otherwise have federalism implications. If the premium is not a multiple of $1, these individuals will be $458. The Executive Order 13771, titled the premium is rounded to the nearest premium for certain other individuals as ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling multiple of $1 (or, if it is a multiple of described in this notice will be $252. Regulatory Costs,’’ was issued on 50 cents but not of $1, it is rounded to January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339, February DATES: The premium announced in this the next highest $1). 3, 2017). It has been determined that notice is effective on January 1, 2020. Section 13508 of the Omnibus Budget this notice is a transfer notice that does FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103– not impose more than de minimis costs Yaminee Thaker, (410) 786–7921. 66) amended section 1818(d) of the Act

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61623

to provide for a reduction in the administrative costs that will be governing the scope of benefits, the premium amount for certain voluntary incurred on their behalf. payment for services, or the eligibility of enrollees (section 1818 and section The steps involved in projecting these individuals, entities, or organizations to 1818A of the Act). The reduction future costs to the Federal Hospital furnish or receive services or benefits applies to an individual who is eligible Insurance Trust Fund are: under Medicare shall take effect unless to buy into the Medicare Part A program • Establishing the present cost of it is promulgated through notice and and who, as of the last day of the services furnished to beneficiaries, by comment rulemaking. Unless there is a previous month: type of service, to serve as a projection statutory exception, section 1871(b)(1) • Had at least 30 quarters of coverage base; of the Act generally requires the under Title II of the Act; • Projecting increases in payment Secretary of the Department of Health • Was married, and had been married amounts for each of the service types; and Human Services (the Secretary) to for the previous 1 year period, to a and provide for notice of a proposed rule in person who had at least 30 quarters of • Projecting increases in the Federal Register and provide a coverage; administrative costs. period of not less than 60 days for • Had been married to a person for at We base our projections for CY 2020 public comment before establishing or least 1 year at the time of the person’s on—(1) current historical data; and (2) changing a substantive legal standard death if, at the time of death, the person projection assumptions derived from regarding the matters enumerated by the had at least 30 quarters of coverage; or current law and the Mid-Session Review statute. Similarly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) • Is divorced from a person and had of the President’s Fiscal Year 2020 of the APA, the agency is required to been married to the person for at least Budget. publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 10 years at the time of the divorce if, at We estimate that in CY 2020, in the Federal Register before a the time of the divorce, the person had 53,313,570 people aged 65 years and substantive rule takes effect. Section at least 30 quarters of coverage. over will be entitled to (enrolled in) 553(d) of the APA and section Section 1818(d)(4)(A) of the Act benefits (without premium payment) 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act usually specifies that the premium that these and that they will incur about $292.967 require a 30-day delay in effective date individuals will pay for CY 2020 will be billion in benefits and related after issuance or publication of a rule, equal to the premium for uninsured administrative costs. Thus, the subject to exceptions. Sections 553(b)(B) aged enrollees reduced by 45 percent. estimated monthly average per capita and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for Section 1818(g) of the Act requires the amount is $457.93 and the monthly exceptions from the advance notice and Secretary, at the request of a state, to premium is $458. Subsequently, the full comment requirement and the delay in enter into a Part A buy-in agreement monthly premium reduced by 45 effective date requirements. Sections with a state to pay Medicare Part A percent is $252. 1871(b)(2)(C) and 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the premiums for Qualified Medicare IV. Costs to Beneficiaries Act also provide exceptions from the Beneficiaries (QMBs). Under the QMB notice and 60-day comment period and program, state Medicaid agencies must The CY 2020 premium of $458 is the 30-day delay in effective date. pay the Medicare Part A premium for approximately 4.8 percent higher than Section 553(b)(B) of the APA and those not eligible for premium-free Part the CY 2019 premium of $437. We section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act A. (Entering into a Part A buy-in estimate that approximately 691,000 expressly authorize an agency to agreement would permit a state to avoid enrollees will voluntarily enroll in dispense with notice and comment any Medicare late enrollment penalties Medicare Part A, by paying the full rulemaking for good cause if the agency that the individual may owe and would premium. We estimate that over 90 makes a finding that notice and allow states to enroll persons in Part A percent of these individuals will have comment procedures are impracticable, at any time of the year (without regard their Part A premium paid for by states, unnecessary, or contrary to the public to Medicare enrollment periods)). since they are enrolled in the QMB interest. program. Furthermore, the CY 2020 The annual Part A premium II. Monthly Premium Amount for CY reduced premium of $252 is announcement set forth in this notice 2020 approximately 5.0 percent higher than does not establish or change a The monthly premium for the the CY 2019 premium of $240. We substantive legal standard regarding the uninsured aged and certain disabled estimate an additional 80,000 enrollees matters enumerated by the statute or individuals who have exhausted other will pay the reduced premium. constitute a substantive rule which entitlement for the 12 months beginning Therefore, we estimate that the total would be subject to the notice January 1, 2020, is $458. The monthly aggregate cost to enrollees paying these requirements in section 553(b) of the premium for the individuals eligible premiums in CY 2020, compared to the APA. However, to the extent that an under section 1818(d)(4)(B) of the Act, amount that they paid in CY 2019, will opportunity for public notice and and therefore, subject to the 45 percent be about $186 million. comment could be construed as reduction in the monthly premium, is required for this notice, we find good V. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking $252. cause to waive this requirement. We ordinarily publish a notice of Section 1818(d) of the Act requires III. Monthly Premium Rate Calculation proposed rulemaking in the Federal the Secretary during September of each As discussed in section I of this Register and invite public comment year to determine and publish the notice, the monthly Medicare Part A prior to a rule taking effect in amount to be paid, on an average per premium is equal to the estimated accordance with section 1871 of the Act capita basis, from the Federal Hospital monthly actuarial rate for CY 2020 and section 553(b) of the Administrative Insurance Trust Fund for services rounded to the nearest multiple of $1 Procedure Act (APA). Section 1871(a)(2) incurred in the impending CY and equals one-twelfth of the average of the Act provides that no rule, (including the associated administrative per capita amount, which is determined requirement, or other statement of costs) on behalf of individuals aged 65 by projecting the number of Medicare policy (other than a national coverage and over who will be entitled to benefits Part A enrollees aged 65 years and over determination) that establishes or under Medicare Part A. Further, the as well as the benefits and changes a substantive legal standard statute requires that the agency

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61624 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

determine the applicable premium B. Overall Impact entities, if a rule has a significant impact amount for each calendar year in We have examined the impacts of this on a substantial number of small accordance with the statutory formula, notice in accordance with Executive entities. For purposes of the RFA, small and we are simply notifying the public Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning entities include small businesses, of the changes to the Medicare Part A and Review (September 30, 1993), nonprofit organizations, and small premiums for CY 2020. We have Executive Order 13563 on Improving governmental jurisdictions. Most calculated the Part A premiums as Regulation and Regulatory Review hospitals and most other providers and directed by the statute; the statute (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory suppliers are small entities, either by establishes both when the premium Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, being nonprofit organizations or by amounts must be published and the 1980, Pub. L. 96–354), section 1102(b) of meeting the Small Business information that the Secretary must the Social Security Act, section 202 of Administration’s definition of a small factor into the premium amounts, so we the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of business (having revenues of less than do not have any discretion in that 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104–4), $7.5 million to $38.5 million in any 1 regard. We find notice and comment Executive Order 13132 on Federalism year). Individuals and states are not procedures to be unnecessary for this (August 4, 1999), the Congressional included in the definition of a small notice and we find good cause to waive Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), and entity. This annual notice announces such procedures under section 553(b)(B) Executive Order 13771 on Reducing the Medicare Part A premiums for CY of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 2020 and will have an impact on certain the Act, if such procedures may be Costs (January 30, 2017). Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, we construed to be required at all. Through Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 are not preparing an analysis for the this notice, we are simply notifying the direct agencies to assess all costs and RFA because the Secretary has public of the updates to the Medicare benefits of available regulatory determined that this notice will not Part A premiums, in accordance with alternatives and, if regulation is have a significant economic impact on the statute, for CY 2020. As such, we necessary, to select regulatory a substantial number of small entities. also note that even if notice and approaches that maximize net benefits In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act comment procedures were required for (including potential economic, requires us to prepare an RIA if a rule this notice, for the reasons stated above, environmental, public health and safety may have a significant impact on the we would find good cause to waive the effects, distributive impacts, and operations of a substantial number of delay in effective date of the notice, as equity). Section 3(f) of Executive Order small rural hospitals. This analysis must additional delay would be contrary to 12866 defines a ‘‘significant regulatory conform to the provisions of section 604 the public interest under section action’’ as an action that is likely to of the RFA. For purposes of section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Publication result in a rule: (1) Having an annual 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small of this notice is consistent with section effect on the economy of $100 million rural hospital as a hospital that is 1818(d) of the Act, and we believe that or more in any 1 year, or adversely and located outside of a metropolitan any potential delay in the effective date materially affecting a sector of the statistical area and has fewer than 100 of the notice, if such delay were economy, productivity, competition, beds. This annual notice announces the required at all, could cause unnecessary jobs, the environment, public health or Medicare Part A premiums for CY 2020 confusion both for the agency and safety, or state, local or tribal and will have an impact on certain Medicare beneficiaries. governments or communities (also Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, we are not preparing an analysis for section VI. Collection of Information referred to as ‘‘economically 1102(b) of the Act, because the Secretary Requirements significant’’); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering has determined that this notice will not This document does not impose with an action taken or planned by have a significant impact on the information collection requirements, another agency; (3) materially altering operations of a substantial number of that is, reporting, recordkeeping or the budgetary impacts of entitlement small rural hospitals. third-party disclosure requirements. grants, user fees, or loan programs or the Section 202 of the Unfunded Consequently, there is no need for rights and obligations of recipients Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also review by the Office of Management and thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or requires that agencies assess anticipated Budget under the authority of the policy issues arising out of legal costs and benefits before issuing any Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 mandates, the President’s priorities, or rule whose mandates require spending U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). the principles set forth in the Executive in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 Order. dollars, updated annually for inflation. VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) In 2019, that threshold is approximately A. Statement of Need must be prepared for major rules with $154 million. This notice does not economically significant effects ($100 impose mandates that will have a Section 1818(d) of the Act requires million or more in any 1 year). Although consequential effect of $154 million or the Secretary of the Department of we do not consider this notice to more on state, local, or tribal Health and Human Services (the constitute a substantive rule, this notice governments or on the private sector. Secretary) during September of each is economically significant under Executive Order 13132 establishes year to determine and publish the section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. certain requirements that an agency amount to be paid, on an average per As stated in section IV of this notice, we must meet when it promulgates a capita basis, from the Federal Hospital estimate that the overall effect of the proposed rule (and subsequent final Insurance Trust Fund for services changes in the Part A premium will be rule) that imposes substantial direct incurred in the impending CY a cost to voluntary enrollees (section requirement costs on state and local (including the associated administrative 1818 and section 1818A of the Act) of governments, preempts state law, or costs) on behalf of individuals aged 65 about $186 million. otherwise has federalism implications. and over who will be entitled to benefits The RFA requires agencies to analyze This notice will not have a substantial under Medicare Part A. options for regulatory relief of small direct effect on state or local

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61625

governments, preempt state law, or be paid by beneficiaries with modified as well as the monthly Part B premium. otherwise have federalism implications. adjusted gross income above certain The Part B annual deductible is Executive Order 13771, titled threshold amounts. The monthly included because its determination is ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling actuarial rates for 2020 are $283.20 for directly linked to the aged actuarial rate. Regulatory Costs,’’ was issued on aged enrollees and $343.60 for disabled The monthly actuarial rates for aged January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339, February enrollees. The standard monthly Part B and disabled enrollees are used to 3, 2017). It has been determined that premium rate for all enrollees for 2020 determine the correct amount of general this notice is a transfer notice that does is $144.60, which is equal to 50 percent revenue financing per beneficiary each not impose more than de minimis costs of the monthly actuarial rate for aged month. These amounts, according to and thus is not a regulatory action for enrollees (or approximately 25 percent actuarial estimates, will equal, the purposes of E.O. 13771. of the expected average total cost of Part respectively, one-half of the expected In accordance with the provisions of B coverage for aged enrollees) plus average monthly cost of Part B for each Executive Order 12866, this notice was $3.00 repayment amount required under aged enrollee (age 65 or over) and one- reviewed by the Office of Management current law. (The 2019 standard half of the expected average monthly and Budget. premium rate was $135.50, which cost of Part B for each disabled enrollee Consistent with the Congressional included the $3.00 repayment amount.) (under age 65). Review Act provisions of the Small The Part B deductible for 2020 is The Part B deductible to be paid by Business Regulatory Enforcement $198.00 for all Part B beneficiaries. If a enrollees is also announced. Prior to the Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et beneficiary has to pay an income-related Medicare Prescription Drug, seq.), this notice has been transmitted to monthly adjustment, he or she will have Improvement, and Modernization Act of the Congress and the Comptroller to pay a total monthly premium of about 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108–173), the Part General for review. 35, 50, 65, 80 or 85 percent of the total B deductible was set in statute. After Although this notice does not cost of Part B coverage plus a repayment setting the 2005 deductible amount at constitute a substantive rule, we amount of $4.20, $6.00, $7.80, $9.60 or $110, section 629 of the MMA nevertheless prepared this Impact $10.20 respectively. (amending section 1833(b) of the Act) Analysis section in the interest of required that the Part B deductible be DATES: The monthly actuarial rates, ensuring that the impacts of this notice indexed beginning in 2006. The premium rates, and annual deductible are fully understood. inflation factor to be used each year is announced in this notice are effective Dated: October 24, 2019. the annual percentage increase in the January 1, 2020. Part B actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 Seema Verma, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. and over. Specifically, the 2020 Part B Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Kent Clemens, (410) 786–6391. deductible is calculated by multiplying Medicaid Services. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the 2019 deductible by the ratio of the Dated: October 28, 2019. I. Background 2020 aged actuarial rate to the 2019 aged Alex M. Azar II, actuarial rate. The amount determined Secretary, Department of Health and Human Part B is the voluntary portion of the under this formula is then rounded to Services. Medicare program that pays all or part the nearest $1. [FR Doc. 2019–24439 Filed 11–8–19; 4:15 pm] of the costs for physicians’ services; The monthly Part B premium rate to BILLING CODE 4120–01–P outpatient hospital services; certain be paid by aged and disabled enrollees home health services; services furnished is also announced. (Although the costs by rural health clinics, ambulatory to the program per disabled enrollee are DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND surgical centers, and comprehensive different than for the aged, the statute HUMAN SERVICES outpatient rehabilitation facilities; and provides that they pay the same certain other medical and health premium amount.) Beginning with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid services not covered by Medicare Part passage of section 203 of the Social Services A, Hospital Insurance. Medicare Part B Security Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. [CMS–8073–N] is available to individuals who are 92–603), the premium rate, which was entitled to Medicare Part A, as well as determined on a fiscal-year basis, was RIN 0938–AT78 to U.S. residents who have attained age limited to the lesser of the actuarial rate 65 and are citizens and to aliens who for aged enrollees, or the current Medicare Program; Medicare Part B were lawfully admitted for permanent monthly premium rate increased by the Monthly Actuarial Rates, Premium residence and have resided in the same percentage as the most recent Rates, and Annual Deductible United States for 5 consecutive years. general increase in monthly Title II Beginning January 1, 2020 Part B requires enrollment and payment Social Security benefits. AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & of monthly premiums, as described in However, the passage of section 124 Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 42 CFR part 407, subpart B, and part of the Tax Equity and Fiscal ACTION: Notice. 408, respectively. The premiums paid Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) by (or on behalf of) all enrollees fund (Pub. L. 97–248) suspended this SUMMARY: This notice announces the approximately one-fourth of the total premium determination process. monthly actuarial rates for aged (age 65 incurred costs, and transfers from the Section 124 of TEFRA changed the and over) and disabled (under age 65) general fund of the Treasury pay premium basis to 50 percent of the beneficiaries enrolled in Part B of the approximately three-fourths of these monthly actuarial rate for aged enrollees Medicare Supplementary Medical costs. (that is, 25 percent of program costs for Insurance (SMI) program beginning The Secretary of the Department of aged enrollees). Section 606 of the January 1, 2020. In addition, this notice Health and Human Services (the Social Security Amendments of 1983 announces the monthly premium for Secretary) is required by section 1839 of (Pub. L. 98–21), section 2302 of the aged and disabled beneficiaries, the the Social Security Act (the Act) to Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA deductible for 2020, and the income- announce the Part B monthly actuarial 84) (Pub. L. 98–369), section 9313 of the related monthly adjustment amounts to rates for aged and disabled beneficiaries Consolidated Omnibus Budget

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61626 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA 85) monthly actuarial rate for enrollees age less general revenue financing is (Pub. L. 99–272), section 4080 of the 65 and over be computed as though the required, for beneficiaries with higher Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of transition would occur for 1998 through income because they are paying a larger 1987 (OBRA 87) (Pub. L. 100–203), and 2003 and that one-seventh of the cost be share of the total cost with their section 6301 of the Omnibus Budget transferred in 1998, two-sevenths in premium. That is, the premium subsidy Reconciliation Act of 1989 (OBRA 89) 1999, three-sevenths in 2000, four- continues to be approximately 75 (Pub. L. 101–239) extended the sevenths in 2001, five-sevenths in 2002, percent for beneficiaries with income provision that the premium be based on and six-sevenths in 2003. Therefore, the below the applicable income thresholds, 50 percent of the monthly actuarial rate transition period for incorporating this but it will be reduced for beneficiaries for aged enrollees (that is, 25 percent of home health transfer into the premium with income above these thresholds. program costs for aged enrollees). This was 7 years while the transition period The MMA specified that there be a 5- extension expired at the end of 1990. for including these services in the year transition period to reach full The premium rate for 1991 through actuarial rate was 6 years. implementation of this provision. 1995 was legislated by section Section 811 of the MMA, which However, section 5111 of the Deficit 1839(e)(1)(B) of the Act, as added by amended section 1839 of the Act, Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) (Pub. L. section 4301 of the Omnibus Budget requires that, starting on January 1, 109–171) modified the transition to a 3- Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA 90) 2007, the Part B premium a beneficiary year period. (Pub. L. 101–508). In January 1996, the pays each month be based on his or her Section 4732(c) of the BBA added section 1933(c) of the Act, which premium determination basis would annual income. Specifically, if a have reverted to the method established required the Secretary to allocate money beneficiary’s modified adjusted gross by the 1972 Social Security Act from the Part B trust fund to the State income is greater than the legislated Amendments. However, section 13571 Medicaid programs for the purpose of threshold amounts (for 2020, $87,000 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation providing Medicare Part B premium for a beneficiary filing an individual Act of 1993 (OBRA 93) (Pub. L. 103–66) assistance from 1998 through 2002 for income tax return and $174,000 for a changed the premium basis to 50 the low-income Medicaid beneficiaries beneficiary filing a joint tax return), the percent of the monthly actuarial rate for who qualify under section 1933 of the beneficiary is responsible for a larger aged enrollees (that is, 25 percent of Act. This allocation, while not a benefit portion of the estimated total cost of program costs for aged enrollees) for expenditure, was an expenditure of the Part B benefit coverage. In addition to 1996 through 1998. trust fund and was included in Section 4571 of the Balanced Budget the standard 25-percent premium, these calculating the Part B actuarial rates Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L. 105–33) beneficiaries now have to pay an through 2002. For 2003 through 2015, permanently extended the provision income-related monthly adjustment the expenditure was made from the trust that the premium be based on 50 amount. The MMA made no change to fund because the allocation was percent of the monthly actuarial rate for the actuarial rate calculation, and the temporarily extended. However, aged enrollees (that is, 25 percent of standard premium, which will continue because the extension occurred after the program costs for aged enrollees). to be paid by beneficiaries whose financing was determined, the The BBA included a further provision modified adjusted gross income is allocation was not included in the affecting the calculation of the Part B below the applicable thresholds, still calculation of the financing rates for actuarial rates and premiums for 1998 represents 25 percent of the estimated these years. Section 211 of MACRA through 2003. Section 4611 of the BBA total cost to the program of Part B permanently extended this expenditure, modified the home health benefit coverage for an aged enrollee. However, which is included in the calculation of payable under Part A for individuals depending on income and tax filing the Part B actuarial rates for 2016 and enrolled in Part B. Under this section, status, a beneficiary can now be subsequent years. beginning in 1998, expenditures for responsible for 35, 50, 65, 80, or 85 Another provision affecting the home health services not considered percent of the estimated total cost of calculation of the Part B premium is ‘‘post-institutional’’ are payable under Part B coverage, rather than 25 percent. section 1839(f) of the Act, as amended Part B rather than Part A. However, Section 402 of the Medicare Access and by section 211 of the Medicare section 4611(e)(1) of the BBA required CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 that there be a transition from 1998 (MACRA) (Pub. L. 114–10) modified the (MCCA 88) (Pub. L. 100–360). (The through 2002 for the aggregate amount income thresholds beginning with 2018, Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Repeal of the expenditures transferred from and section 53114 of the Bipartisan Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101–234) did not Part A to Part B. Section 4611(e)(2) of Budget Act of 2018 (BBA of 2018) (Pub. repeal the revisions to section 1839(f) of the BBA also provided a specific yearly L. 115–123) further modified the income the Act made by MCCA 88.) Section proportion for the transferred funds. thresholds beginning with 2019. For 1839(f) of the Act, referred to as the The proportions were one-sixth for years beginning with 2019, the BBA of ‘‘hold-harmless’’ provision, provides 1998, one-third for 1999, one-half for 2018 established a new income that if an individual is entitled to 2000, two-thirds for 2001, and five- threshold. If a beneficiary’s modified benefits under section 202 or 223 of the sixths for 2002. For the purpose of adjusted gross income is greater than or Act (the Old-Age and Survivors determining the correct amount of equal to $500,000 for a beneficiary filing Insurance Benefit and the Disability financing from general revenues of the an individual income tax return and Insurance Benefit, respectively) and has Federal Government, it was necessary to $750,000 for a beneficiary filing a joint the Part B premium deducted from these include only these transitional amounts tax return, the beneficiary is responsible benefit payments, the premium increase in the monthly actuarial rates for both for 85 percent of the estimated total cost will be reduced, if necessary, to avoid aged and disabled enrollees, rather than of Part B coverage. The BBA of 2018 causing a decrease in the individual’s the total cost of the home health specified that these new income net monthly payment. This decrease in services being transferred. threshold levels will be inflation- payment occurs if the increase in the Section 4611(e)(3) of the BBA also adjusted beginning in 2028. The end individual’s Social Security benefit due specified, for the purpose of result of the higher premium is that the to the cost-of-living adjustment under determining the premium, that the Part B premium subsidy is reduced, and section 215(i) of the Act is less than the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61627

increase in the premium. Specifically, adjustments or payments and made to the general fund of the Treasury the reduction in the premium amount deductions on account of work that from Part B in order to avoid a double applies if the individual is entitled to apply to the individual’s monthly repayment. (Only the $3.00 monthly benefits under section 202 or 223 of the benefits. repayment amounts are included in the Act for November and December of a Individuals who have enrolled in Part direct repayments). B late or who have re-enrolled after the particular year and the individual’s Part These repayment amounts will B premiums for December and the termination of a coverage period are continue until the total amount following January are deducted from the subject to an increased premium under collected is equal to the beginning respective month’s section 202 or 223 section 1839(b) of the Act. The increase balance due. (In the final year of the benefits. The hold-harmless provision is a percentage of the premium and is does not apply to beneficiaries who are based on the new premium rate before repayment, the additional amounts may required to pay an income-related any reductions under section 1839(f) of be modified to avoid an overpayment.) monthly adjustment amount. the Act are made. The repayment amounts (excluding the A check for benefits under section 202 Section 1839 of the Act, as amended repayment amounts for high-income or 223 of the Act is received in the by section 601(a) of the Bipartisan enrollees) are subject to the hold- month following the month for which Budget Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114–74), harmless provision. The beginning the benefits are due. The Part B specified that the 2016 actuarial rate for balance due was $9,066,409,000, premium that is deducted from a enrollees age 65 and older be consisting of $1,625,761,000 in foregone particular check is the Part B payment determined as if the hold-harmless income-related premium revenue plus a for the month in which the check is provision did not apply. The premium transfer amount of $7,440,648,000. An received. Therefore, a benefit check for revenue that was lost by using the estimated $4,804,297,000 will have been November is not received until resulting lower premium (excluding the collected for repayment to the general December, but December’s Part B foregone income-related premium fund by the end of 2019. premium has been deducted from it. revenue) was replaced by a transfer of Generally, if a beneficiary qualifies for general revenue from the Treasury, II. Provisions of the Notice hold-harmless protection, the reduced which will be repaid over time to the A. Notice of Medicare Part B Monthly premium for the individual for that general fund. Actuarial Rates, Monthly Premium January and for each of the succeeding Starting in 2016, in order to repay the Rates, and Annual Deductible 11 months is the greater of either— balance due (which includes the • The monthly premium for January transfer amount and the foregone The Medicare Part B monthly reduced as necessary to make the income-related premium revenue), the actuarial rates applicable for 2020 are December monthly benefits, after the Part B premium otherwise determined $283.20 for enrollees age 65 and over deduction of the Part B premium for will be increased by $3.00. These and $343.60 for disabled enrollees January, at least equal to the preceding repayment amounts will be added to the under age 65. In section II.B. of this November’s monthly benefits, after the Part B premium otherwise determined notice, we present the actuarial deduction of the Part B premium for each year and paid back to the general assumptions and bases from which December; or fund of the Treasury and will continue • these rates are derived. The Part B The monthly premium for that until the balance due is paid back. standard monthly premium rate for all individual for that December. High-income enrollees pay the $3 enrollees for 2020 is $144.60. In determining the premium repayment amount plus an additional limitations under section 1839(f) of the $1.20, $3.00, $4.80, $6.60, or $7.20 in The following are the 2020 Part B Act, the monthly benefits to which an repayment as part of the income-related monthly premium rates to be paid by (or individual is entitled under section 202 monthly adjustment amount (IRMAA) on behalf of) beneficiaries who file or 223 of the Act do not include premium dollars, which reduce (dollar either individual tax returns (and are retroactive adjustments or payments and for dollar) the amount of general single individuals, heads of households, deductions on account of work. Also, revenue received by Part B from the qualifying widows or widowers with once the monthly premium amount is general fund of the Treasury. Because of dependent children, or married established under section 1839(f) of the this general revenue offset, the individuals filing separately who lived Act, it will not be changed during the repayment IRMAA premium dollars are apart from their spouses for the entire year even if there are retroactive not included in the direct repayments taxable year), or joint tax returns.

Income-related Beneficiaries who file individual tax returns with Beneficiaries who file joint tax returns with monthly adjustment Total monthly income income amount premium amount

Less than or equal to $87,000 ...... Less than or equal to $174,000 ...... $0.00 $144.60 Greater than $87,000 and less than or equal to Greater than $174,000 and less than or equal to 57.80 202.40 $109,000. $218,000. Greater than $109,000 and less than or equal to Greater than $218,000 and less than or equal to 144.60 289.20 $136,000. $272,000. Greater than $136,000 and less than or equal to Greater than $272,000 and less than or equal to 231.40 376.00 $163,000. $326,000. Greater than $163,000 and less than $500,000 .. Greater than $326,000 and less than $750,000 .. 318.10 462.70 Greater than or equal to $500,000 ...... Greater than or equal to $750,000 ...... 347.00 491.60

In addition, the monthly premium with their spouses at any time during tax returns from their spouses, are as rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) the taxable year, but who file separate follows: beneficiaries who are married and lived

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61628 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

Income-related Beneficiaries who are married and lived with their spouses at any time during the year, but who file monthly adjustment Total monthly separate tax returns from their spouses amount premium amount

Less than or equal to $87,000 ...... $0.00 $144.60 Greater than $87,000 and less than $413,000 ...... 318.10 462.70 Greater than or equal to $413,000 ...... 347.00 491.60

The Part B annual deductible for 2020 standard monthly premium is the actual and projected costs, and the is $198.00 for all beneficiaries. amount that would be necessary to amount of incurred, but unpaid, finance Part B on an incurred basis. This expenses. Numerous factors determine B. Statement of Actuarial Assumptions is the amount of income that would be and Bases Employed in Determining the what level of assets is appropriate to sufficient to pay for services furnished Monthly Actuarial Rates and the cover variation between actual and during that year (including associated projected costs. The three most Monthly Premium Rate for Part B administrative costs) even though Beginning January 2020 important of these factors are (1) the payment for some of these services will difference from prior years between the The actuarial assumptions and bases not be made until after the close of the actual performance of the program and used to determine the monthly actuarial year. The portion of income required to estimates made at the time financing rates and the monthly premium rates for cover benefits not paid until after the was established; (2) the likelihood and Part B are established by the Centers for close of the year is added to the trust potential magnitude of expenditure Medicare & Medicaid Services Office of fund and used when needed. changes resulting from enactment of The premium rates are established the Actuary. The estimates underlying legislation affecting Part B costs in a prospectively and are, therefore, subject these determinations are prepared by year subsequent to the establishment of to projection error. Additionally, actuaries meeting the qualification financing for that year; and (3) the standards and following the actuarial legislation enacted after the financing expected relationship between incurred standards of practice established by the was established, but effective for the and cash expenditures. These factors are Actuarial Standards Board. period in which the financing is set, may affect program costs. As a result, analyzed on an ongoing basis, as the 1. Actuarial Status of the Part B Account the income to the program may not trends can vary over time. in the Supplementary Medical equal incurred costs. Therefore, trust Table 1 summarizes the estimated Insurance Trust Fund fund assets must be maintained at a actuarial status of the trust fund as of Under section 1839 of the Act, the level that is adequate to cover an the end of the financing period for 2018 starting point for determining the appropriate degree of variation between and 2019.

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ACTUARIAL STATUS OF THE PART B ACCOUNT IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND AS OF THE END OF THE FINANCING PERIOD

Assets less Financing period ending Assets Liabilities liabilities (in millions) (in millions) (in millions)

December 31, 2018 ...... $96,343 $30,102 $66,241 December 31, 2019 ...... 98,497 32,752 65,746

2. Monthly Actuarial Rate for Enrollees financing periods from January 1, 2017 brand-name prescription drugs pay a fee Age 65 and Older through December 31, 2020 are shown that is allocated to the Part B account of in Table 2. the SMI trust. For 2020, the total of The monthly actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older is one-half of As indicated in Table 3, the projected these brand-name drug fees is estimated the sum of monthly amounts for: (1) The per enrollee amount required to pay for to be $2.8 billion. The contingency projected cost of benefits; and (2) one-half of the total of benefits and margin has been reduced to account for administrative expenses for each administrative costs for enrollees age 65 this additional revenue. enrollee age 65 and older, after and over for 2020 is $281.31. Based on The traditional goal for the Part B adjustments to this sum to allow for current estimates, the assets associated reserve has been that assets minus interest earnings on assets in the trust with the aged Medicare beneficiaries at liabilities at the end of a year should fund and an adequate contingency the end of 2019 are not fully sufficient represent between 15 and 20 percent of margin. The contingency margin is an to cover the amount of incurred, but the following year’s total incurred amount appropriate to provide for unpaid, expenses and to provide for a expenditures. To accomplish this goal, a possible variation between actual and significant degree of variation between 17-percent reserve ratio, which is a fully projected costs and to amortize any actual and projected costs. Thus, a adequate contingency reserve level, has surplus assets or unfunded liabilities. positive contingency margin is needed. been the normal target used to calculate The monthly actuarial rate for The monthly actuarial rate of $283.20 the Part B premium. Assets at the end enrollees age 65 and older for 2020 is provides an adjustment of $4.08 for a of 2019 are expected to be below the ¥ determined by first establishing per contingency margin and $2.19 for fully adequate level. The financing rates enrollee costs by type of service from interest earnings. for 2020 are set to restore the asset level program data through 2018 and then The contingency margin for 2020 is in the Part B account to the fully projecting these costs for subsequent affected by several factors. Starting in adequate level by the end of 2020 under years. The projection factors used for 2011, manufacturers and importers of current law. The actuarial rate of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61629

$283.20 per month for aged sufficient to cover the amount of implemented. This result amounts to beneficiaries, as announced in this incurred, but unpaid, expenses and to 17.0 percent of the estimated total notice for 2020, reflects that combined provide for a significant degree of incurred expenditures for the following effect of the factors previously described variation between actual and projected year. and the projected assumptions listed in costs. A negative contingency margin is Assumptions that are somewhat more Table 2. needed to maintain assets at an pessimistic (and that therefore test the appropriate level. adequacy of the assets to accommodate 3. Monthly Actuarial Rate for Disabled The actuarial rate of $343.60 per projection errors) produce a surplus of Enrollees month for disabled beneficiaries, as $15,880 million by the end of December Disabled enrollees are those persons announced in this notice for 2020, 2020 under current law, which amounts under age 65 who are enrolled in Part reflects the combined net effect of the to 3.3 percent of the estimated total B because of entitlement to Social factors described previously for aged incurred expenditures for the following Security disability benefits for more beneficiaries and the projection year. Under fairly optimistic than 24 months or because of assumptions listed in Table 2. assumptions, the monthly actuarial rates entitlement to Medicare under the end- would result in a surplus of $132,071 4. Sensitivity Testing stage renal disease (ESRD) program. million by the end of December 2020, or Projected monthly costs for disabled Several factors contribute to 34.7 percent of the estimated total enrollees (other than those with ESRD) uncertainty about future trends in incurred expenditures for the following are prepared in a manner parallel to the medical care costs. It is appropriate to year. projection for the aged using test the adequacy of the rates using The sensitivity analysis indicates that appropriate actuarial assumptions (see alternative cost growth rate the premium and general revenue Table 2). Costs for the ESRD program are assumptions. The results of those financing established for 2020, together projected differently because of the assumptions are shown in Table 5. One with existing Part B account assets, different nature of services offered by set represents increases that are higher would be adequate to cover estimated the program. and, therefore, more pessimistic than Part B costs for 2020 under current law As shown in Table 4, the projected the current estimate. The other set should actual costs prove to be per enrollee amount required to pay for represents increases that are lower and, somewhat greater than expected. one-half of the total of benefits and therefore, more optimistic than the administrative costs for disabled current estimate. The values for the 5. Premium Rates and Deductible enrollees for 2020 is $347.33. The alternative assumptions were As determined in accordance with monthly actuarial rate of $343.60 also determined from a statistical analysis of section 1839 of the Act, the following provides an adjustment of ¥$2.83 for the historical variation in the respective are the 2020 Part B monthly premium interest earnings and ¥$0.90 for a increase factors. rates to be paid by beneficiaries who file contingency margin, reflecting the same As indicated in Table 5, the monthly either individual tax returns (and are factors described previously for the aged actuarial rates would result in an excess single individuals, heads of households, actuarial rate at magnitudes appropriate of assets over liabilities of $73,860 qualifying widows or widowers with to the disabled rate determination. million by the end of December 2020 dependent children, or married Based on current estimates, the assets under the cost growth rate assumptions individuals filing separately who lived associated with the disabled Medicare shown in Table 2 and assuming that the apart from their spouses for the entire beneficiaries at the end of 2020 are provisions of current law are fully taxable year), or joint tax returns.

Income-related Beneficiaries who file individual tax returns with Beneficiaries who file joint tax returns with monthly adjustment Total monthly income income amount premium amount

Less than or equal to $87,000 ...... Less than or equal to $174,000 ...... $0.00 $144.60 Greater than $87,000 and less than or equal to Greater than $174,000 and less than or equal to 57.80 202.40 $109,000. $218,000. Greater than $109,000 and less than or equal to Greater than $218,000 and less than or equal to 144.60 289.20 $136,000. $272,000. Greater than $136,000 and less than or equal to Greater than $272,000 and less than or equal to 231.40 376.00 $163,000. $326,000. Greater than $163,000 and less than $500,000 .. Greater than $326,000 and less than $750,000 .. 318.10 462.70 Greater than or equal to $500,000 ...... Greater than or equal to $750,000 ...... 347.00 491.60

In addition, the monthly premium married and lived with their spouses at who file separate tax returns from their rates to be paid by beneficiaries who are any time during the taxable year, but spouses, are as follows:

Income-related Beneficiaries who are married and lived with their spouses at any time during the year, but who file monthly adjustment Total monthly separate tax returns from their spouses amount premium amount

Less than or equal to $87,000 ...... $0.00 $144.60 Greater than $87,000 and less than $413,000 ...... 318.10 462.70 Greater than or equal to $413,000 ...... 347.00 491.60

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61630 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

TABLE 2—PROJECTION FACTORS 1 12-Month Periods Ending December 31 of 2017–2020 [In percent]

Physician- Other Home Other Calendar Physicians’ Durable Outpatient Hospital Managed medical Carrier lab 2 administered carrier health intermediary year services hospital lab 4 care equipment drugs services 3 agency services 5

Aged: 2017 1.2 ¥5.5 4.0 6.8 4.3 7.4 ¥2.0 1.1 4.8 2.8 2018 1.7 17.9 11.2 12.3 2.4 8.7 3.3 ¥0.9 7.7 7.5 2019 3.7 6.1 2.3 10.8 2.4 7.1 4.3 ¥3.2 5.8 7.4 2020 1.9 ¥1.3 ¥2.1 8.8 2.4 8.3 4.0 ¥2.3 4.7 5.5 Disabled: 2017 0.6 0.0 ¥0.7 5.4 10.1 6.1 ¥2.0 ¥0.3 9.3 3.9 2018 2.0 18.5 6.1 10.9 4.7 7.6 2.6 1.3 9.1 7.7 2019 4.9 6.6 8.2 11.7 4.9 12.0 6.5 ¥0.8 10.5 7.1 2020 1.9 ¥1.6 ¥2.2 8.7 2.4 8.4 5.6 ¥2.4 5.8 5.8 1 All values for services other than managed care are per fee-for-service enrollee. Managed care values are per managed care enrollee. 2 Includes services paid under the lab fee schedule furnished in the physician’s office or an independent lab. 3 Includes ambulatory surgical center facility costs, ambulance services, parenteral and enteral drug costs, supplies, etc. 4 Includes services paid under the lab fee schedule furnished in the outpatient department of a hospital. 5 Includes services furnished in dialysis facilities, rural health clinics, federally qualified health centers, rehabilitation and psychiatric hospitals, etc.

TABLE 3—DERIVATION OF MONTHLY ACTUARIAL RATE FOR ENROLLEES AGE 65 AND OVER FOR FINANCING PERIODS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2017 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2020

CY 2017 CY 2018 CY 2019 CY 2020

Covered services (at level recognized): Physician fee schedule ...... $73.34 $72.32 $73.14 $73.63 Durable medical equipment ...... 5.29 6.06 6.27 6.12 Carrier lab 1 ...... 3.96 4.27 4.26 4.13 Physician-administered drugs...... 14.74 16.08 17.37 18.69 Other carrier services 2 ...... 9.39 9.35 9.33 9.46 Outpatient hospital ...... 46.96 49.62 51.81 55.53 Home health ...... 8.97 9.00 9.15 9.42 Hospital lab 3 ...... 2.26 2.17 2.05 1.98 Other intermediary services 4 ...... 17.81 18.64 19.22 19.91 Managed care ...... 89.57 100.73 112.29 120.27

Total services ...... 272.27 288.24 304.89 319.14 Cost sharing: Deductible ...... ¥6.47 ¥6.41 ¥6.48 ¥6.94 Coinsurance ...... ¥27.99 ¥28.63 ¥28.77 ¥29.39 Sequestration of benefits ...... ¥4.75 ¥5.06 ¥5.39 ¥5.65 HIT payment incentives ...... ¥0.17 0.16 0.00 0.00

Total benefits ...... 232.89 248.30 264.25 277.16 Administrative expenses ...... 4.50 3.98 4.23 4.15

Incurred expenditures ...... 237.39 252.28 268.48 281.31 Value of interest ...... ¥1.61 ¥1.80 ¥2.02 ¥2.19 Contingency margin for projection error and to amortize the surplus or def- icit ...... 26.12 11.42 ¥1.56 4.08

Monthly actuarial rate ...... 261.90 261.90 264.90 283.20 1 Includes services paid under the lab fee schedule furnished in the physician’s office or an independent lab. 2 Includes ambulatory surgical center facility costs, ambulance services, parenteral and enteral drug costs, supplies, etc. 3 Includes services paid under the lab fee schedule furnished in the outpatient department of a hospital. 4 Includes services furnished in dialysis facilities, rural health clinics, federally qualified health centers, rehabilitation and psychiatric hospitals, etc.

TABLE 4—DERIVATION OF MONTHLY ACTUARIAL RATE FOR DISABLED ENROLLEES FOR FINANCING PERIODS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2017 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2020

CY 2017 CY 2018 CY 2019 CY 2020

Covered services (at level recognized): Physician fee schedule ...... $76.62 $74.87 $74.06 $72.41 Durable medical equipment ...... 10.97 12.41 12.40 11.69 Carrier lab 1 ...... 5.66 5.83 5.95 5.58 Physician-administered drugs...... 14.23 15.19 15.97 16.64 Other carrier services 2 ...... 12.51 12.65 12.52 12.33 Outpatient hospital ...... 64.96 66.98 69.93 72.67 Home health ...... 7.08 6.93 6.89 6.94 Hospital lab 3 ...... 2.73 2.67 2.50 2.34

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61631

TABLE 4—DERIVATION OF MONTHLY ACTUARIAL RATE FOR DISABLED ENROLLEES FOR FINANCING PERIODS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2017 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2020—Continued

CY 2017 CY 2018 CY 2019 CY 2020

Other intermediary services 4 ...... 47.21 52.09 53.28 53.58 Managed care ...... 90.59 106.01 125.96 141.72

Total services ...... 332.57 355.64 379.44 395.91 Cost sharing: Deductible ...... ¥6.21 ¥6.15 ¥3.53 ¥4.21 Coinsurance ...... ¥41.93 ¥43.18 ¥46.89 ¥44.44 Sequestration of benefits ...... ¥5.68 ¥6.12 ¥6.57 ¥6.94 HIT payment incentives ...... ¥0.18 0.16 0.00 0.00

Total benefits ...... 278.57 300.34 322.45 340.32 Administrative expenses ...... 5.38 4.82 6.84 7.01

Incurred expenditures ...... 283.94 305.16 329.29 347.33 Value of interest ...... ¥3.01 ¥2.75 ¥2.82 ¥2.83 Contingency margin for projection error and to amortize the surplus or def- icit ...... ¥26.74 ¥7.41 ¥11.07 ¥0.90

Monthly actuarial rate ...... 254.20 295.00 315.40 343.60 1 Includes services paid under the lab fee schedule furnished in the physician’s office or an independent lab. 2 Includes ambulatory surgical center facility costs, ambulance services, parenteral and enteral drug costs, supplies, etc. 3 Includes services paid under the lab fee schedule furnished in the outpatient department of a hospital. 4 Includes services furnished in dialysis facilities, rural health clinics, federally qualified health centers, rehabilitation and psychiatric hospitals, etc.

TABLE 5—ACTUARIAL STATUS OF THE PART B ACCOUNT IN THE SMI TRUST FUND UNDER THREE SETS OF ASSUMPTIONS FOR FINANCING PERIODS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2020

As of December 31, 2018 2019 2020

Actuarial status (in millions): Assets ...... $96,343 $98,497 $108,114 Liabilities ...... $30,102 $32,752 $34,253

Assets less liabilities ...... $66,241 $65,746 $73,860 Ratio 1 ...... 17.8% 16.5% 17.0% Low-cost projection: Actuarial status (in millions):. Assets ...... $96,343 $117,416 $164,412 Liabilities ...... $30,102 $30,650 $32,341

Assets less liabilities ...... $66,241 $86,766 $132,071 Ratio 1 ...... 18.9% 24.1% 34.7% High-cost projection: Actuarial status (in millions):. Assets ...... $96,343 $79,283 $51,985 Liabilities ...... $30,102 $34,887 $36,105

Assets less liabilities ...... $66,241 $44,396 $15,880 Ratio 1 ...... 16.9% 10.1% 3.3% 1 Ratio of assets less liabilities at the end of the year to the total incurred expenditures during the following year, expressed as a percent.

III. Collection of Information IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis B. Overall Impact Requirements A. Statement of Need We have examined the impacts of this This document does not impose notice as required by Executive Order Section 1839 of the Act requires us to information collection requirements— 12866 on Regulatory Planning and annually announce (that is, by that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or Review (September 30, 1993), Executive September 30th of each year) the Part B third-party disclosure requirements. Order 13563 on Improving Regulation monthly actuarial rates for aged and Consequently, there is no need for and Regulatory Review (January 18, disabled beneficiaries as well as the review by the Office of Management and 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act monthly Part B premium. We also Budget under the authority of the (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96– announce the Part B annual deductible Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 354), section 1102(b) of the Social because its determination is directly U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Security Act, section 202 of the linked to the aged actuarial rate. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995, Pub. L. 104–4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61632 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

(August 4, 1999), the Congressional notices with economically significant As discussed earlier, this notice Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), and effects ($100 million or more in any one announces that the monthly actuarial Executive Order 13771 on Reducing and year). The 2020 standard Part B rates applicable for 2020 are $283.20 for Controlling Regulatory Costs (January premium of $144.60 is $9.10 higher than enrollees age 65 and over and $343.60 30, 2017). the 2019 premium of $135.50. We for disabled enrollees under age 65. It Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 estimate that this premium increase, for also announces the 2020 monthly Part B direct agencies to assess all costs and the approximately 57 million Part B premium rates to be paid by benefits of available regulatory enrollees in 2020, will have an annual beneficiaries who file either individual alternatives and, if regulation is effect on the economy of $100 million tax returns (and are single individuals, necessary, to select regulatory or more. As a result, this notice is heads of households, qualifying widows approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, economically significant under section or widowers with dependent children, environmental, public health and safety 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and is or married individuals filing separately effects, distributive impacts, and a major action as defined under the who lived apart from their spouses for equity). A regulatory impact analysis Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. the entire taxable year), or joint tax (RIA) must be prepared for major 804(2)). returns.

Income-related Beneficiaries who file individual tax returns with Beneficiaries who file joint tax returns with monthly adjustment Total monthly income income amount premium amount

Less than or equal to $87,000 ...... Less than or equal to $174,000 ...... $0.00 $144.60 Greater than $87,000 and less than or equal to Greater than $174,000 and less than or equal to 57.80 202.40 $109,000. $218,000. Greater than $109,000 and less than or equal to Greater than $218,000 and less than or equal to 144.60 289.20 $136,000. $272,000. Greater than $136,000 and less than or equal to Greater than $272,000 and less than or equal to 231.40 376.00 $163,000. $326,000. Greater than $163,000 and less than $500,000 .. Greater than $326,000 and less than $750,000 .. 318.10 462.70 Greater than or equal to $500,000 ...... Greater than or equal to $750,000 ...... 347.00 491.60

In addition, the monthly premium any time during the taxable year, but spouses, are also announced and listed rates to be paid by beneficiaries who are who file separate tax returns from their in the following chart: married and lived with their spouses at

Income-related Beneficiaries who are married and lived with their spouses at any time during the year, but who file monthly adjustment Total monthly separate tax returns from their spouses amount premium amount

Less than or equal to $87,000 ...... $0.00 $144.60 Greater than $87,000 and less than $413,000 ...... 318.10 462.70 Greater than or equal to $413,000 ...... 347.00 491.60

The RFA requires agencies to analyze significant economic impact on a require spending in any one year of options for regulatory relief of small substantial number of small entities. $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated businesses, if a rule has a significant In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act annually for inflation. In 2019, that impact on a substantial number of small requires us to prepare a regulatory threshold is approximately $154 entities. For purposes of the RFA, small impact analysis if a rule may have a million. Part B enrollees who are also entities include small businesses, significant impact on the operations of enrolled in Medicaid have their nonprofit organizations, and small a substantial number of small rural monthly Part B premiums paid by governmental jurisdictions. Individuals hospitals. This analysis must conform to Medicaid. The cost to each state and states are not included in the the provisions of section 604 of the Medicaid program from the 2020 definition of a small entity. This notice RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of premium increase is estimated to be less announces the monthly actuarial rates the Act, we define a small rural hospital than the threshold. This notice does not for aged (age 65 and over) and disabled as a hospital that is located outside of impose mandates that will have a (under 65) beneficiaries enrolled in Part a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has consequential effect of the threshold B of the Medicare SMI program fewer than 100 beds. As we discussed amount or more on state, local, or tribal beginning January 1, 2020. Also, this previously, we are not preparing an governments or on the private sector. notice announces the monthly premium analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act Executive Order 13132 establishes for aged and disabled beneficiaries as because the Secretary has determined certain requirements that an agency well as the income-related monthly that this notice will not have a must meet when it publishes a proposed adjustment amounts to be paid by significant effect on a substantial rule (and subsequent final rule) that beneficiaries with modified adjusted number of small rural hospitals. imposes substantial direct compliance gross income above certain threshold Section 202 of the Unfunded costs on state and local governments, amounts. As a result, we are not Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) preempts state law, or otherwise has preparing an analysis for the RFA also requires that agencies assess federalism implications. We have because the Secretary has determined anticipated costs and benefits before determined that this notice does not that this notice will not have a issuing any rule whose mandates significantly affect the rights, roles, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61633

responsibilities of states. Accordingly, rulemaking for good cause if the agency for aged and disabled beneficiaries, the the requirements of Executive Order makes a finding that notice and Part B deductible, as well as the 13132 do not apply to this notice. comment procedures are impracticable, monthly Part B premium amounts and Executive Order 13771, titled unnecessary, or contrary to the public the income-related monthly adjustment ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling interest. amounts to be paid by certain Regulatory Costs,’’ was issued on The annual updated amounts for the beneficiaries, in accordance with the January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339, February Part B monthly actuarial rates for aged statute, for CY 2020. As such, we also 3, 2017). It has been determined that and disabled beneficiaries, the Part B note that even if notice and comment this notice is a transfer notice that does premium, and Part B deductible set procedures were required for this not impose more than de minimis costs forth in this notice do not establish or notice, for the previously stated reason, and thus is not a regulatory action for change a substantive legal standard we would find good cause to waive the the purposes of E.O. 13771. regarding the matters enumerated by the delay in effective date of the notice, as In accordance with the provisions of statute or constitute a substantive rule additional delay would be contrary to Executive Order 12866, this notice was which would be subject to the notice the public interest under section reviewed by the Office of Management requirements in section 553(b) of the 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Publication and Budget. APA. However, to the extent that an of this notice is consistent with section V. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking opportunity for public notice and 1839 of the Act, and we believe that any comment could be construed as potential delay in the effective date of We ordinarily publish a notice of required for this notice, we find good the notice, if such delay were required proposed rulemaking in the Federal cause to waive this requirement. at all, could cause unnecessary Register and invite public comment Section 1839 of the Act requires the confusion both for the agency and prior to a rule taking effect in Secretary to determine the monthly Medicare beneficiaries. accordance with section 1871 of the Act actuarial rates for aged and disabled and section 553(b) of the Administrative beneficiaries as well as the monthly Part Dated: October 24, 2019. Procedure Act (APA). Section 1871(a)(2) B premium (including the income- Seema Verma, of the Act provides that no rule, related monthly adjustment amounts to Administrator, Centers for Medicare & requirement, or other statement of be paid by beneficiaries with modified Medicaid Services. policy (other than a national coverage adjusted gross income above certain Dated: October 28, 2019. determination) that establishes or threshold amounts) for each calendar Alex M. Azar II, changes a substantive legal standard year in accordance with the statutory Secretary, Department of Health and Human governing the scope of benefits, the formulae, in September preceding the Services. payment for services, or the eligibility of year to which they will apply. Further, [FR Doc. 2019–24440 Filed 11–8–19; 4:15 pm] individuals, entities, or organizations to the statute requires that the agency BILLING CODE 4120–01–P furnish or receive services or benefits promulgate the Part B premium amount, under Medicare shall take effect unless in September preceding the year to it is promulgated through notice and which it will apply, and include a DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND comment rulemaking. Unless there is a public statement setting forth the HUMAN SERVICES statutory exception, section 1871(b)(1) actuarial assumptions and bases of the Act generally requires the employed by the Secretary in arriving at Meeting of the National Clinical Care Secretary of the Department of Health the amount of an adequate actuarial rate Commission and Human Services (the Secretary) to for enrollees age 65 and older. We provide for notice of a proposed rule in include the Part B annual deductible, AGENCY: Office of Disease Prevention the Federal Register and provide a which is established pursuant to a and Health Promotion, Office of the period of not less than 60 days for specific formula described in section Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of public comment before establishing or 1833(b) of the Act, because the the Secretary, Department of Health and changing a substantive legal standard determination of the amount is directly Human Services. regarding the matters enumerated by the linked to the rate of increase in actuarial ACTION: Notice. statute. Similarly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) rate under section 1839(a)(1) of the Act. of the APA, the agency is required to We have calculated the monthly SUMMARY: The National Clinical Care publish a notice of proposed rulemaking actuarial rates for aged and disabled Commission (the Commission) will in the Federal Register before a beneficiaries, the Part B deductible, and conduct its fifth meeting on Friday, substantive rule takes effect. Section the monthly Part B premium as directed November 22, 2019. The Commission is 553(d) of the APA and section by the statute; the statute establishes charged to evaluate and make 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act usually both when the monthly actuarial rates recommendations to the U.S. require a 30-day delay in effective date for aged and disabled beneficiaries and Department of Health and Human after issuance or publication of a rule, the monthly Part B premium must be Services (HHS) Secretary and Congress subject to exceptions. Sections 553(b)(B) published and the information that the regarding improvements to the and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for Secretary must factor into those coordination and leveraging of federal exceptions from the advance notice and amounts, so we do not have any programs related to awareness and comment requirement and the delay in discretion in that regard. We find notice clinical care for complex metabolic or effective date requirements. Sections and comment procedures to be autoimmune diseases that result from 1871(b)(2)(C) and 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the unnecessary for this notice and we find issues related to insulin that represent a Act also provide exceptions from the good cause to waive such procedures significant disease burden in the United notice and 60-day comment period and under section 553(b)(B) of the APA and States, which may include the 30-day delay in effective date. section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act, if such complications due to such diseases. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA and procedures may be construed to be DATES: The meeting will take place on section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act required at all. Through this notice, we Friday, November 22, 2019, from 8:00 expressly authorize an agency to are simply notifying the public of the a.m. to approximately 4:00 p.m. Eastern dispense with notice and comment updates to the monthly actuarial rates Time (ET).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61634 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be Written comments are welcome Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase held at the Bethesda North Marriott throughout the entire development Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW, Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 process of the Commission’s Washington, DC 20015. recommendation and may be emailed to Contact Person: Nywana Sizemore, Ph.D., Marinelli Rd., Rockville, MD 20852; Scientific Review Officer, Center for 301–822–9200. The meeting will also be [email protected], or by mail to the Scientific Review, National Institutes of held online via webcast. To pre-register following address: Public Commentary, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6204, to attend the meeting, please visit the National Clinical Care Commission, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– registration website at https:// 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 420, 1718, [email protected]. events.kauffmaninc.com/events/nccc5/. Rockville, MD 20852. Written comments Name of Committee: Center for Scientific should not exceed three pages in length. Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Individuals who need special Conflict: Cardiovascular Sciences. Linda Harris, Designated Federal assistance, such as sign language Date: December 5–6, 2019. Officer, National Clinical Care interpretation or other reasonable Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Commission, U.S. Department of Health Agenda: To review and evaluate grant accommodations, should indicate the and Human Services, Office of the applications. special accommodation when Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Place: National Institutes of Health, registering online or by notifying Disease Prevention and Health Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Jennifer Gillissen at jennifer.gillissen@ Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting). Promotion, 1101 Wootton Parkway, kauffmaninc.com by November 15. Contact Person: Kimm Hamann, Ph.D., Suite 420, Rockville, MD 20852. Email: Scientific Review Officer, Center for [email protected]. Authority: The National Clinical Care Scientific Review, National Institutes of Commission is required under the Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118A, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Clinical Care Commission Act MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– National Clinical Care Commission Act (Pub. L. 115–80). The Commission is 5575, [email protected]. (Pub. L. 115–80) requires the HHS governed by provisions of the Federal Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Secretary to establish the National Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Clinical Care Commission. The Law 92–463, as amended (5 U.S.C., Conflict: AIDS and AIDS Related Research. Commission consists of representatives App.) which sets forth standards for the Date: December 5–6, 2019. of specific federal agencies and non- formation and use of federal advisory Time: 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant federal individuals and entities who committees. represent diverse disciplines and views. applications. The Commission will evaluate and Dated: November 5, 2019. Place: National Institutes of Health, Donald Wright, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, make recommendations to the HHS Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting). Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Secretary and Congress regarding Contact Person: Jingsheng Tuo, Ph.D., improvements to the coordination and Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Scientific Review Officer, Center for leveraging of federal programs related to [FR Doc. 2019–24636 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Scientific Review, National Institutes of awareness and clinical care for complex BILLING CODE 4150–32–P Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5207, metabolic or autoimmune diseases that Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451–8754, tuoj@ result from issues related to insulin that nei.nih.gov. represent a significant disease burden in DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Name of Committee: Center for Scientific the United States, which may include HUMAN SERVICES Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small complications due to such diseases. Business: Psycho/Neuropathology Lifespan National Institutes of Health Development. During this fifth meeting, the Date: December 5, 2019. Commission will hear from informants Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. from selected federal agencies about Closed Meetings Agenda: To review and evaluate grant programs related to diabetes prevention, applications. treatment and discuss potential topics Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 for the Commission’s final report. The Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 Federal Advisory Committee Act, as (Telephone Conference Call). final meeting agenda will be available amended, notice is hereby given of the prior to the meeting at https:// Contact Person: Elia E. Ortenberg, Ph.D., following meetings. Scientific Review Officer, Center for health.gov/hcq/national-clinical-care- Scientific Review, National Institutes of commission.asp. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3108, Public Participation at Meeting: The provisions set forth in sections Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827–7189, [email protected]. Commission invites public comment on 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., issues related to the Commission’s as amended. The grant applications and Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member charge either in-person at the meeting or the discussions could disclose in writing. In-person attendees who Conflict: Neurodegeneration, Myelination confidential trade secrets or commercial and Glia. plan to provide oral comments at the property such as patentable material, Date: December 5, 2019. Commission meeting during a and personal information concerning Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. designated time must submit their individuals associated with the grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant comments to [email protected] on or before applications, the disclosure of which applications. November 15, 2019 and must check-in would constitute a clearly unwarranted Place: National Institutes of Health, on-site. To accommodate as many invasion of personal privacy. Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, individuals as possible, the time for Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference each comment will be limited to three Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Call). Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: minutes. If more requests are received Contact Person: Mary Custer, Ph.D., Cancer Health Disparities. Scientific Review Officer, Center for than can be accommodated, speakers Date: December 5–6, 2019. Scientific Review, National Institutes of will be randomly selected. The nature of Time: 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4148, the comments will not be considered in Agenda: To review and evaluate grant MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– making this selection. applications. 1164, [email protected].

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61635

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Federal Workplace Drug Testing Telephone: (240) 276–1759, email: Review Special Emphasis Panel; Vascular Programs (urine and oral fluid [email protected]. and Hematology Research Enhancement specimens) with updates from the Anastasia Marie Donovan, Award Application Review. Department of Transportation, Nuclear Date: December 5, 2019. Regulatory Commission, and the Policy Anayst. Time: 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. [FR Doc. 2019–24649 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Department of Defense. Other applications. discussion topics include the impact of BILLING CODE 4162–20–P Place: National Institutes of Health, cannabis laws on drug testing and Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, standard variables. There will be Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference additional presentations from the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Call). Division of Workplace Programs’ staff HUMAN SERVICES Contact Person: Natalia Komissarova, on urine, oral fluid, hair Mandatory Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Substance Abuse and Mental Health Scientific Review, National Institutes of Guidelines; and the electronic chain of Services Administration Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5207, custody. The board will meet in closed- MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– session in-person on December 4th, Notice of Subcommittee Meetings for 1206, [email protected]. 2019, from 9:00 a.m. EST to 4:00 p.m. the Interdepartmental Serious Mental Name of Committee: Center for Scientific EST to discuss confidential issues Illness Coordinating Committee Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member surrounding the proposed Mandatory (ISMICC) Conflict: Topics in Toxicology and Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Pharmacology. Testing Programs (hair), HHS drug panel AGENCY: Substance Abuse and Mental Date: December 5, 2019. review, preliminary and unpublished Health Services Administration, Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. studies from the Johns Hopkins Department of Health and Human Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. University Behavioral Pharmacology Services. Place: National Institutes of Health, Research Unit (BPRU); ACTION: Notice of subcommittee Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, recommendations to the Assistant meetings (virtual). Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Secretary for Mental Health and Call). Substance Use regarding additional SUMMARY: The Secretary of Health and Contact Person: Atul Sahai, Ph.D., drugs (fentanyl and methadone) that Human Services (Secretary) announces Scientific Review Officer, Center for may be tested for in the future, and subcommittee meetings of the Scientific Review, National Institutes of lastly, program financials. Therefore, the Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2188, Interdepartmental Serious Mental MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– December 4th, 2019, from 9:00 a.m. EST Illness Coordinating Committee 1198 [email protected]. to 4:00 p.m. EST, meeting is closed to (ISMICC). The meetings are open to the (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance the public, as determined by the public and can be accessed via Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; Assistant Secretary for Mental Health telephone only. Agenda with call-in 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, and Substance Use, SAMHSA, in information will be posted on the 93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and SAMHSA website prior to the meetings 93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National (9)(B), and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section at: https://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/ Institutes of Health, HHS) 10(d). advisory-councils/meetings. The Dated: November 6, 2019. Meeting registration information can meetings will include information on Miguelina Perez, be completed at http:// the following focus areas: Data, Access, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory snacregister.samhsa.gov/ Treatment and Recovery, Justice, and Committee Policy. MeetingList.aspx. Web conference and Finance. [FR Doc. 2019–24614 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] call information will be sent after Committee Name: Interdepartmental BILLING CODE 4140–01–P completing registration. Meeting Serious Mental Illness Coordinating information and a roster of DTAB Committee (subcommittee meetings). members may be obtained by accessing Date/Time/Type: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND the SAMHSA Advisory Committees HUMAN SERVICES website, https://www.samhsa.gov/ December 4, 2019/9:00 a.m.–10:30 a.m. about-us/advisory-councils/meetings or (EST)/OPEN/Focus Area 3: Treatment Substance Abuse and Mental Health by contacting the Designated Federal and Recovery Services Administration Officer, Jennifer Fan. December 4, 2019/10:45 a.m.–12:15 p.m. Committee Name: Substance Abuse (EST)/OPEN/Focus Area 1: Data Notice of Meeting and Mental Health Services December 4, 2019/10:45 a.m.–12:15 p.m. Pursuant to Public Law 92–463, Administration, Center for Substance (EST)/OPEN/Focus Area 4: Justice notice is hereby given that the Abuse Prevention, Drug Testing December 4, 2019/1:00 p.m.–2:30 p.m. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Advisory Board. (EST)/OPEN/Focus Area 2: Access Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Dates/Time/Type: December 3, 2019, and Engagement Center for Substance Abuse Prevention’s from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST: OPEN. December 4, 2019/1:00 p.m.–2:30 p.m. (CSAP) Drug Testing Advisory Board December 4, 2019, from 9:00 a.m. to (EST)/OPEN/Focus Area 5: Finance (DTAB) will convene via in person and 4:00 p.m. EST: CLOSED. ADDRESSES: Place: Substance Abuse and Mental The meetings will be held web conference on December 3rd, 2019, virtually. from 9:30 a.m. EST to 4:30 p.m. EST, Health Services Administration, 5th and December 4th, 2019, from 9:00 a.m. Floor Pavilion A, B, 5600 Fishers Lane, Substantive meeting information and EST to 4:00 p.m. EST. Rockville, MD 20857. a roster of Committee members is The board will meet in open-session Contact: Jennifer Fan, Senior available at the Committee’s website in-person on December 3rd, 2019, from Pharmacist, Center for Substance Abuse https://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/ 9:30 a.m. EST to 4:30 p.m. EST to Prevention, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room advisory-councils/smi-committee. discuss the Mandatory Guidelines for 16N06D, Rockville, Maryland 20857, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61636 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

I. Background and Authority Department of Education; The Secretary (Phase 2 RP/EA #1.3). The Phase 2 RP/ The ISMICC was established on of the Department of Labor; The EA #1.3 proposes construction activities March 15, 2017, in accordance with Administrator of the Centers for to help restore injured resources under section 6031 of the 21st Century Cures Medicare and Medicaid Services; and two restoration types identified in the Act, and the Federal Advisory The Commissioner of the Social Final PDARP/PEIS: Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., as Security Administration. • Birds Non-federal Membership: Members amended, to report to the Secretary, • Habitat projects on federally managed include, 14 non-federal public members Congress, and any other relevant federal lands appointed by the Secretary, representing department or agency on advances in psychologists, psychiatrists, social The above resources were injured in serious mental illness (SMI) and serious workers, peer support specialists, and the Louisiana Restoration Area as a emotional disturbance (SED), research other providers, patients, family of result of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) related to the prevention of, diagnosis patients, law enforcement, the judiciary, oil spill. The two projects were of, intervention in, and treatment and and leading research, advocacy, or approved for engineering and design recovery of SMIs, SEDs, and advances in service organizations. The ISMICC is (E&D) in a 2017 restoration plan entitled access to services and support for adults required to meet at least twice per year. Louisiana Trustee Implementation with SMI or children with SED. In Group Final Restoration Plan #1: addition, the ISMICC will evaluate the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Foote, Substance Abuse and Restoration of Wetlands, Coastal, and effect federal programs related to serious Nearshore Habitats; Habitat Projects on mental illness have on public health, Mental Health Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 14E53C, Rockville, Federally Managed Lands; and Birds including public health outcomes such (Phase 1 RP #1). The Phase 2 RP/EA as (A) rates of suicide, suicide attempts, MD 20857; telephone: 240–276–1279; email: [email protected]. #1.3 analyzes design alternatives for the incidence and prevalence of SMIs, two projects and proposes a preferred SEDs, and substance use disorders, Dated: November 6, 2019. design alternative for construction of overdose, overdose deaths, emergency Carlos Castillo, each. We invite comments on the draft hospitalizations, emergency room Committee Management Officer. Phase 2 RP/EA #1.3. boarding, preventable emergency room [FR Doc. 2019–24598 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] DATES: Submitting Comments: We will visits, interaction with the criminal BILLING CODE 4162–20–P justice system, homelessness, and consider public comments on the draft unemployment; (B) increased rates of Phase 2 RP/EA #1.3 received on or before December 20, 2019. employment and enrollment in DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR educational and vocational programs; Public Webinar: The LA TIG will host (C) quality of mental and substance use [FWS–R4–ES–2019–N149; a public webinar on December 2, 2019, disorders treatment services; or (D) any FVHC98220410150–XXX–FF04H00000] at 4:00 p.m. Central. The public may other criteria as may be determined by register for the webinar at https:// Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Draft the Secretary. Finally, the ISMICC will attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/ Restoration Plan #1.3 and make specific recommendations for 576465552592329228. After registering, Environmental Assessment: Rabbit actions that agencies can take to better participants will receive a confirmation Island Restoration and Shoreline coordinate the administration of mental email with instructions for joining the Protection at Jean Lafitte Historical health services for adults with SMI or webinar. Instructions for commenting National Park and Preserve; Louisiana children with SED. Not later than 1 will be provided during the webinar. Trustee Implementation Group (one) year after the date of enactment of Shortly after the webinar is concluded, the 21st Century Cures Act, and 5 (five) AGENCY: Department of the Interior. the presentation material will be posted on the web at https://www.gulfspill years after such date of enactment, the ACTION: Notice of availability; request restoration.noaa.gov/restoration-areas/ ISMICC shall submit a report to for public comments. Congress and any other relevant federal louisiana. department or agency. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Oil ADDRESSES: Obtaining Documents: You Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), the II. Membership may download the draft Phase 2 RP/EA National Environmental Policy Act of #1.3 from either of the following This ISMICC consists of federal 1969 (NEPA), the Final Programmatic websites: members listed below or their Damage Assessment Restoration Plan • designees, and non-federal public and Final Programmatic Environmental https://www.doi.gov/deepwater members. Impact Statement (Final PDARP/PEIS), horizon • Federal Membership: Members and the Consent Decree, the Federal and https://www.gulfspill include, The Secretary of Health and State natural resource trustee agencies restoration.noaa.gov/restoration- Human Services; The Assistant for the Louisiana Trustee areas/louisiana Secretary for Mental Health and Implementation Group (LA TIG) have Alternatively, you may request a CD Substance Use; The Attorney General; prepared the Louisiana Trustee of the draft Phase 2 RP/EA #1.3 (see FOR The Secretary of the Department of Implementation Group Draft Restoration FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). A hard Veterans Affairs; The Secretary of the Plan/Environmental Assessment copy of the Phase 2 RP/EA #1.3 is also Department of Defense; The Secretary of #1.3:Rabbit Island Restoration and available for review during the public the Department of Housing and Urban Shoreline Protection at Jean Lafitte comment period at the locations listed Development; The Secretary of the Historical National Park and Preserve in the following table.

Library Address City Zip

St. Tammany Parish Library ...... 310 W. 21st Avenue ...... Covington ...... 70433 Terrebonne Parish Library ...... 151 Library Drive ...... Houma ...... 70360 New Orleans Public Library, Louisiana Division ...... 219 Loyola Avenue ...... New Orleans ...... 70112

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61637

Library Address City Zip

East Baton Rouge Parish Library ...... 7711 Goodwood Boulevard ...... Baton Rouge ...... 70806 Jefferson Parish Library, East Bank Regional Library ...... 4747 W. Napoleon Avenue ...... Metairie ...... 70001 Jefferson Parish Library, West Bank Regional Library ...... 2751 Manhattan Boulevard ...... Harvey ...... 70058 Plaquemines Parish Library ...... 8442 Highway 23 ...... Belle Chasse ...... 70037 St. Bernard Parish Library ...... 1125 E. St. Bernard Highway ...... Chalmette ...... 70043 St. Martin Parish Library ...... 201 Porter Street ...... St. Martinville ...... 70582 Alex P. Allain Library ...... 206 Iberia Street ...... Franklin ...... 70538 Vermilion Parish Library ...... 405 E. St. Victor Street ...... Abbeville ...... 70510 Martha Sowell Utley Memorial Library ...... 314 St. Mary Street ...... Thibodaux ...... 70301 South Lafourche Public Library ...... 16241 E. Main Street ...... Cut Off ...... 70345 Calcasieu Parish Public Library Central Branch ...... 301 W. Claude Street ...... Lake Charles ...... 70605 Iberia Parish Library ...... 445 E. Main Street ...... New Iberia ...... 70560 Mark Shirley, LSU AgCenter ...... 1105 West Port Street ...... Abbeville ...... 70510

Submitting Comments: You may and State agencies act as trustees on against BP arising from the DWH oil submit comments on the draft Phase 2 behalf of the public to assess natural spill: United States v. BPXP et al., Civ. RP/EA #1.3 by one of the following resource injuries and losses and to No. 10–4536, centralized in MDL 2179, methods: determine the actions required to In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig • Via the Web: http://www.gulfspill compensate the public for those injuries ‘‘Deepwater Horizon’’ in the Gulf of restoration.noaa.gov/restoration-areas/ and losses. The OPA further instructs Mexico, on April 20, 2010 (E.D. La.) louisiana. the designated trustees to develop and (http://www.justice.gov/enrd/deepwater- • Via U.S. Mail: U.S. Fish and implement a plan for the restoration, horizon). Pursuant to the Consent Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 29649, rehabilitation, replacement, or Decree, restoration projects in the Atlanta, GA 30345. To be considered, acquisition of the equivalent of the Louisiana Restoration Area are chosen mailed comments must be postmarked injured natural resources under their and managed by the LA TIG. The LA on or before the comment deadline trusteeship to baseline (the resource TIG is composed of the following given in DATES. quality and conditions that would exist Trustees: State of Louisiana Coastal • During the public webinar: Written if the spill had not occurred). This Protection and Restoration Authority, comments may be provided by the includes the loss of use and services Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, public during the webinar. Webinar provided by those resources from the Departments of Environmental Quality, information is provided in DATES. time of injury until the completion of Wildlife and Fisheries, and Natural FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: restoration. Resources; DOI; NOAA; EPA; and Nanciann Regalado, via email at The DWH Trustees are: USDA. _ • U.S. Department of the Interior nanciann [email protected], via Background telephone at 678–296–6805, or via the (DOI), as represented by the National Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife The Final PDARP/PEIS provides for Service, and Bureau of Land SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TIGs to propose phasing restoration Management; • projects across multiple restoration Introduction National Oceanic and Atmospheric plans. A TIG may propose in a draft On April 20, 2010, the mobile Administration (NOAA), on behalf of restoration plan conceptual projects to offshore drilling unit Deepwater the U.S. Department of Commerce; fund for an information-gathering • U.S. Department of Agriculture Horizon, which was being used to drill planning phase, such as E&D (phase 1). (USDA); a well for BP Exploration and • U.S. Environmental Protection This allows TIGs to develop information Production, Inc. (BP), in the Macondo Agency (EPA); needed to fully consider a subsequent prospect (Mississippi Canyon 252– • State of Louisiana Coastal implementation phase in a later MC252), experienced a significant Protection and Restoration Authority, restoration plan (phase 2). In the final explosion, fire, and subsequent sinking Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, Phase 1 RP #1, the LA TIG selected six in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in an Department of Environmental Quality, conceptual projects for E&D, using unprecedented volume of oil and other Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, funds from the wetlands, coastal and discharges from the rig and from the and Department of Natural Resources; nearshore habitats; birds; and habitat wellhead on the seabed. The DWH oil • State of Mississippi Department of projects on federally managed lands spill is the largest offshore oil spill in Environmental Quality; restoration types, as provided for in the U.S. history, discharging millions of • State of Alabama Department of DWH Consent Decree. Two of those barrels of oil over a period of 87 days. Conservation and Natural Resources and projects that were selected for E&D in In addition, well over 1 million gallons Geological Survey of Alabama; the final Phase I RP #1 are the Rabbit of dispersants were applied to the • State of Florida Department of Island Restoration project (Rabbit Island waters of the spill area in an attempt to Environmental Protection and Fish and project), under the birds restoration disperse the spilled oil. An Wildlife Conservation Commission; and type, and the Shoreline Protection at undetermined amount of natural gas • State of Texas: Texas Parks and Jean Lafitte Historical National Park and was also released into the environment Wildlife Department, Texas General Preserve (Jean Lafitte project) under the as a result of the spill. Land Office, and Texas Commission on projects on federally managed lands The Trustees conducted the natural Environmental Quality. restoration type. The design alternatives resource damage assessment (NRDA) for On April 4, 2016, the United States developed during E&D are currently at the DWH oil spill under the Oil District Court for the Eastern District of a stage where proposed construction Pollution Act 1990 (OPA; 33 U.S.C. Louisiana entered a Consent Decree activities may be analyzed under OPA 2701 et seq.). Pursuant to OPA, Federal resolving civil claims by the Trustees and NEPA. Therefore, in the draft Phase

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61638 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

2 RP/EA #1.3, the Louisiana TIG is Administrative Record [email protected]. Persons who proposing to finalize and implement The documents comprising the use a telecommunications device for the their preferred design alternatives to Administrative Record for the Phase 2 deaf may call the Federal Relay Service construct the Rabbit Island and Jean RP/EA #1.3 can be viewed electronically (FedRelay) at 1–800–877–8339 TTY/ Lafitte projects. at https://www.doi.gov/deepwater ASCII to contact the above individual horizon/adminrecord. during normal business hours or to Overview of the LA TIG Draft Phase 2 leave a message or question after hours. RP/EA #1.3 Authority You will receive a reply during normal The draft Phase 2 RP/EA #1.3 is being The authority for this action is the Oil business hours. Information on this released in accordance with OPA NRDA Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et project may also be found at: https:// regulations found in the Code of Federal seq.), its implementing Natural Resource www.usbr.gov/gp/dkao/index.html. Regulations (CFR) at 15 CFR part 990, Damage Assessment regulations found SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NEPA and its implementing regulations at 15 CFR part 990, and the National Reclamation is issuing this notice found at 40 CFR parts 1500–1508, the Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 pursuant to the National Environmental Final PDARP/PEIS, and the Consent U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), Decree. The Phase 2 RP/EA #1.3 implementing regulations found at 40 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; the Council on provides OPA and NEPA analyses for a CFR parts 1500–1508. Environmental Quality’s regulations for reasonable range of design alternatives implementing NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500 for the Rabbit Island and Jean Lafitte Mary Josie Blanchard, through 1508; and the Department of the projects, and identifies the LA TIG’s Director of Gulf of Mexico Restoration, Interior’s NEPA regulations, 43 CFR part preferred design alternatives. Department of Interior. 46. [FR Doc. 2019–24644 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] The proposed Rabbit Island project Background BILLING CODE 4333–15–P would meet the goal of restoring and Reclamation will prepare an EIS for conserving birds by restoring 87.8 acres the funding and construction of the of the island’s original 200-acre DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Eastern North Dakota Alternate Water footprint for bird habitat. This would be Supply Project (ENDAWS). This is a done by raising the elevation of Rabbit Bureau of Reclamation bulk water supply project which would Island using dredged fill material from deliver an alternate water supply to the the Calcasieu Ship Channel as the [RR06250000, 20XR0680A1, RN.07694998.0000600] State of North Dakota’s Red River Valley borrow source area. Water Supply Project. Reclamation is The proposed Jean Lafitte project Notice of Intent To Prepare an authorized under the Dakota Water would implement a nearly continuous Environmental Impact Statement and Resources Act of 2000 to work with the rock breakwater, with rock elbows Public Scoping Comment Period for state of North Dakota to plan, design, protecting fish gaps along the eastern the Eastern North Dakota Alternate and construct municipal, rural, and shorelines of Lake Cataouche, Lake Water Supply Project, Burleigh, Kidder, industrial water supply projects. Salvador, and Bayou Bardeaux in the Sheridan, and Wells Counties, North Garrison Diversion Conservancy Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Dakota District, on behalf of the State of North Preserve. Implementation is proposed in Dakota, requested Reclamation consider two increments, the northern and the AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, issuing a contract for up to 165 cubic southern portions of the project area. In Interior. feet per second of water from Garrison the Phase 2 RP/EA #1.3, the LA TIG is ACTION: Notice of Intent; request for Diversion Unit facilities. This would proposing at this time to implement comments. include the use of Reclamation’s Snake only the southern portion. Creek Pumping Plant, an intake and SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation pump station located along the Next Steps (Reclamation) intends to prepare an McClusky Canal, and a bulk Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) transmission pipeline to deliver water to As described above in DATES, the on the Eastern North Dakota Alternate the main transmission pipeline of North Trustees will host a public webinar to Water Supply Project. Reclamation is Dakota’s Red River Valley Water Supply facilitate the public review and requesting public comment to identify Project. Reclamation’s potential actions comment process. After the public significant issues or other alternatives to include: comment period ends, the Trustees will be addressed in the EIS. • Construction of ENDAWS project consider and address the comments DATES: Submit comments on the scope features, received before issuing a final Phase 2 • Issuance of a water repayment RP/EA #1.3. of the EIS on or before December 13, 2019. contract for Garrison Diversion Unit Public Availability of Comments facilities, and ADDRESSES: Provide written scoping • Issuance of permits to construct and Before including your address, phone comments and requests to be added to maintain ENDAWS facilities on number, email address, or other the mailing list to Mr. Damien Reinhart, Reclamation rights-of-way. personal identifying information in your EIS Team Lead, Bureau of Reclamation, Reclamation anticipates the depletion comment, you should be aware that Dakotas Area Office, 304 East Broadway of Missouri River water to supply your entire comment—including your Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58501; or email ENDAWS will be an issue of concern. personal identifying information—may [email protected]. The evaluation of this will be a be made publicly available at any time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. coordinated effort between Reclamation While you can ask us in your comment Damien Reinhart, Bureau of and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to withhold your personal identifying Reclamation, Dakotas Area Office, 304 due to their knowledge, expertise, and information from public review, we East Broadway Avenue, Bismarck, ND management responsibilities of the cannot guarantee that we will be able to 58501; telephone (701) 202–1275; Missouri River Mainstem System. do so. facsimile (701) 250–4326; email Another key issue to be evaluated is the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61639

potential risk and consequences of INTERNATIONAL TRADE International Trade Commission, transferring aquatic invasive species COMMISSION telephone (202) 205–2560. from the Missouri River basin to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Hudson Bay basin, as a result of [Investigation No. 337–TA–1183] Authority: The authority for ENDAWS operations. Based on previous Certain Foldable Reusable Drinking institution of this investigation is analyses of this issue, the following Straws and Components and contained in section 337 of the Tariff potential microorganisms of concern Accessories Thereof; Institution of Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. may be included in the analysis: Investigation 1337, and in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and • Cyanobacteria AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2019). • Protozoa Commission. Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. • Fungi ACTION: Notice. International Trade Commission, on • Bacteria SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a November 5, 2019, Ordered that— • Viruses complaint was filed with the U.S. (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of • International Trade Commission on section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Animal parasites amended, an investigation be instituted • October 9, 2019, under section 337 of Mollusk larvae the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on to determine whether there is a Reclamation requests any information behalf of The Final Co. LLC of Santa Fe, violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of relative to these issues or other potential New Mexico. An amended complaint section 337 in the importation into the issues be submitted during the scoping was filed on October 29, 2019. The United States, the sale for importation, period to assist in determining their complaint, as amended, alleges or the sale within the United States after significance. Reclamation intends to violations of section 337 based upon the importation of certain products complete an EIS for ENDAWS pursuant importation into the United States, the identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims to NEPA to study the potential sale for importation, and the sale within 1–12, 14–17, and 20 of the ’641 patent; environmental effects of the proposal the United States after importation of certain foldable reusable drinking and whether an industry in the United and a reasonable range of alternatives States exists as required by subsection designed to respond to the purpose and straws and components and accessories thereof by reason of infringement of (a)(2) of section 337; need for the ENDAWS, as well as a no- (2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of action alternative. The scoping process certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,123,641 (‘‘the ’641 patent’’). The the Commission’s Rules of Practice and is intended to inform the public about Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the complaint further alleges that an ENDAWS and to request public and plain language description of the industry in the United States exists as agency comment to identify significant accused products or category of accused required by the applicable Federal issues or alternatives to be addressed in products, which defines the scope of the Statute. the EIS. Three scoping open houses investigation, is ‘‘individual foldable The complainant requests that the were held between October 22–24, 2019 reusable drinking straws and Commission institute an investigation in Bismarck, Jamestown, and Fargo, components thereof, cases used to store and, after the investigation, issue a North Dakota. These open house the foldable reusable drinking straws, general exclusion order, or in the and tools used for cleaning the foldable meetings were held prior to the alternative a limited exclusion order, reusable drinking straws’’; publication of this Notice as a means of and cease and desist orders. gathering public input early in the (3) For the purpose of the ADDRESSES: process per NEPA Implementing The complaint, except for investigation so instituted, the following Regulations (40 CFR 1501.7(b)(4)). any confidential information contained are hereby named as parties upon which therein, is available for inspection Written comments received by this notice of investigation shall be during official business hours (8:45 a.m. December 15, 2019, and input received served: to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the during the open houses will be given (a) The complainant is: Secretary, U.S. International Trade 1 the same consideration. The Final Co. LLC, 1703 ⁄2 Quapaw Commission, 500 E Street SW, Room Street, Santa Fe, NM 87505. Public Disclosure 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (b) The respondents are the following (202) 205–2000. Hearing impaired entities alleged to be in violation of Before including your address, phone individuals are advised that information section 337, and are the parties upon number, email address, or other on this matter can be obtained by which the complaint is to be served: personal identifying information in your contacting the Commission’s TDD Huizhou Sinri Technology Company comment, you should be aware that terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons Limited, 3rd Floor, Plant A, Yiyuan your entire comment—including your with mobility impairments who will Sci-Tech Industry Park, Cangkeng personal identifying information—may need special assistance in gaining access Section, Tianduan Village, Xikeng, be made publicly available at any time. to the Commission should contact the Huihuan, Zhongkai High-Tech Zone, While you may ask us in your comment Office of the Secretary at (202) 205– Huizhou, Guangdong, China 516006. to withhold your personal identifying 2000. General information concerning Hebei Serun Import and Export Trade information from public review, we the Commission may also be obtained Co., Ltd., Shenhou Shenqi Tingyuan, cannot guarantee that we will be able to by accessing its internet server at High And New Technology Industrial do so. https://www.usitc.gov. The public Development Zone, Luquan, record for this investigation may be Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China John Soucy, viewed on the Commission’s electronic (Mainland), 050200. Deputy Regional Director, Great Plains docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Dongguan Stirling Metal Products Co., Region. For Further Information Contact: Ltd., 3–201, Xinhe Ind. Zone, [FR Doc. 2019–24611 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Xiaobian, Chang’an Town, Dongguan, BILLING CODE 4332–90–P Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. Guangdong, China 523853.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61640 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

Ningbo Wwpartner Plastic Manufacture Third District, Jiangdong Street, Yiwu, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Co., Ltd. Apt. 501–48, No. 50, Lane Jinhua, Zhejiang, China 322000. Antitrust Division 578, South Tiantong Road, Yinzhou (c) The Office of Unfair Import District, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China Investigations, U.S. International Trade 315199. United States et al v. Deutsche Shenzhen Yuanzhen Technology Co., Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite Telekom AG; T-Mobile US, Inc.; Ltd. 805, Block B, Fuquan Building, 401, Washington, DC 20436; and SoftBank Group Corp.; and Sprint Qingquan Road, Longhua District, (4) For the investigation so instituted, Corp. Response to Public Comments Shenzhen, China 518000. the Chief Administrative Law Judge, Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures Jiangmen Boyan Houseware Co., Ltd. U.S. International Trade Commission, No. 18–1–107, Zhongxin South Road, and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), shall designate the presiding the United States hereby publishes Huicheng, Xinhui Dist., Jiangmen, Administrative Law Judge. Guangdong, China 529100. below the Response to Public Comments Shanghai Rbin Industry And Trade Co., Responses to the complaint and the on the Proposed Final Judgment in Ltd. Room D4003, Bldg. 1, No. 888, notice of investigation must be United States et al. v. Deutsche Telekom Huaxu Road, Qingpu Dist., Shanghai, submitted by the named respondents in AG; T-Mobile US, Inc.; SoftBank Group China 201702. accordance with section 210.13 of the Corp.; and Sprint Corp., Civil Action Jiangmen Shengke Hardware Products Commission’s Rules of Practice and No. 1:19–cv–02232–TJK, which was Co., Ltd. Cunqian House, Wubian Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to filed in the United States District Court Land, Heping Group, Xinjian Village, 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such for the District of Columbia on Siqian Town, Xinhui District, responses will be considered by the November 6, 2019, together with copies Jiangmen, Guangdong, China 529000. Commission if received not later than 20 of the 32 comments received by the Funan Anze Trading Co., Ltd. No. 104– days after the date of service by the United States. 16, Jiaoyang Road, Lucheng Town, Commission of the complaint and the Pursuant to the Court’s November 5, Funan County, Fuyang, Anhui, China notice of investigation. Extensions of 2019 order, comments were published 236300. time for submitting responses to the electronically and are available to be Hangzhou Keteng Trade Co., Ltd. C533, complaint and the notice of viewed and downloaded at the Antitrust Floor 5, Bldg. 3–C, No. 8, Xiyuan 9th Division’s website, at: https:// investigation will not be granted unless Road, Xihu Dist., Hangzhou, Zhejiang, www.justice.gov/atr/us-and-plaintiff- good cause therefor is shown. China 310030. states-v-deutsche-telekom-ag-et-al- Hunan Jiudi Shiye Import And Export Failure of a respondent to file a timely index-comments. A copy of the United Trading Co., Ltd. Room 1654, response to each allegation in the States’ response to the comments is also Building 4, Dameiyuan, No. 577, complaint and in this notice may be available at the same location. Copies of Yulan Road, Wangchengpo Street, deemed to constitute a waiver of the the comments and the United States’ Yuelu District, Changsha, Hunan, right to appear and contest the response are available for inspection at China (Mainland) 410205. allegations of the complaint and this the Office of the Clerk of the United Shenzhen Yaya Gifts Co., Ltd. No. 2, notice, and to authorize the States District Court for the District of Lane 3, East Of Henglingtang, administrative law judge and the Columbia. Copies of these materials may Pingshan Street, Pingshan New Dist., Commission, without further notice to also be obtained from the Antitrust Shenzhen, Guangdong, China 518118. Division upon request and payment of Ningbo Weixu International Trade Co., the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice the copying fee set by Department of Ltd. A27, Floor 5, Nongxin Bldg., Justice regulations. Ningbo, Zhejiang, China (Mainland) and to enter an initial determination 315600. and a final determination containing Amy R. Fitzpatrick, Ningbo Beland Commodity Co., Ltd. 14– such findings, and may result in the Counsel to the Senior Director for 6, No. 51, Bldg. 12, Xintiandi East issuance of an exclusion order or a cease Investigations and Litigation. Zone, Yinzhou Dist., Ningbo, and desist order or both directed against UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Zhejiang, China 315040. the respondent. FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Xiamen One X Piece Imp.&Exp. Co., By order of the Commission. Ltd. 601, Bldg. 73, Jimei Zhongxin United States of America et al, Plaintiffs, Garden, Xiamen, Fujian, China 36100. Issued: November 6, 2019. v. Deutsche Telekom AG et al, Defendants Hunan Champion Top Technology Co., Lisa Barton, Case No. 1:19–cv–02232–TJK Ltd. No. 600, Wanfu North Road, Secretary to the Commission. RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF UNITED Yuhua area, Changsha city, Hunan [FR Doc. 2019–24612 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] STATES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON province, China 410000. BILLING CODE 7020–02–P Yiwu Lizhi Trading Firm Unit 3, THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT Building 42, Xiawang New Village Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ...... 1 II. Procedural History ...... 3 III. Standard of Judicial Review ...... 4 IV. The Investigation and the Proposed Final Judgment ...... 8 V. Summary of Public Comments and the United States’ Response ...... 15 A. Comments that Fail To Acknowledge the Context of Tunney Act Review ...... 16 B. Comments Regarding DISH’s Viability as a Competitor ...... 19 1. DISH’s Assets and Track Record ...... 19 2. DISH’s Incentive and Ability To Compete ...... 25 C. Comments Regarding the Enforceability of the Proposed Final Judgment ...... 31 D. Other Comments Opposing Entry of the Proposed Final Judgment ...... 37

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:51 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61641

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued 1. Comments Regarding Harms Outside the Scope of the Complaint ...... 37 2. Comments Regarding Services Provided to MVNOs ...... 40 3. Comments Regarding Other Regulatory Matters ...... 42 4. Other Negative Comments ...... 44 E. Comments Regarding Procedural Aspects Of this Review ...... 45 1. Sufficiency of the Filings ...... 45 2. Comments Regarding the Timing of This Review ...... 46 F. Comments Supporting Entry of the Proposed Final Judgment ...... 48 VI. Conclusion ...... 52

I. Introduction enable DISH to enter the market as a competition during the transition As required by the Antitrust new 5G mobile wireless services period. To facilitate DISH’s transition to Procedures and Penalties Act (the provider and a fourth nationwide an independent wireless network, the ‘‘APPA’’ or ‘‘Tunney Act’’), 15 U.S.C. facilities-based wireless carrier. T- proposed Final Judgment requires T- 16(b)–(h), the United States hereby Mobile and Sprint must divest to DISH Mobile and Sprint to enter into a full responds to the public comments Sprint’s prepaid businesses, including mobile virtual network operator received about the proposed Final more than 9 million Boost Mobile, agreement (‘‘Full MVNO Agreement’’) Judgment in this case regarding the Virgin Mobile, and Sprint-branded with DISH at extremely favorable terms. proposed merger between T-Mobile US, prepaid subscribers, and make available This agreement will enable DISH to Inc. (‘‘T-Mobile’’) and Sprint to DISH more than 400 employees operate as a Full MVNO, initially using Corporation (‘‘Sprint’’). For the reasons currently running these businesses. The the T-Mobile network to carry its set forth below, the remedy the United proposed settlement also provides for subscribers’ traffic and shifting this States obtained addresses the the divestiture of certain spectrum traffic to its own network facilities as it competitive harm alleged in this action assets to DISH, and it requires T-Mobile deploys them. The unprecedented and Sprint to make available to DISH at and is in the public interest. required divestitures and related least 20,000 cell sites and hundreds of Accordingly, the United States obligations in the proposed Final retail locations. T-Mobile must also recommends no modifications to the Judgment are intended to ensure that provide DISH with robust access to the proposed Final Judgment. DISH can begin to offer competitive This remedy, now adopted by the T-Mobile network for a period of seven services and become an independent years while DISH builds out its own 5G Attorneys General of eight states who and vigorous competitor in the retail have joined this lawsuit 1 and endorsed network. The United States expects the mobile wireless service market in which by two more through comments in this proposed Final Judgment will provide the proposed merger would otherwise proceeding, promises to expand output substantial long-term benefits for lessen competition. Finally, the in the mobile wireless market and be a American consumers by ensuring that proposed Final Judgment requires that boon for American consumers. The large amounts of currently unused or T-Mobile and Sprint extend certain Federal Communications Commission underused spectrum are made available current Mobile Virtual Network has concluded that the proposed to American consumers in the form of Operator (‘‘MVNO’’) agreements until transaction, as modified by the FCC’s advanced 5G networks that this the expiration of the Final Judgment, own set of conditions, would be in the maintaining the status quo until DISH’s 2 proposed Final Judgment will help public interest. In reaching this facilitate. Under commitments made to network becomes a potential option for conclusion, the FCC recognized the the FCC that have been incorporated MVNOs. significant benefits that the proposed into the proposed Final Judgment, The comments that the United States Final Judgment would yield. DISH, which has been joined as a received reflect a wide array of views. Commenters in this proceeding defendant in this action, is required to After careful consideration of these recognize these benefits as well—the bring its existing spectrum resources comments, the United States has United States received 32 comments online in a nationwide, greenfield 5G determined that nothing in them casts regarding the settlement, the majority of wireless network or risk substantial doubt on its conclusion that the public which were supportive of the merger penalties at the FCC and in this Court. interest is well-served by the proposed and/or the proposed Final Judgment. Under T-Mobile’s commitments to the The proposed Final Judgment remedy. In accordance with the Court’s FCC, which are also incorporated into provides for a substantial divestiture order granting the Unopposed Motion of the proposed Final Judgment, the which, when combined with the mobile the United States to Excuse Federal merged firm will combine T-Mobile’s 3 wireless spectrum already owned by Register Publication of Comments, the and Sprint’s existing complementary DISH Network Corp. (‘‘DISH’’), will United States is publishing the spectrum resources and build out a 5G comments and this response on the network to deliver network capacity that 1 The Complaint filed on July 26, 2019 was joined Antitrust Division’s website and is by the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma exceeds the sum of what either carrier submitting to the Federal Register this and South Dakota. Dkt. No. 1. An Amended could achieve on its own. Additionally, response and the website address at Complaint adding the state of Louisiana as a T-Mobile, Sprint, and DISH must which the comments may be viewed plaintiff was entered on Aug. 16, 2019. Dkt. No. 28. support remote SIM provisioning and The United States’ Consent Motions for Leave to and downloaded. Following Federal Amend the Complaint to add the states of Florida eSIM technology, which have the Register publication, the United States and Colorado as plaintiffs remain pending. Dkt. potential to lower barriers to entry and will move the Court to enter the Nos. 33, 40. increase the options available to proposed Final Judgment. 2 In the Matter of Applications of T-Mobile US, consumers. Inc., and Sprint Corporation, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Order The proposed Final Judgment also 3 Minute Order, Dkt. No. 41 (Nov. 5, 2019) of Proposed Modification, WT Docket No. 18–197, includes several temporary provisions (granting motion to excuse publication of the full FCC 19–103 (rel. Nov. 5, 2019) (‘‘FCC Order’’). to protect against a decline in near-term text of each comment in the Federal Register).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61642 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

II. Procedural History anticipated effects of alternative remedies ‘‘The court should bear in mind the actually considered, whether its terms are flexibility of the public interest inquiry: On April 29, 2018, T-Mobile and ambiguous, and any other competitive Sprint, together with their parent The court’s function is not to determine considerations bearing upon the adequacy of whether the resulting array of rights and entities Deutsche Telekom AG such judgment that the court deems (‘‘Deutsche Telekom’’) and SoftBank necessary to a determination of whether the liabilities is one that will best serve Group Corp. (‘‘SoftBank’’), agreed to consent judgment is in the public interest; society, but only to confirm that the combine their respective businesses in and resulting settlement is within the an all-stock transaction.4 On July 26, (B) the impact of entry of such judgment reaches of the public interest.’’ 2019, the United States filed a civil upon competition in the relevant market or Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460 (quotation markets, upon the public generally and marks omitted). More demanding antitrust Complaint seeking to enjoin individuals alleging specific injury from the the proposed transaction because it requirements would ‘‘have enormous violations set forth in the complaint practical consequences for the would substantially lessen competition including consideration of the public benefit, for retail mobile wireless services in the if any, to be derived from a determination of government’s ability to negotiate future United States, in violation of Section 7 the issues at trial. settlements,’’ contrary to congressional intent. Id. at 1456. ‘‘The Tunney Act of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A) & (B). In Simultaneously with the filing of the was not intended to create a considering these statutory factors, the disincentive to the use of the consent Complaint, the United States filed a Court’s inquiry is necessarily a limited proposed Final Judgment and a decree.’’ Id. one as the government is entitled to The United States’ predictions about Stipulation signed by the parties that ‘‘broad discretion to settle with the consents to entry of the proposed Final the efficacy of the remedy are to be defendant within the reaches of the afforded deference by the Court. See, Judgment after compliance with the public interest.’’ United States v. 5 e.g., Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 requirements of the Tunney Act. The Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 United States subsequently filed a (recognizing courts should give ‘‘due (D.C. Cir. 1995); United States v. U.S. respect to the Justice Department’s . . . Competitive Impact Statement Airways Grp., Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 69, describing the transaction and the view of the nature of its case’’); United 75 (D.D.C. 2014) (explaining that the States v. Iron Mountain, Inc., 217 F. proposed Final Judgment. The United ‘‘court’s inquiry is limited’’ in Tunney States caused the Complaint, the Supp. 3d 146, 152–53 (D.D.C. 2016) (‘‘In Act settlements); United States v. InBev evaluating objections to settlement proposed Final Judgment, and N.V./S.A., No. 08–1965 (JR), 2009 U.S. Competitive Impact Statement to be agreements under the Tunney Act, a Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. court must be mindful that [t]he published in the Federal Register on 11, 2009) (noting that a court’s review August 12, 2019, see 84 FR 39862 (Aug. government need not prove that the of a consent judgment is limited and settlements will perfectly remedy the 12, 2019), and caused notice regarding only inquires ‘‘into whether the the same, together with directions for alleged antitrust harms[;] it need only government’s determination that the provide a factual basis for concluding the submission of written comments proposed remedies will cure the relating to the proposed Final Judgment, that the settlements are reasonably antitrust violations alleged in the adequate remedies for the alleged to be published in The Washington Post complaint was reasonable, and whether on August 3–9, 2019.6 The 60-day harms.’’) (internal citations omitted); the mechanism to enforce the final United States v. Republic Servs., Inc., period for public comment ended on judgment are clear and manageable’’). October 11, 2019. 723 F. Supp. 2d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2010) As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the (noting ‘‘the deferential review to which III. Standard of Judicial Review District of Columbia Circuit has held, the government’s proposed remedy is under the APPA a court considers, The Clayton Act, as amended by the accorded’’); United States v. Archer- among other things, the relationship APPA, requires that proposed consent Daniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, between the remedy secured and the judgments in antitrust cases brought by 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (‘‘A district court must specific allegations in the government’s the United States be subject to a 60-day accord due respect to the government’s complaint, whether the proposed final comment period, after which the Court prediction as to the effect of proposed judgment is sufficiently clear, whether shall determine whether entry of the remedies, its perception of the market its enforcement mechanisms are proposed final judgment ‘‘is in the structure, and its view of the nature of sufficient, and whether it may positively public interest.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In the case’’). The ultimate question is harm third parties. See Microsoft, 56 making that determination, the Court, in whether ‘‘the remedies [obtained by the F.3d at 1458–62. With respect to the accordance with the statute as amended Final Judgment are] so inconsonant with adequacy of the relief secured by the in 2004, is required to consider: the allegations charged as to fall outside proposed final judgment, a court’s role of the ‘reaches of the public interest.’ ’’ (A) the competitive impact of such is ‘‘not to make de novo determination Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (quoting W. judgment, including termination of alleged of facts and issues.’’ United States v. W. Elec. Co., 900 F.2d at 309). violations, provisions for enforcement and Elec. Co., 993 F.2d 1572, 1577 (DC Cir. modification, duration of relief sought, Moreover, Congress limited the 1993) (quotation marks omitted); see court’s role under the APPA to 4 Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile, SoftBank, Sprint, also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460–62; reviewing the remedy in relationship to and DISH are referred to collectively as United States v. Alcoa, Inc., 152 F. the violations that the United States has ‘‘Defendants.’’ Supp. 2d 37, 40 (D.D.C. 2001); United alleged in its complaint, and did not 5 See Stipulation and Order, Dkt. No. 2–1; States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d authorize the court to ‘‘construct [its] Proposed Final Judgment, Dkt. No. 2–2 (‘‘PFJ’’). 10, 16 (D.D.C. 2000); InBev, 2009 U.S. own hypothetical case and then 6 On Sept. 6, the United States filed a Notice of Determinative Documents, as required by 15 U.S.C. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3. Instead, ‘‘[t]he evaluate the decree against that case.’’ 16(b), along with an accompanying motion to file balancing of competing social and Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459; see also U.S. these documents with limited redactions of political interests affected by a proposed Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 75 (noting confidential information. See Dkt. No. 31. This antitrust consent decree must be left, in that the court must simply determine motion remains pending. The redacted versions of these documents have been available to the public the first instance, to the discretion of the whether there is a factual foundation for since before the Competitive Impact Statement was Attorney General.’’ W. Elec. Co., 993 the government’s decisions such that its filed on July 30, 2019. Dkt. No. 20. F.2d at 1577 (quotation marks omitted). conclusions regarding the proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61643

settlements are reasonable); InBev, 2009 determination based on the competitive network support from T-Mobile U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (‘‘the impact statement and response to public described more fully below, will ‘public interest’ is not to be measured by comments alone.’’) (citing Enova, 107 F. provide an existing business, with assets comparing the violations alleged in the Supp. 2d at 17). including customers, employees, and intellectual property, that will enable complaint against those the court IV. The Investigation and the Proposed DISH to offer retail mobile wireless believes could have, or even should Final Judgment have, been alleged’’). Because the service. Acquiring this existing business ‘‘court’s authority to review the decree The proposed Final Judgment is the will enhance DISH’s incentives to invest depends entirely on the government’s culmination of a comprehensive, fifteen- in a robust facilities-based network. exercising its prosecutorial discretion by month investigation conducted by the • 800 MHz Spectrum Licenses. The bringing a case in the first place,’’ it Antitrust Division of the U.S. proposed Final Judgment further follows that ‘‘the court is only Department of Justice into T-Mobile’s requires T-Mobile to divest to DISH authorized to review the decree itself,’’ proposed acquisition of Sprint. The Sprint’s 800 MHz spectrum licenses. and not ‘‘effectively [to] redraft the proposed Final Judgment addresses and This spectrum would add to DISH’s complaint’’ to inquire into other matters ameliorates the harms alleged in the existing spectrum assets in order to that the United States did not pursue. Complaint by enabling DISH’s entry as ensure DISH has sufficient spectrum to Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459–60. a fourth nationwide facilities-based provide mobile wireless service to wireless competitor, expediting 8 In its 2004 amendments to the APPA, customers. deployment of advanced 5G networks • Cell Sites and Retail Stores. The Congress made clear its intent to for American consumers, and providing proposed Final Judgment also requires preserve the practical benefits of using other relief. The proposed Final T-Mobile to provide to DISH an consent judgments in antitrust Judgment has several components, by exclusive option to acquire all cell sites enforcement, Pub. L. 108–237 § 221, and which the parties agreed to abide during and retail store locations being added the unambiguous instruction that the pendency of the Tunney Act decommissioned by the merged firm. ‘‘[n]othing in this section shall be proceeding, and which the Court This requirement will enable DISH to construed to require the court to ordered in the Stipulation and Order of utilize such existing cell sites and retail conduct an evidentiary hearing or to July 29, 2019, Dkt. No. 16. stores that are useful to DISH in require the court to permit anyone to Divestiture of Sprint’s Prepaid building out its own wireless network intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2); see also Businesses: Under the proposed Final and providing mobile wireless service to U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 Judgment, T-Mobile must divest to DISH consumers. (indicating that a court is not required Sprint’s prepaid retail wireless service • Transition Services. At DISH’s to hold an evidentiary hearing or to businesses and provide DISH an option, T-Mobile and Sprint shall enter permit intervenors as part of its review exclusive option to acquire cell sites into one or more transition services under the Tunney Act). This language and retail stores decommissioned by the agreements to provide billing, customer explicitly wrote into the statute what merged firm. care, SIM card procurement, device Congress intended when it first enacted • Prepaid Assets. The proposed Final provisioning, and all other services used the Tunney Act in 1974. As Senator Judgment requires T-Mobile to divest to by the Prepaid Assets prior to the date Tunney explained: ‘‘[t]he court is DISH almost all of Sprint’s prepaid of their transfer to DISH for an initial nowhere compelled to go to trial or to wireless businesses,7 including the period of up to two years after transfer. engage in extended proceedings which Boost-branded, the Virgin-branded, and Such transition services will enable might have the effect of vitiating the the Sprint-branded businesses. These DISH to use the Prepaid Assets as benefits of prompt and less costly Prepaid Assets, coupled with required quickly as possible and will help settlement through the consent decree prevent disruption for Boost, Virgin, process.’’ 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) 7 The divestiture does not include subscribers and Sprint prepaid customers as the (statement of Sen. Tunney). Courts can, that Virgin Mobile serves under the Assurance businesses are transferred to DISH. and do, make Tunney Act Wireless brand as part of the federally subsidized Lifeline program administered by the FCC. The The divestiture of Sprint’s prepaid determinations based solely on the baseline Assurance Wireless plan, which includes businesses must be completed in such a competitive impact statement, unlimited voice and text and a fixed allotment of way as to satisfy the United States in its comments filed by the public, and the data, is free to qualifying subscribers. Virgin Mobile sole discretion that it can and will be United States’ response thereto, even receives a subsidy from the FCC for each of these subscribers that it serves. Subscribers may also operated by DISH as a viable, ongoing when there is opposition to the purchase additional data for a fee. Because Virgin business that can compete effectively in proposed remedy. A recent example is Mobile’s revenue for Assurance Wireless the retail mobile wireless service United States v. Bayer AG, in which the subscribers comes primarily from federal subsidies market. DISH is required to offer retail court entered the proposed Final rather than user fees, this segment of the market does not raise the same competitive issues as the mobile wireless services, including Judgment without further factfinding unsubsidized prepaid segment. Moreover, T-Mobile offering nationwide postpaid retail despite opposition from a number of has publicly committed to maintaining the mobile wireless service within one year commenters, including several of the Assurance Wireless service indefinitely, barring of the closing of the sale of the Prepaid states now involved in the lawsuit material changes to the Lifeline program. See Letter 9 from T-Mobile CEO John Legere to Rep. Tony Assets. As set forth in the Stipulation seeking to enjoin the T-Mobile/Sprint Cardenas (Mar. 6, 2019), available at https:// transaction in the U.S. District Court for cardenas.house.gov/sites/cardenas.house.gov/files/ 8 DISH may, at its option, elect not to acquire the the Southern District of New York 3-6-19%20T-MOBILE%20RESPONSE spectrum if DISH can meet certain network (‘‘S.D.N.Y. Litigation’’). See Order, %20%20Final%20Cardenas%20Response buildout and service requirements without it. See %20030619%200908%20am%20est_Executed%20 infra at 23. In such case, T-Mobile will auction the United States v. Bayer AG, No. 18–1241 %28002%29%281%29.pdf. The settlement is not 800 MHz spectrum licenses to any person who is (D.D.C. Feb. 8, 2019); see also United affected by recent news reports concerning Sprint’s not already a national facilities-based wireless States v. US Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d 69, compliance with the Lifeline program’s carrier. 76 (D.D.C. 2014) (entering proposed requirements because the Lifeline customers are not 9 To ensure that DISH and T-Mobile remain included in the divestiture. The divestitures also do independent competitors, Section XV of the Final Judgment over the opposition of not include Sprint’s prepaid customers receiving proposed Final Judgment prohibits T-Mobile from commenters and explaining that ‘‘[a] services through its Swiftel and Shentel affiliates, reacquiring from DISH any part of the Divestiture court can make its public interest due to contractual obligations. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61644 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

and Order, DISH has agreed to be joined provider immediately after the Facilities-Based Entry and Expansion: to this action for purposes of the divestiture closes. The proposed Final Judgment requires divestiture. Including DISH is Notably, T-Mobile will provide DISH T-Mobile and Sprint to comply with all appropriate because the United States with a broader array of rights under the network build commitments made to has determined that DISH is a necessary Full MVNO Agreement than wholesale the Federal Communications party to effectuate the relief obtained; providers generally grant to their Commission (FCC) 14 related to their the divestiture package was crafted partners in traditional MVNO merger or the divestiture to DISH as of specifically taking into consideration agreements. This will benefit the date of entry of the Final Judgment, DISH’s existing assets and capabilities, competition and American consumers. subject to verification by the FCC.15 The and divesting the package to another In particular, traditional MVNO FCC concluded that the transaction, as purchaser would not preserve agreements generally do not permit the modified by these commitments, would competition. Thus, as discussed above, MVNO partner to construct its own ‘‘result in a number of benefits,’’ the proposed Final Judgment imposes network facilities and carry a portion of including ‘‘the deployment of a highly certain obligations on DISH to ensure its traffic on these facilities while robust nationwide 5G network’’ and that the divestitures take place relying on the wholesale provider to ‘‘substantially increased coverage and expeditiously and that DISH meet carry the remainder of the MVNO’s capacity (and in turn, user speeds and certain deadlines in building out and traffic. The Full MVNO Agreement will cost structure) compared to the operating its own mobile wireless provide DISH with this ability. In standalone companies.’’ 16 The FCC’s services network to provide competitive addition, unlike traditional MVNO order contains a comprehensive retail mobile wireless service. agreements, full MVNO agreements Technical Appendix detailing the Full MVNO Agreement: The proposed grant the MVNO control over a broader benefits of T-Mobile’s post-merger Final Judgment requires T-Mobile and range of technological components, network plan.17 The commenters in this Sprint to enter into a Full MVNO which allow the MVNO to manage the proceeding generally do not attempt to 11 Agreement with DISH for a term of no customer relationship more directly. criticize T-Mobile’s network build fewer than seven years. Under the By providing these capabilities, full commitments or the associated benefits agreement outlined in the proposed MVNO agreements promise to enable they are expected to bring to consumers. more robust competition than Final Judgment, T-Mobile and Sprint In turn, DISH is required to comply must permit DISH to operate as an traditional MVNO agreements have in 12 with the June 14, 2023 AWS–4, 700 MVNO on the merged firm’s network on the past. The Full MVNO Agreement in this case will allow DISH to begin MHz, H Block, and Nationwide 5G commercially reasonable terms that are Broadband network build commitments approved by the Department of Justice competing with the other carriers in short order and will facilitate DISH’s made to the FCC on July 26, 2019, and to resell the merged firm’s mobile subject to verification by the FCC.18 The wireless service. As DISH deploys its transition into a full, facilities-based mobile wireless service provider.13 FCC concluded that modifying DISH’s own mobile wireless network, T-Mobile spectrum licenses to include these and Sprint must also facilitate DISH 11 Full MVNO agreements have been used to commitments would be in the public operating as a Full MVNO by providing enable entry in wireless markets outside of the interest and has directed its Wireless the necessary network assets, access, United States as well. See European Commission, Telecommunications Bureau to do so and services. These requirements will DG Competition, Case M.7758-Hutchinson 3D Italy/ once the divestiture of Boost has been enable DISH to begin operating as an Wind/JV § 5.2.4 (Jan. 1, 2016) (‘‘So-called ‘full MVNOs’ typically do not have radio network access MVNO as quickly as possible after entry or spectrum, but own some of the core as a Full MVNO and ultimately transition into a of the Final Judgment, and provide infrastructure, issue their own SIM cards, have facilities-based carrier. See also FCC Order ¶ 205 DISH the support it needs to offer retail network codes, a database of customers and back- (finding that ‘‘generalized references to prior mobile wireless service to consumers office functions to manage customer relations.’’), Commission decisions regarding the competitive available at https://ec.europa.eu/competition/ significance of MVNOs fail to account for the while building out its own mobile mergers/cases/decisions/m7758_2937_3.pdf. 10 unique aspects of the wholesale agreement required wireless network. They will also 12 For example, cable provider Altice has by the Boost Divestiture Conditions’’). permit DISH to begin to market itself as launched a wireless service based on an 14 The FCC conducted its own independent a national retail mobile wireless infrastructure-based MVNO agreement that it plans review of this transaction and concluded that the to leverage to compete with facilities-based carriers transfer of licenses from Sprint to T-Mobile is in the across a variety of geographic areas. See Letter to public interest. See FCC Order ¶ 4. As part of its Assets, other than a limited carveout for T-Mobile Marlene H. Dortch (FCC) from Jennifer L. Richter, to lease back a small amount of spectrum for a two- review, the FCC accepted T-Mobile’s voluntary WT Docket No. 18–197 (June 6, 2019) (‘‘Altice’s commitments on various elements of its post- year period. Further, Section XV of the proposed model to enter the U.S. wireless market by investing Final Judgment prohibits DISH from selling, merger plans, including with respect to the post- in wireless core infrastructure and utilizing a full merger buildout of its 5G network. Id. ¶¶ 25–32. In leasing, or otherwise providing the right to use the infrastructure mobile virtual network operator accepting T-Mobile’s voluntary commitments in its Divestiture Assets to any national facilities-based (‘MVNO’) will position Altice to provide true order, the FCC has transformed them into legally mobile wireless carrier. These provisions ensure competition in the retail markets, providing binding commitments. Id. ¶ 388. that T-Mobile and DISH cannot undermine the significant benefits for consumers in Altice’s 15 purpose of the proposed Final Judgment by later diverse markets, from the urban centers in New See Letter to Marlene H. Dortch (FCC) from entering into a new transaction, with each other or York and New Jersey to the rural communities in Nancy J. Victory and Regina M. Keeney (Counsel for with another competitor, that would reduce the West Virginia and Texas.’’), available at https:// T-Mobile and Sprint, respectively), WT Docket No. competition that the divestitures have preserved. ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10607282312243/Altice%20 18–197, Attachment 1 (May 20, 2019), available at 10 To guard against the possibility that USA%20Inc.%20-%20Ex%20Parte https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/t-mobile-us- implementation and execution of the proposed %206.4.19%20Meetings.pdf. sprint-letter-05202019.pdf. 16 Final Judgment and any associated agreements 13 Given the difference between traditional FCC Order ¶ 236. between T-Mobile and DISH could facilitate MVNO agreements and Full MVNO agreements like 17 Id. Technical App’x ¶¶ 31–42 (explaining coordination or other anticompetitive behavior the one at issue here, comparisons between DISH complementarities between the two firms’ spectrum during the interim period before DISH becomes and traditional MVNOs that have failed in the past holdings, potential efficiencies regarding cell site fully independent of T-Mobile, T-Mobile and DISH are inapposite. See, e.g., RWA Comment (Exhibit equipment deployment, and the merger’s benefits to are required to implement firewall procedures to 24) at 6. Similarly, CWA is incorrect in suggesting network capacity). prevent each company’s confidential business that there is a ‘‘mismatch’’ between the Complaint 18 See Letter to Donald Stockdale (FCC) from information from being used by the other for any and the remedy. CWA Comment (Exhibit 10) at 1. Jeffrey H. Blum (DISH), Attachment A (July 26, purpose that could harm competition. T-Mobile and The Complaint alleges that the competitive 2019) (‘‘Blum July 26, 2019 Letter’’), available at DISH submitted their respective firewall procedures constraint imposed by traditional MVNOs is https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/dish-letter- to the United States on Sept. 10, 2019. limited, while the remedy will allow DISH to enter 07262019.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61645

consummated.19 Incorporating these consumers to switch between wireless The comments can be grouped into obligations into the proposed Final carriers (particularly between the categories: (1) Comments that fail to Judgment is intended to increase the merged firm and DISH) and to choose a acknowledge the context of this Court’s incentives for the merged firm to provider that does not have a nearby Tunney Act review; (2) comments achieve the promised efficiencies from physical retail location, thus lowering regarding DISH’s viability as a the merger and for DISH to build out its the cost of DISH’s entry and competitor; (3) comments regarding the own national facilities-based mobile expansion.21 enforceability of the proposed Final wireless network to replace the Judgment; (4) other comments opposing competition lost as a result of Sprint V. Summary of Public Comments and entry of the proposed Final Judgment; being acquired by T-Mobile. Increasing the United States’ Response (5) comments regarding procedural aspects of this review; and (6) other DISH’s incentives to complete the The United States received 32 comments supporting entry of the buildout of a fourth standalone 5G comments from different categories of proposed Final Judgment. nationwide wireless network also serves commenters, the majority of which were to decrease the likelihood of supportive of the merger and/or the A. Comments That Fail To Acknowledge anticompetitive coordinated effects that the Context of Tunney Act Review 20 proposed final judgment. The may arise out of the merger. commenters include: The Advanced 600 MHz Spectrum Deployment: The A number of comments do not Communication Law & Policy Institute; proposed Final Judgment requires DISH actually address the question presented the American Antitrust Institute; and T-Mobile to enter into good-faith to this Court, which is whether or not Americans for Tax Reform; the Asian negotiations to allow T-Mobile to lease entry of the United States’ proposed Business Association; Attorneys General some or all of DISH’s 600 MHz spectrum Final Judgment remedy is in the public for use in offering mobile wireless for the States of Utah and Arkansas; Mr. interest under the Tunney Act. If these services to its subscribers. Such an Daniel M. Bellemare; the CalAsian commenters acknowledge the Tunney agreement is expected to expand output Chamber of Commerce; the California Act at all, they make arguments that do by making the 600 MHz spectrum Emerging Technology Fund; the Center not consider the governing legal available for use by consumers even for Individual Freedom; the standards discussed above, or the fact before DISH has completed building out Communications Workers of America; that the allegations in the United States’ its network, and would assist T-Mobile the Competitive Enterprise Institute; complaint have not been tested in any in transitioning consumers to its 5G Economics Professors (Nicholas court. Nor do they acknowledge the network. Economides, John Kwoka, Thomas benefits to the public from the merger MVNO Requirements: The proposed Philipon, Robert Seamans, Hal Singer, itself. Several commenters presuppose Final Judgment obligates T-Mobile and Marshall Steinbaum, and Lawrence J. that the standard relevant here is the Sprint to extend all of their current White); the Enterprise Wireless same standard governing how a court is MVNO agreements until the expiration Alliance; the Greater Kansas Chamber of to fashion a remedy after an antitrust 22 of the proposed Final Judgment. This Commerce; Mr. Edward S. Hasten; the violation has been proven in court. As obligation will ensure that T-Mobile’s International Center for Law & discussed above, however, this is not and Sprint’s MVNO partners remain Economics; the National Diversity the standard Congress and case law options for the consumers who Coalition; the National Hispanic Caucus prescribe for courts reviewing currently use them. This will also of State Legislators; the National Puerto settlements under the Tunney Act. permit T-Mobile’s and Sprint’s MVNO Rican Chamber of Commerce; NTCH, Instead, courts recognize that a partners to retain the benefits of their Inc.; the Overland Park Chamber of proposed final judgment necessarily existing agreements until the expiration Commerce; a coalition of advocacy represents a compromise between the of the proposed Final Judgment, by groups (Public Knowledge, Consumer parties, and give deference to the United which time DISH is expected to have Reports, Electronic Frontier Foundation, States’ views of the likely effects of the become an additional provider of and New America’s Open Technology settlement. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment wireless services. Institute); Randolph May and Seth T-Mobile’s and DISH’s eSIM Cooper of the Free State Foundation; the here is fully in keeping with established Tunney Act standards. In United States Obligations: The proposed Final Rural Wireless Association; Scott v. US Airways, Judge Kollar-Kotelly Judgment requires T-Mobile and DISH Wallsten of the Technology Policy entered the proposed Final Judgment in to support eSIM technology and Institute; Tech Freedom; Members of the the merger of U.S. Airways and prohibits T-Mobile and DISH from United States House of Representatives American Airlines over the objections of discriminating against devices based on (Representatives Anna G. Eshoo, Billy commenters. While noting that the ‘‘the their use of remote SIM provisioning or Long, Adam Smith, Doug Lamborn, Final Judgment does not create a new use of eSIM technology. The more Gregory W. Meeks, Roger W. Marshall, independent competitor nor replicate widespread use of eSIMs and remote Suzan DelBene, Dan Newhouse, American’s capacity expansion plans SIM provisioning may help DISH attract Anthony G. Brown, Ron Estes, Mike nor affirmatively preserve the Thompson, Blaine Luetkemeyer, and consumers as it launches its mobile Advantage Fares program,’’ the court Kurt Schrader); Vermont Telephone Co.; wireless business. These provisions are credited the United States’ ‘‘predict[ion] Viaero Wireless; Voqal, Inc.; Mr. R. intended to increase the disruptiveness that it will impede the airline industry’s of DISH’s entry by making it easier for Bruce Williamson; and Mr. Josh Wool. 22 See CWA Comment (Exhibit 10) at 6 and n.10 19 FCC Order ¶ 365. 21 The FCC has recognized the benefits of eSIM (quoting a statement in the Antitrust Division’s 20 See Complaint ¶ 5 (alleging that, absent the technology and the potential for this condition to remedies guide that ‘‘The relief in an antitrust case remedy, ‘‘the merger likely would make it easier for promote competition among mobile wireless service must be ‘effective to redress the violations,’ ’’ which the three remaining national facilities-based mobile providers. See id. ¶ 206 (‘‘[R]equirements related to quotes Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. wireless carriers to coordinate their pricing, the use of eSIM will tend to lower switching costs 562, 573 (1972), a case addressing post-trial relief) promotions, and service offerings’’); see also id. for wireless consumers, increasing the ability of (emphasis added); Economics Professors Comment ¶¶ 21–22. Notably, the FCC ‘‘d[id] not conclude that Boost to win subscribers from T-Mobile and, in (Exhibit 12) at 2 (referring to ‘‘restor[ing] ‘‘the ex the likelihood of coordination would increase post- turn, Boost’s ability to constrain pricing for T- ante competitive conditions in the affected antitrust transaction.’’ See FCC Order ¶ 186. Mobile’s brands.’’). product markets.’’).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61646 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

evolution toward a tighter oligopoly.’’ 23 Professors attempt to dismiss the value respond to and one-up its By reducing slot concentration at of increasing capacity by arguing that competitors.’’ 34 Reagan National, the settlement the merger will not result in reductions B. Comments Regarding DISH’s Viability provided low-cost carriers (‘‘LCCs’’) in marginal cost. Specifically, they state as a Competitor ‘‘with substantial assets at key airports,’’ that ‘‘the merger purportedly will and the Court credited the United increase capacity . . . [but] there is no Several commenters object to the States’ prediction that ‘‘providing LCCs explanation of how a purported increase proposed Final Judgment on the basis with these otherwise unavailable in capacity reduces the merged firm’s that DISH will not be a sufficiently strong competitor to AT&T, Verizon, opportunities will create incentives for marginal cost of serving the next and T-Mobile. These commenters point LCCs to invest in new capacity, expand customer or the next neighborhood.’’ 30 into new markets, and provide more to DISH’s asset base and track record to In fact, the relationship between an support their claim that the company meaningful system-wide competition to increase in capacity and a reduction in 24 will lack the incentive and ability to the three remaining legacy airlines.’’ marginal cost is a well-understood Ultimately, the Court found that the compete vigorously in the mobile economic phenomenon in industries ‘‘United States has provided a wireless market. The United States with capacity constraints. In the market reasonable basis for concluding that the disagrees with these assertions. for mobile wireless services, the settlement will mitigate the 1. DISH’s Assets and Track Record anticompetitive effects of combining marginal cost of an additional customer two of the remaining legacy airlines.’’ 25 on a capacity-constrained network Some commenters take issue with the In United States v. Bayer AG, Judge includes the costs of the congestion fact that DISH has been acquiring Boasberg entered the proposed Final caused by adding that customer to the spectrum for a number of years but has Judgment, over commenters’ criticisms network. Thus, a merger-induced not yet deployed a network that similar to those here.26 Additionally, in expansion of capacity would result in a operates over that spectrum. For United States v. Abitibi-Consolidated, reduction in marginal costs for a example, the CWA and Economics Inc., Judge Collyer entered the proposed network facing congestion.31 Professors accuse DISH of ‘‘warehousing’’ spectrum and claim that Final Judgment where the ‘‘United Other commenters, however, DISH has missed FCC network buildout States has provided a factual basis for recognize the substantial benefits that deadlines.35 Mr. Wool asks, ‘‘given concluding that the . . . divestiture was the proposed Final Judgment promises 27 DISH Network’s failure to meet prior reasonably adequate.’’ ‘‘Irrespective of to bring. The Advanced whether that conclusion [was] correct,’’ Federal Communications Commission Communications Law & Policy Institute (FCC) build-out requirements on its the court recognized that the ‘‘United (ACLP) at New York Law School states States has established an ‘ample existing spectrum . . . how is the that it supports entry of the proposed proposed Final Judgment consistent foundation for [its] judgment call’ and Final Judgment because it believes the thus shown ‘its conclusion [was] with ‘a low risk tolerance’?’’ 36 Several 28 public interest benefits from the merger commenters point to T-Mobile’s past reasonable.’ ’’ ‘‘are substantial,’’ and because the Almost all the comments opposing criticism of DISH as a basis for the proposed Final Judgment also ignore settlement ‘‘will ensure that valuable questioning DISH’s viability as a the benefits to the public from this spectrum resources will finally be put to competitor.37 merger.29 For example, the Economics productive use by Dish Network, an Far from undermining the efficacy of entity that has long lingered on the the proposed Final Judgment, DISH’s 32 23 US Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 77. periphery of the U.S. wireless space.’’ spectrum assets make it a prime 24 Id. at 78. In ACLP’s view, DISH is ‘‘well candidate for entry into the mobile 25 Id. at 79. positioned to become a viable player’’ in wireless market. DISH has invested 26 In Bayer, as here, commenters questioned both wireless, not only because of its existing more than $20 billion in spectrum the ability of the divestiture buyer, BASF, ‘‘to ‘‘treasure trove’’ of spectrum licenses, licenses.38 As a result, DISH currently succeed with the divested assets’’ and its ‘‘incentives to compete aggressively against the but also because the proposed Final has far more spectrum at its disposal merged company.’’ See Response of the United Judgment will enable DISH to ‘‘leverage than any other company aside from the States to Public Comments on the Proposed Final numerous resources either divested by existing nationwide wireless carriers.39 Judgment at 14, United States v. Bayer AG, No. 1:18–cv–1241 (JEB) (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 2019). There, as or leased from the merging parties to support deployment of a standalone 34 Id. here, the United States ‘‘carefully considered these 35 33 CWA Comment (Exhibit 10) at 16–18; issues in crafting the proposed remedy’’ and mobile service.’’ ACLP further notes Economics Professors Comment (Exhibit 12) at 9. required the merged company to make an that, in addition to the fact that DISH 36 Wool Comment (Exhibit 32) at 3. appropriate divestiture and to provide an array of 37 transitional services, all while ‘‘specifically taking ‘‘finally leveraging its stockpile of See, e.g., CWA Comment (Exhibit 10) at 16; into account [the divestiture buyer’s] existing assets spectrum licenses . . . is a major win Economics Professors Comment (Exhibit 12) at 9; and capabilities.’’ Id. And while there, as here, it for consumers and the public interest NTCH Comment (Exhibit 20) at 9–11. 38 ‘‘DISH to Become National Facilities-Based was ‘‘impossible to predict with certainty how well writ large,’’ consumers also will ‘‘likely [the buyer, BASF] will perform with the divested Wireless Carrier’’ (July 26, 2019), http:// assets (just as [the merged firm’s] own performance see additional price and service about.dish.com/2019-07-26-DISH-to-Become- with those assets absent the merger is not certain),’’ offerings over the next few years as National-Facilities-based-Wireless-Carrier (‘‘DISH the proposed remedy ‘‘ensure[d]’’ that it ‘‘will be as July 26, 2019 Press Release’’) (‘‘These developments [DISH] rolls out its service and seeks to are the fulfillment of more than two decades’ worth well-positioned as possible and have the necessary of work and more than $21 billion in spectrum incentives’’ to ‘‘replace the competition that investments intended to transform DISH into a otherwise would be lost through the merger.’’ Id. possible, without compromising the benefits that connectivity company’’); see also Todd Shields & 27 United States v. Abitibi–Consolidated, Inc., 584 result from maintaining competitive markets.’’). 30 Scott Moritz, Bloomberg, ‘‘A $20 Billion Wireless F. Supp. 2d 162, 166 (D.D.C. 2008). Economics Professors Comment (Exhibit 12) at Stockpile Is the Key to T-Mobile Merger’’ (July 6, 28 Id. (quoting Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461). 6. 2019), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ 29 See U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust 31 Notably, the FCC found that ‘‘New T-Mobile 2019-07-06/a-20-billion-wireless-stockpile-is-the- Division Policy Guide to Merger Remedies, at 2 will have significantly lower marginal costs for key-to-t-mobile-merger. (Oct. 2004), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/ providing advanced wireless services.’’ FCC Order 39 FCC Communications Marketplace Report, 33 files/atr/legacy/2011/06/16/205108.pdf (‘‘2004 ¶ 236. FCC Rcd 12558, 12587 Fig. A–25 (Dec. 26, 2018), Remedies Guide’’) (‘‘Effective remedies preserve the 32 ACLP Comment (Exhibit 1) at 4. available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ efficiencies created by a merger, to the extent 33 Id. at 6. attachments/FCC-18-181A1_Rcd.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61647

The Division’s 2004 Remedies Guide provides licensees (and in this case, facilitate and accelerate DISH’s entry notes that ‘‘[t]he circumstances of DISH) with the choice of (1) satisfying into the wireless market as a 5G potential bidders may vary in ways that both construction milestones, or (2) competitor by, among other things, affect the scope of the assets each would missing the interim milestones and enabling DISH to deploy its spectrum at need to compete quickly and agreeing to accelerate the final the same time to provide a better overall effectively.’’ 40 DISH’s spectrum assets milestones by one year. DISH chose not 5G service, at lower cost, and on a more provide it with the ability to compete to meet the interim construction efficient deployment schedule.’’ 47 In more quickly and more effectively than milestones for its licenses, which meant particular, the divestiture of Sprint’s another entrant could. The proposed that its final construction milestones prepaid businesses will enable DISH to Final Judgment promises to put this were accelerated.44 These final serve an existing base of 9 million spectrum to use for the benefit of milestones have not yet passed, and subscribers. This customer base will put consumers.41 prior to the remedy discussions in this DISH into the wireless business These commenters’ line of argument case, DISH had provided the FCC with immediately upon the closing of the also fails to address what incentive a proposal on how it planned to meet divestitures, without first having to DISH could have to acquire $20 billion them. Specifically, DISH planned to rely construct a network from scratch. DISH in spectrum licenses and spend billions on the FCC’s ‘‘flexible use’’ policy, will have the option of acquiring more of dollars on the divestiture in this which permits licensees to choose the than 20,000 cell sites and upwards of matter and risk billions more in fines, technology they use to meet their 400 retail locations directly from T- only to sit on these assets. The more construction milestones, in order to Mobile, further reducing the burdens of logical inference, which aligns with execute a two-phase network building out a new network. As DISH DISH’s economic incentives, is that deployment plan: (1) Deploy a completes its network buildout, it will DISH will deploy its spectrum and enter narrowband Internet of Things (‘‘NB- be in position to move existing the mobile wireless market. DISH has IoT’’) network before the final subscribers onto its new network in explained to the FCC that the company construction milestones had passed, and short order, allowing it to immediately has engaged in efforts to develop (2) use this NB-IoT network as a monetize its own network by shifting technology that operates over its foundation to ultimately deploy a 5G away from using a third-party network spectrum but that it opted not to network at a later date.45 The United to serve subscribers. Finally, the Full construct a 4G/LTE network at a time States agrees with commenters who MVNO Agreement will give DISH the when 5G technology was on the argue that having DISH construct a 5G flexibility to serve customers the most horizon.42 Now that mobile wireless network immediately is preferable to efficient and cost-effective way, whether providers are beginning to deploy 5G, this two-stage plan, but any suggestion on post-merger T-Mobile’s network, DISH has issued three wide-ranging that DISH has violated the FCC’s DISH’s new network, or a combination 46 requests for information/requests for requirements is simply incorrect. of both. In light of these changes, DISH production to vendors of wireless The economics of DISH’s entry under has agreed to waive its ‘‘flexible use’’ equipment, software, and services to the proposed Final Judgment are rights and deploy a 5G network begin the process of sourcing inputs for fundamentally different—and more immediately rather than taking the the construction of a 5G network.43 favorable to DISH—than what was intermediate step of deploying an NB- DISH has not, as some commenters available to DISH before the proposed IoT network first.48 Final Judgment. Much of the relief in suggest, violated the FCC’s construction RWA raises concern over the fact that the proposed Final Judgment is to requirements for its spectrum licenses. the proposed Final Judgment provides provide DISH with assets and resources Those licenses have two relevant dates: DISH with a degree of flexibility as to to make its entry as a nationwide, An interim construction milestone and which of T-Mobile’s assets it will facilities-based wireless carrier easier a final construction milestone. The FCC ultimately acquire.49 RWA suggests that and more certain. DISH has explained DISH should be required to purchase 40 that the proposed Final Judgment ‘‘will 2004 Remedies Guide at 11. the 800 MHz Spectrum, regardless of 41 See ACLP Comment (Exhibit 1) at 6. whether it deems it necessary, as well 42 See DBSD Services Limited, Gamma 44 See DISH March 7, 2017 Buildout Report at 4 Acquisition L.L.C., and Manifest Wireless L.L.C.’s (certifying that DISH planned to meet the as every one of the cell sites and retail Consolidated Interim Construction Notification for accelerated final construction milestones); Letter locations that T-Mobile plans to AWS–4 and Lower 700 MHz E Block Licenses (filed from Jeffrey Blum (DISH) to Donald Stockdale (FCC) decommission.50 Such an obligation, Mar. 7, 2017) (‘‘DISH March 7, 2017 Buildout (Sept. 21, 2018) (explaining that ‘‘[s]uch a bridge to however, would be counterproductive. Report’’), available at https://wireless2.fcc.gov/ a 5G deployment is necessary because, among other UlsEntry/attachments/attachment things, equipment/installation availability for full The proposed Final Judgment gives ViewRD.jsp;ATTACHMENTS=1fTvdTtC8v1mz standalone 5G (3GPP Release 16) will only be DISH the flexibility to decline purchase WxXqsWNxw2BFWwHpdcSQM90fP1g available after the March 2020 buildout milestones of the 800 MHz spectrum if it is able to 21sy8CTyXHgB!-784178296!-1151086485? for our AWS–4 and E Block licenses, making it make significant progress in deploying applType=search&fileKey=1888085105& impractical for us to deploy 5G before such date.’’), attachmentKey=20103063&attachment available at https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/ Ind=applAttach. attachments/attachmentViewRD.jsp?applType 47 Blum Aug. 1, 2019 Letter at 3; see also FCC 43 See ‘‘DISH to release deployment services RFP =search&fileKey=1089751155&attachment Order ¶ 372 (‘‘We agree with DISH that its for standalone 5G network buildout’’ (Oct. 21, Key=20454822&attachmentInd=licAttach. acquisition of Sprint’s prepaid assets along with the 2019), https://ir.dish.com/news-releases/news- 45 Id. at 6–7. set of MVNO, wholesale, and roaming rights agreed release-details/dish-release-deployment-services- 46 Given this background, the Economics to with the Applicants provides DISH the means to rfp-standalone-5g-network; Letter from Jeffrey Blum Professors’ claim that Dish has ‘‘no history or provide nationwide service on a competitive 5G (DISH) to Marlene H. Dortch (FCC), WT Docket No. presence in this industry’’ is also incorrect. network.’’). 18–197, at 4 (Aug. 1, 2019) (‘‘Blum Aug. 1, 2019 Economics Professors Comment (Exhibit 12) at 3. In 48 Blum July 26, 2019 Letter at 3 (‘‘DISH will Letter’’), available at https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/ connection with its NB-IoT plans, DISH had voluntarily waive its flexible use rights’’); Blum 10801235883258/2019-08-01 established relationships with vendors, leased Aug. 1, 2019 Letter at 3 (‘‘Rather than approaching %20DISH%20%20EX%20Parte%20WT%20 towers, and acquired equipment for a core network. a network build in two phases, DISH will be able Docket%20No%2018-197%20(w%20summary).pdf; See Mike Dano, Fierce Wireless, ‘‘DISH’s First to shift the resources it has dedicated to building see also Martha DeGrasse, Fierce Wireless, ‘‘Dish Wireless Partners Revealed: Ericsson and SBA’’ out a narrowband Internet of Things network to a Casts Wide Net to Vendor Community’’ (Aug. 12, (Nov. 8, 2019), https://www.fiercewireless.com/iot/ 5G network deployment.’’). 2019), https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/ dish-s-first-wireless-partners-revealed-ericsson-and- 49 RWA Comment (Exhibit 24) at 17–18. dish-casts-wide-net-to-vendor-community. sba. 50 Id. at 18.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61648 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

its network without that spectrum.51 several potential risks that DISH will be 2. DISH’s Incentive and Ability To Likewise, the proposed Final Judgment unable to build a successful facilities- Compete provides DISH with the option to based mobile wireless business. He Some commenters also question purchase only those cell sites and retail notes that DISH will be highly whether DISH will have the incentive locations that it needs to support its dependent on T-Mobile as an MVNO for network deployment and business and ability to compete vigorously in the years following entry of the proposed mobile wireless marketplace. For plans. The proposed Final Judgment Final Judgment, and notes the requires DISH to comply with specific example, CWA asserts that ‘‘DISH has ‘‘criticality of the MVNO agreement powerful incentives to create something build commitments, including relating terms’’ for DISH’s success.57 However, to nationwide 5G.52 Requiring DISH to less than a fully competitive 5G DISH itself has explained that the Full 63 purchase assets that turn out to be network.’’ Mr. Bellemare claims that MVNO Agreement will provide DISH unnecessary would increase DISH’s ‘‘Sprint is a maverick’’ but ‘‘[w]hether with ‘‘more attractive economics than costs and impede its entry as a mobile DISH would become a maverick in a traditional MVNO agreements, more concentrated oligopoly is by no wireless provider. In contrast, by giving 64 DISH the flexibility to purchase only the including pricing, packaging and means assured.’’ Other commenters assets that it needs in order to comply marketing flexibility, a mechanism for argue that the fact that DISH’s wireless with the overarching directive to meet costs to drop over time, and access to business will initially have only 9 core control.’’ 58 The FCC likewise million subscribers will inhibit its its nationwide 5G commitment, the 65 proposed Final Judgment will allow recognizes that ‘‘New Boost’s wholesale competitiveness. DISH’s entry to proceed efficiently. network access agreement will be As an initial matter, commenters Moreover, DISH will be subject to unique among MVNO agreements in the overlook the substantial advantages on substantial penalties if it fails to satisfy industry, with more favorable terms and which DISH currently can draw to grow its commitments. Failure to meet its conditions that, in turn, will enable its wireless business. The fact that DISH network buildout obligations would New Boost to more effectively constrain is unburdened by any need to support cause DISH to incur penalties of up to potential price increases.’’ 59 a legacy infrastructure based on older technology and has an established $2.2 billion under its commitments to Dr. Afflerbach also argues that the FCC alone.53 Failure to meet certain presence in a complementary video ‘‘DISH’s execution risks are buildout milestones would also result in business, may enhance its ability to substantial.’’ 60 His criticisms about ‘‘automatic termination’’ of some of price aggressively and attract customers. DISH’s prospects for building a 5G DISH’s spectrum licenses.54 The In addition, and contrary to the proposed Final Judgment further network overstate some of the commenters’ claims, the proposed Final provides for DISH to pay a penalty of challenges that DISH faces. For instance, Judgment will position DISH to be an $360,000,000 if it elects not to purchase Dr. Afflerbach suggests that DISH will effective competitor to the existing the 800 MHz Spectrum Licenses, unless be disadvantaged because ‘‘[h]andset carriers. As described above, the merger, it has already made significant progress equipment (i.e. smartphones) is not when combined with the proposed in constructing its network.55 All of this currently manufactured for DISH’s Final Judgment, promises to expand would be in addition to other penalties spectrum bands.’’ 61 The current output. A significant amount of unused that this Court could impose if it were generation of smartphones, however, and underused spectrum will be made to find DISH to be in violation of the does support LTE service in DISH’s available by both DISH and T-Mobile for Final Judgment.56 holdings in the 600 MHz band (Band use by consumers within the first years CWA includes in its comment a 71), the AWS–3 band, and the AWS–4 following the closing of the divestiture. declaration from engineering consultant band (collectively, Band 66).62 This is Principles of economics tell us that Andrew Afflerbach, Ph.D., P.E., which because other established players like T- expanded output provides further purports to support CWA’s criticisms of Mobile and Verizon each offer LTE downward pressure on prices moving the proposed Final Judgment. Dr. service in one or more of those bands. forward. Indeed, competition in the Afflerbach begins by highlighting There is no reason to believe that DISH wireless industry has often been driven will not similarly be able to find support by the smallest of the nationwide 51 carriers, to the benefit of consumers.66 While AAI claims that the 800 MHz spectrum for 5G service in at least some of its is ‘‘necessary to build out a 5G network’’ (AAI Comment (Exhibit 2) at 8), the proposed Final spectrum bands as equipment-makers 63 CWA Comment (Exhibit 10) at 19. Judgment recognizes that DISH may find that it is design handsets for the other carriers. 64 Bellemare Comment (Exhibit 6) at 13–14. able to deploy a competitive network that does not 65 See, e.g., RWA Comment (Exhibit 24) at 8 rely on this spectrum. 57 (‘‘[T]he various Sprint prepaid subscriber bases, 52 PFJ § VIII.A. Afflerbach Decl. ¶¶ 7, 11. 58 Blum Aug. 1, 2019 Letter at 2. which Dish estimates to include approximately 9.3 53 Blum July 26, 2019 Letter, Attachment A at 4. million users, are a fraction of Sprint’s overall 59 FCC Order ¶ 201. 54 Id. at 3–4. Thus, claims that DISH’s financial subscriber base.’’). AAI and RWA both point to the 60 penalties alone would be insufficient to ensure Afflerbach Decl. ¶ 36. fact that DISH will initially serve only prepaid compliance are misplaced. See, e.g., RWA Comment 61 Afflerbach Decl. ¶ 45. subscribers, which are generally less profitable to (Exhibit 24) at 15–16. Nor do DISH’s commitment 62 See Chris Holmes, Whistle Out, ‘‘Cell Phone serve than postpaid subscribers. See AAI Comment to the FCC that it will not sell certain of its Networks and Frequencies Explained: 5 Things To (Exhibit 2) at 7; RWA Comment (Exhibit 24) at 8, spectrum licenses for six years somehow suggests Know’’ (Oct. 14, 2019) (noting Verizon, AT&T and 12. DISH, however, has committed to providing that they are planning to exit the mobile wireless T-Mobile are currently using Band 66, and T-Mobile postpaid mobile wireless service within one year of market after that time period concludes, as RWA is currently using Band 71), https:// the closing of the sale of the prepaid assets. PFJ claims. Id. at 18–19. RWA provides no support for www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/cell- § IV(F). Moreover, after spending the significant this assertion. DISH’s commitment to the FCC phone-networks-and-frequencies-explained; Dan resources required to become a mobile wireless merely ensures that it will maintain ownership of Meyer, RCR Wireless News, ‘‘T-Mobile LTE service provider, DISH will have strong business its wireless licenses while its network buildout network beats AT&T and Verizon with AWS–3 incentives to serve all profitable segments of the advances. spectrum support’’ (Oct. 17, 2016) (noting T-Mobile market. 55 See PFJ § IV(B)(2). ‘‘touting itself as the first domestic carrier to launch 66 Given the potential for smaller market 56 See id. § XVIII(A) (‘‘The United States retains commercial services across the AWS–3 spectrum participants to drive competition, RWA is simply and reserves all rights to enforce the provisions of band’’), https://www.rcrwireless.com/20161017/ incorrect in claiming that increased coordination this Final Judgment, including the right to seek an carriers/t-mobile-lte-network-beats-att-verizon-aws- among AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile will be order of contempt from the Court.’’). 3-spectrum-support-tag2. ‘‘inevitable’’ given that ‘‘DISH on Day One’’ will

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61649

T-Mobile was previously branded as the has disrupted other established Additionally, the proposed Final maverick and had success in growing its industries in the past, and disrupting Judgment’s requirement that DISH begin share. Such a firm can discipline prices the mobile wireless market would be a offering postpaid plans within one year based on its ability and incentive to welcome continuation of that trend.72 ensures that DISH will begin to restore expand production rapidly using Some commenters focus on the near- the lost competition promptly, and, in available capacity, or on its willingness term period prior to DISH’s construction any event, well before T-Mobile’s to resist otherwise-prevailing industry of its forthcoming mobile wireless commitments to the FCC expire.74 The norms to cooperate on price setting or network. For example, Public favorable terms in the Full MVNO other terms of competition.67 Moreover, Knowledge et al. claim that ‘‘DISH will Agreement will provide DISH with an even during the period in which DISH be a nonfactor, as all MVNOs are’’ attractive cost structure, and thus, an is relying on the Full MVNO Agreement, during this period.73 Under the terms of incentive to compete immediately. other mobile wireless providers will the proposed Final Judgment, DISH will DISH’s incentive to expand its output have full knowledge of DISH’s be able to compete for subscribers will only increase as DISH begins to obligations to deploy network immediately using the wholesale realize cost savings by shifting traffic infrastructure in the coming years, agreement and will transition into a full, from T-Mobile’s network onto its own.75 which itself may have a further facilities-based competitor as it Other commenters raise concerns constraining effect on their decision- constructs its planned network. As regarding the portion of the country that making. discussed above, the broad array of DISH’s mobile wireless network will The Economics Professors point to T- rights that T-Mobile will provide to cover and its future network performance. For example, RWA argues Mobile CEO John Legere’s statement DISH under the Full MVNO Agreement that DISH could meet its population- that T-Mobile’s agreement with DISH will empower DISH to become a more based buildout obligations while will not diminish the merged firm’s effective competitor than traditional covering ‘‘only a small fraction of the synergies, profitability, and long-term MVNOs have been in the past.

cash generation as evidence that DISH 74 68 https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/t-mobile- See FCC Order ¶ 206 (‘‘[T]he requirement that will not be a disruptive competitor. cfo-dish-rivalry-bring-it. DISH offer postpaid services bolsters our This line of argument assumes that the 72 As noted in the Wall Street Journal, DISH’s conclusion that the Boost divestiture buyer will not remedy would have to be harmful to T- controlling shareholder, Charlie Ergen, ‘‘has often merely constrain price increases within the prepaid Mobile in order to be good for played the role of disrupter.’’ Drew Fitzgerald, Wall segment, but across the differentiated retail mobile Street Journal, ‘‘A TV Maverick Is Going All-In on wireless services market.’’). consumers. In fact, T-Mobile stands to 75 a New Wireless Bet’’ (July 27, 2019), available at Suggestions that DISH will find it in itself too benefit by selling DISH wholesale access https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-tv-maverick-is- comfortable as an MVNO and decline to carry out to its network, even as it stands to lose going-all-in-on-a-new-wireless-bet-11564200000. its obligations under the decree overlook the retail customers to DISH.69 The relevant The article notes that Mr. Ergen and his partners various ways the decree guards against this risk. See Economics Professors Comment (Exhibit 12) at 9 question for the Court is not how these began selling ‘‘10-foot-wide satellite dishes from a Denver storefront,’’ then ‘‘switched to hubcap-size (‘‘Why would Dish invest and become a facilities- two competing effects net out for T- dishes and took on cable-TV monopolies by based provider if the margins from resale are large Mobile, but rather whether DISH will slashing prices.’’ Id. (noting the ‘‘service now has and guaranteed for seven years?’’). For example, the 12 million customers across the country and his proposed Final Judgment limits the term of any introduce new competition into the Transition Services Agreement to two years, with marketplace that will benefit controlling stake in Dish is worth about $9 billion’’). DISH also launched ‘‘one of the first live- the possibility of a third subject to approval by the consumers. In a portion of the same TV streaming services, Sling TV, in early 2015.’’ Id. United States after consultation with its co-Plaintiff investor call that the Economics (noting that with ‘‘a small package of channels and States. PFJ § IV.A.4. Thus, DISH is required to wean Professors do not cite, Mr. Legere told lower price, it made it easy for millions of people itself from T-Mobile’s transitional support in to cut their TV bill—even many of Dish’s own ‘‘billing, customer care, SIM card procurement, investors that ‘‘it’s very clear that with device provisioning, and all other services used by satellite customers’’). The settlement enables DISH the Prepaid Assets’’ by 2022 or 2023. The deadline the spectrum that DISH has, with the to continue its disruptive history in the wireless of 2022 coincides with DISH’s commitment to the acquisition of Boost, with the MVNO business. See id. (Ergen noting that ‘‘with four, FCC to offer broadband service to at least 20% of there’s always somebody that will be a rabble arrangement, [with] the transition the United States population. Blum July 26, 2019 rouser,’’ and that while somebody ‘‘will say I don’t services agreement while they build out Letter at 2. Thus, by 2022 DISH is required to have enough market share,’’ ‘‘I’ve only got 9 million establish itself as an independent, facilities-based their network, with the ability to get subs and want 10 million. That person is going to operator, and its achievement of these commitments some of the decommissioned towers and be more aggressive.’’). See also DISH July 26, 2019 will be supervised closely by the Monitoring Press Release (‘‘When we entered pay-TV with the stores, DISH has a real significant Trustee. In an attempt to cast further doubt on opportunity to be a very credible launch of our first satellite in 1995, we faced DISH’s plans, the Economics Professors compare 70 entrenched cable monopolies, and our direct DISH to 1&1 Drillisch, an MVNO in Germany that disruptive fourth wireless carrier,’’ competitor was owned by one of the largest which is consistent with T-Mobile’s has announced its intention to become the fourth industrial corporations in the world. As a new German facilities-based mobile wireless provider by 71 other public statements. Indeed, DISH entrant, DISH encountered many skeptics who constructing its own 5G network. Economics questioned our ability to succeed. But, customers Professors Comment (Exhibit 12) at 10; see also Juan loved the disruption we brought to the marketplace have fewer subscribers than Sprint and T-Mobile do Pedro Tomas, RCR Wireless News, ‘‘1&1 Drillisch with innovations such as a 100-percent digital today. RWA Comment (Exhibit 24) at 13. Confirms Intention to Become Germany’s Fourth experience, local-into-local broadcast, the DVR and 67 Mobile Carrier’’ (Jan. 25, 2019), https:// Dep’t of Justice & Fed Trade Comm’n, ad-skipping. Our substantial investments, constant Horizontal Merger Guidelines § 2.1.5 (2010). www.rcrwireless.com/20190125/5g/drillisch- innovation, aggressive pricing and commitment to confirms-intention-become-germany-fourth-mobile- 68 Economics Professors Comment (Exhibit 12) at the customer led us to become the third largest pay- carrier. The Economics Professors ignore the fact 11. TV provider. As we enter the wireless business, we 69 that, since the date of the article they cite, 1&1 See T-Mobile US, Inc. (TMUS) CEO John Legere will again serve customers by disrupting Drillisch successfully secured financing to on Q2 2019 Results—Earnings Call Transcript, incumbents and their legacy networks, this time participate in a German spectrum auction and won Seeking Alpha, (July 29, 2019), at 9 (noting that the with the nation’s first standalone 5G broadband 70 MHz worth of spectrum licenses to support its agreement ‘‘will be accretive to our business network.’’). network deployment plan. See Reuters, ‘‘Shares in because the pricing allows us to monetize DISH’s 73 Public Knowledge et al. Comment (Exhibit 22) 1&1 Drillisch soar after Germany 5G auction’’ (June access of our network’’). at 2; see also Wool Comment (Exhibit 32) at 2 (‘‘Mr. 13, 2019) (‘‘Shares in 1&1 Drillisch surged on 70 Id. at 10. Wool asks, ‘‘[g]iven the time required for DISH Thursday after it won spectrum in Germany’s 5G 71 See, e.g., Monica Alleven, Fierce Wireless, ‘‘T- Network to build a national facilities-based network mobile auction that ensured its position as a new Mobile CFO on Dish Rivalry: Bring It On’’ (Sept. 24, (i.e. DISH Network has until June 2023 to construct fourth operator in a market that has lagged 2019) (quoting T-Mobile CFO Braxton Carter a network covering 70% of the population), how globally.’’), available at https://www.reuters.com/ remarks that DISH will be ‘‘extremely viable’’ and does the proposed Final Judgment ‘preserve the article/germany-telecoms/shares-in-11-drillisch- ‘‘a fierce competitor, there’s no doubt about it’’), status quo ante in affected markets.’’’). soar-after-germany-5g-auction-idUSS8N22R022.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61650 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

country’s geography.’’ 76 Similarly, the the ‘‘most straightforward way [for grow that business as it builds its own Economics Professors assert that DISH] to serve 70 percent of the network, and to enable it to stand on its ‘‘because the coverage requirement is population is to focus on urban areas,’’ own as an effective facilities-based denominated in terms of population, not which would mean DISH’s ‘‘2023 competitor before the end of the geography, it is clear that certain parts benchmark stops well short of the scale decree’s term.85 of the country will lose out.’’ 77 CWA of the networks operated by the four Indeed, while the Antitrust Division argues that at a speed of 35 Mbps ‘‘the existing MNOs.’’ 82 Together, these has expressed a preference for structural result will not be a bona fide fourth concerns only confirm that the proposed remedies, it has not taken the position network, but a niche network closer to Final Judgment fulfills the twin goals of that behavioral conditions are never the limited Internet of Things (IoT) a merger remedy. It permits the merger appropriate. In fact, the 2004 Remedies network proposed by DISH prior to the to proceed, enabling rural consumers to Guide explains that ‘‘there are limited T-Mobile deal.’’ 78 These arguments benefit from its promised efficiencies, circumstances when conduct remedies reflect a misunderstanding of DISH’s while adopting remedies that will will be appropriate: (a) When conduct network build commitments. These protect consumers in and bring new relief is needed to facilitate transition to commitments were incorporated into competition to urban areas that may or support a competitive structural the proposed Final Judgment to increase have been at greater risk from this solution, i.e., when the merged firm the incentives for DISH to build out its merger without this settlement. needs to modify its conduct for own national facilities-based mobile structural relief to be effective or (b) wireless network.79 These commitments C. Comments Regarding the when a full-stop prohibition of the should not, however, be interpreted as Enforceability of the Proposed Final merger would sacrifice significant predictions of the likely breadth of Judgment efficiencies and a structural remedy DISH’s network coverage or its likely Other commenters claim that the would also sacrifice such efficiencies or speed. The proposed Final Judgment proposed Final Judgment is too is infeasible.’’ 86 As to (a), the guide does not dictate the scope of DISH’s complicated or too ‘‘behavioral’’ to be provides examples of potentially future investments, but rather provides enforced. CWA and others cite appropriate behavioral conditions that DISH with necessary assets and statements in which current and former can help ‘‘perfect structural relief,’’ such appropriate incentives, and then relies leaders of the Antitrust Division have as transitional supply agreements on market forces to guide DISH’s long- identified challenges associated with between the merged firm and the term decisions about where to target its behavioral conditions.83 The divestiture buyer and temporary limits investments. DISH may ultimately have commenters claim that the proposed on the merged firm’s ability to reacquire business incentives to provide Final Judgment is inconsistent with personnel from the divestiture buyer.87 substantially broader coverage and these statements, and they suggest that The guide further notes that enforcing faster speeds than the minimums these inconsistencies should be a basis behavioral conditions may be easier, required to meet its network build for denial.84 These types of argument and thus such conditions may be more commitments. By focusing on the floors lack legal support and do not accurately appropriate, in markets subject to set by the proposed Final Judgment describe the inquiry before the Court. ongoing oversight by regulatory rather than the likely effects of the They also misstate the facts of the agencies.88 divestiture, these commenters miss the proposed Final Judgment and the The remedy in this case is ultimately relevant inquiry. Division’s policies. structural, and fits squarely within the Separate criticisms that the proposed Objections to the settlement that are first circumstance described in the 2004 merger benefits rural customers at the based on parsing which elements are Remedies Guide—it is intended to bring expense of urban ones and that the structural and which are behavioral about the entry of an independent, United States’ remedy benefits urban miss the important larger point. The facilities-based mobile wireless network customers at the expense of rural ones overall objective of the remedy is operator with the incentive and ability illustrate why entry of the proposed profoundly structural, as it is designed to compete with the other national Final Judgment is in the public interest. to stand up a fourth nationwide, carriers. DISH has agreed to acquire The Economics Professors argue that facilities-based wireless carrier. The ‘‘even if one were to credit’’ (as the FCC mechanisms for doing so begin 85 Although Mr. Wool takes issue with the 80 proposed Final Judgment’s condition requiring the now has ) the claimed benefit from the immediately with a structural merged firm to extend existing MVNO agreements, merger of ‘‘enhanced 5G deployment in divestiture to prevent the consolidation he simultaneously argues (1) that the condition is otherwise unprofitable-to-deploy of Sprint’s prepaid business into T- too behavioral, and (2) that the condition does not neighborhoods,’’ these ‘‘largely rural Mobile’s, and the non-structural do enough to protect future innovation. Wool Comment (Exhibit 32) at 3–4 & n.8. By relying on households are distinct from those elements of the proposed Final existing agreements, the condition as written does urban and suburban households that Judgment are largely aimed at enabling not require regular, ongoing oversight by the United likely will incur a price increase on 4G DISH to begin providing wireless States. In contrast, additional intervention to services resulting from the merger.’’ 81 In control the merged firm’s conduct with respect to services to consumers immediately, to other MVNOs in the future would have required turn, Andrew Afflerbach, the engineer further involvement by the United States in the whose declaration was submitted along 82 Afflerbach Dec. ¶ 51. marketplace. with the CWA comments, observes that 83 See CWA Comment (Exhibit 10) at 10–12, 23. 86 2004 Remedies Guide at 18. Cf. ‘‘Assistant 84 Id.; see also Wool Comment (Exhibit 32) at 2, Attorney General Makan Delrahim Delivers Keynote Address at American Bar Association’s Antitrust 76 RWA Comment (Exhibit 24) at 14. 3. Based on his skepticism, Mr. Wool asserts that the proposed Final Judgment ‘‘dramatically Fall Forum’’ (Nov. 16, 2017) (stating the Antitrust 77 Economics Professors Comment (Exhibit 12) at reinterprets the risk-allocation framework intended Division would accept behavioral remedies ‘‘where 11. by Section 7 of the Clayton Act.’’ Wool Comment an unlawful vertical transaction generates 78 CWA Comment (Exhibit 10) at 3. at 1. This argument disregards the principle that significant efficiencies that cannot be achieved 79 See Competitive Impact Statement (Dkt. No. 20) ‘‘[a] district court must accord due respect to the without the merger or through a structural at 11–12. government’s prediction as to the effect of proposed remedy’’), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/ 80 See FCC Order ¶¶ 257–76 (explaining the remedies, its perception of the market structure, speech/assistant-attorney-general-makan-delrahim- benefits of the merger for consumers in rural areas). and its view of the nature of the case.’’ United delivers-keynote-address-american-bar. 81 Economics Professors Comment (Exhibit 12) States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 272 87 2004 Remedies Guide at 18–19. ¶ 11. F.Supp.2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003). 88 Id. at 22.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61651

Sprint’s prepaid businesses for $1.4 noted, the Remedies Guide states that remedy, DISH will bring spectrum (that billion and Sprint’s 800 MHz spectrum transitional behavioral remedies are it currently has no obligation to build for $3.6 billion, and it has the option to appropriate for ensuring the out in this way) into service as a mobile acquire cell sites and retail locations effectiveness of structural relief.89 In broadband 5G service that will serve from the merged firm. Other aspects of keeping with that principle, the Final consumers across the country. With a the proposed Final Judgment are Judgment submitted by the United proposed merger that promises public intended to ensure that these States and adopted by Judge Boasberg in benefits in the form of stronger 5G divestitures (and DISH’s entry into the United States v. Bayer contained competition and expanding output, it is mobile wireless market more generally) substantial divestitures to ensure a long- consistent with the Antitrust Division’s are successful. Several of these term structural solution, along with announced policies to craft this provisions are akin to the examples of shorter-term behavioral relief including settlement in a way that protects those appropriate conditions set forth in the supply agreements with the possibility efficiencies, increases output further Remedies Guide. The Full MVNO of extension for up to a total of six through the choice of divestiture buyer, Agreement will require T-Mobile to years.90 while still guarding against competitive supply DISH with network access on a More fundamentally, the remedies harm. transitional basis. This will allow DISH here are consistent with longstanding Moreover, the proposed Final to enter the market immediately, guidance that the remedy must be Judgment contains substantial providing for MVNO-based competition tailored to the particular facts of the monitoring and enforcement while DISH works to deploy network industry at hand.91 Here, building a mechanisms. These mechanisms will facilities. DISH’s network buildout mobile wireless network takes several operate in parallel with the ongoing obligations will ensure that this years. That fact alone does not bar the regulatory oversight that the FCC will transition proceeds in a timely manner. adoption of appropriate remedies, and perform to ensure compliance with its The temporary prohibition on T-Mobile the remedy here necessarily and own conditions.93 The United States rehiring employees from the divested appropriately reflects that fundamental will be moving this Court to appoint a business will assist DISH in maintaining fact in the interim and final buildout monitoring trustee with the power and the personnel required to compete timelines and the overall term of the authority to investigate and report on effectively. decree. The timelines also account for the Defendants’ compliance with the The proposed Final Judgment in this the ongoing transition from 4G to 5G, terms of the Final Judgment and the case also fits within the second which ultimately will permit DISH to Stipulation and Order during the circumstance that the Remedies Guide put into service a new, greenfield 5G pendency of the divestiture. The describes as an appropriate context for wireless network unencumbered by monitoring trustee will help ensure, behavioral relief—at least in the short older technology. This is consistent among other things, that T-Mobile term. The merger promises to yield with guidance that the remedy be complies with its obligations relating to significant efficiencies by enabling T- tailored to the specific characteristics of its sale of the Divestiture Assets, the Mobile to offer 5G mobile wireless the divestiture buyer.92 With this exclusive-option requirements for cell services more cost-effectively. These sites and retail store locations, and efficiencies would not be realized if the 89 2004 Remedies Guide Section III.E.1 (‘‘Limited DISH’s progress toward using the conduct relief can be useful in certain merger were blocked or if T-Mobile Divestiture Assets to operate a retail were required immediately to divest all circumstances to help perfect structural relief.’’). 90 mobile wireless network. of Sprint’s existing infrastructure. Final Judgment, United States v. Bayer AG, No. 18–cv–1241, at 22–23, 24, 25 (D.D.C. Feb. 08, 2019). The United States retains and reserves Further, T-Mobile’s network buildout 91 2004 Remedies Guide at 2 (encouraging the all rights to enforce the provisions of the obligations and associated penalties Division to ‘‘[f]ocus[ ] carefully on the specific facts proposed Final Judgment, including its provide additional incentives to ensure of the case at hand’’ to ‘‘permit the adoption of rights to seek an order of contempt from that the merged firm will invest in a remedies specifically tailored to the competitive the Court. Defendants have agreed that robust 5G network that becomes harm,’’ and noting that ‘‘there must be a significant nexus between the proposed transaction, the nature in any civil contempt action, any available to consumers quickly. These of the competitive harm, and the proposed remedial motion to show cause, or any similar efficiencies will work in combination provisions’’). CWA pulls quotations from the 2004 action brought by the United States with the new competitive threat posed Remedies Guide that it believes call into question regarding an alleged violation of the by DISH to offset any further harm that the proposed remedy here. CWA Comment (Exhibit 10) at 4–11, 13, 19. As discussed in this section, the may arise from the transaction. By the Final Judgment, the United States may United States vigorously disputes the notion that establish the violation and the time the proposed Final Judgment the proposed Final Judgment is at bottom expires, and likely sooner, DISH will inconsistent with the Antitrust Division’s own appropriateness of any remedy by a provide a fourth nationwide retail guidance. CWA simply ignores the Remedies Guide preponderance of the evidence and that provisions discussed in this section that explain mobile wireless option for American Defendants have waived any argument why this remedy is in keeping with Division policy, that a different standard of proof should consumers, and neither the Antitrust and it also ignores the stated purpose of the Guide Division nor this Court will need to itself. The Guide ‘‘is a policy document, not a maintain ongoing entanglements with practice handbook,’’ it does not list or give merger is removing a uniquely-positioned maverick, ‘‘particular language or provisions that should be the divestiture would likely have to be to a firm the company’s business. Including a included in any given decree,’’ but instead it ‘‘sets with maverick-like interests and incentives’’); id. at transitional period in which certain forth the policy considerations that should guide 5 (noting that ‘‘assessing the competitive strength of behavioral conditions are present, Division attorneys and economists when fashioning a firm purchasing divested assets requires more however, will ensure that consumers get remedies for anticompetitive mergers.’’ 2004 analysis than simply attributing to this purchaser the immediate benefits expected from Remedies Guide at 1–2. As called for by its own past sales associated with those assets’’). Guide, and as explained in this Response to 93 See, e.g., FCC Order ¶ 204 (‘‘The Boost the merger without risking Comments, in arriving at this proposed Final Divestiture Conditions also provide for strong anticompetitive harm. Judgment the Antitrust Division has applied ‘‘the Commission oversight to ensure the effectiveness of These goals are consistent with the pertinent economic and legal principles, these principles to ensure New Boost is a position on behavioral remedies appropriate analytical framework, and relevant meaningful competitor.’’); id. ¶ 378 (‘‘DISH legal limitations’’ to ‘‘craft and implement the continues to be subject to all of the Commission’s expressed in the 2004 Remedies Guide proper remedy for the case at hand.’’ Id. at 2. other enforcement and regulatory powers, including and with the enforcement decisions 92 See 2004 Remedies Guide at 31 n.43 (noting the loss of part or all of any of its licenses for failing made by the Antitrust Division. As that ‘‘if harmful coordination is feared because the to meet its build-out requirements.’’).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61652 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

apply.94 This provision aligns the D. Other Comments Opposing Entry of organization’s overall policies, and standard for compliance obligations the Proposed Final Judgment whether the agency has enough resources to undertake the action.’’ 105 with the standard of proof that applies 1. Comments Regarding Harms Outside Thus, public comments that criticize the to the underlying offense that the the Scope of the Complaint compliance commitments address. Complaint for taking too narrow a scope Defendants also agree that they may be Some commenters raise harms that or that point to a broader set of practices are outside the scope of the complaint held in contempt of this Court for failing that they also would have liked the filed in this case, and they propose to comply with any provision of the government to challenge have no remedies to address those harms. These bearing on the public interest inquiry proposed Final Judgment that is stated comments extend beyond the specifically and in reasonable detail, as currently before the Court. permissible scope of the Tunney Act For example, RWA and NTCH both interpreted in light of the goal of the review.100 A few commenters, claiming proposed Final Judgment to restore express concern about the impact of the to rely on a recent opinion interpreting merger on roaming services. RWA states competition that would otherwise be the Tunney Act, urge this Court to that ‘‘[t]he elimination of Sprint and the permanently harmed by the merger.95 101 engage in a broader inquiry. That entry of Dish will mean the nation will The United States may also apply to opinion, however, agreed that the Court go without a fourth wholesale or the Court for a one-time extension of the cannot evaluate claims beyond those nationwide domestic roaming 102 Final Judgment, together with other raised in the complaint. To the extent alternative to compete against AT&T, relief as may be appropriate, if the Court that commenters read that opinion—and Verizon, and New T-Mobile for an finds in an enforcement proceeding that encourage this Court to apply that extended period of time.’’ 106 Likewise, Defendants have violated the terms of opinion—in a way that would permit NTCH asserts that ‘‘[t]he FCC has largely the decree.96 In addition, in any this Court to evaluate legal theories, ignored the growing crisis in the data competitive effects, or claims that the successful effort by the United States to roaming market,’’ and alleges that data United States chose not to bring, it enforce the Final Judgment against a roaming rates that exist today ‘‘amount would violate the Constitution. The D.C. to a denial of roaming service to [ ] small Defendant, whether litigated or resolved Circuit recognized this fact in Microsoft before litigation, Defendants will carriers and their subscribers in when holding that district courts are violation of Sections 201(b) and 202(a) reimburse the United States for ‘‘barred from reaching beyond the attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, and other of the Communications Act of 1934, as complaint to examine practices the amended.’’ 107 costs incurred in connection with any 103 government did not challenge.’’ The Complaint, however, does not enforcement effort, including the Reading the Tunney Act in a way that investigation of the potential allege that the merger will eliminate allows courts to second-guess the competition in a market for roaming violation.97 United States’ exercise of prosecutorial services, or that it will impact roaming Finally, although the Final Judgment discretion would violate separation-of- rates. RWA attempts to tie its concern to is set to expire seven years from the date powers principles, and contravene the a paragraph in the Complaint that of its entry,98 the United States may file guidance that courts should ‘‘not pertains solely to the elimination of an action against a Defendant for construe [a] statute in a manner that ‘‘[c]ompetition between Sprint and T- violating the Final Judgment for up to renders it vulnerable to constitutional Mobile to sell mobile wireless service to 104 four years after the Final Judgment has challenge.’’ Put directly, ‘‘any agency MVNOs.’’ 108 This paragraph does not expired or been terminated.99 This with limited resources and an allege harm to rural facilities-based provision is meant to address investigative mission has the power, mobile wireless carriers that purchase absent an express statute to the contrary, circumstances such as when evidence roaming services. RWA and NTCH are to assess a complaint to determine that a violation of the Final Judgment free to advocate their positions on this whether its resources are best spent on issue to the FCC, and both did so in this occurred during the term of the Final the violation, whether the agency is Judgment is not discovered until after proceeding.109 Given that these likely to succeed, whether the concerns are outside the scope of this the Final Judgment has expired or been enforcement requested fits the terminated or when there is not proceeding, the Court should not factor them into its public interest evaluation. sufficient time for the United States to 100 See supra § III. For the same reason, the Court should complete an investigation of an alleged 101 E.g., Economics Professors Comment (Exhibit violation until after the Final Judgment 12) at 3; AAI Comment (Exhibit 2) at 13. reject NTCH’s proposed new conditions, 102 which it claims are designed to address has expired or been terminated. This United States v. CVS Health Corp., No. 18– 2340, 2019 WL 4194925, at *5 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2019) these alleged harms.110 provision thus makes clear that the (‘‘Courts cannot, of course, ‘force the government to Similarly, Voqal—a coalition of 2.5 United States may still challenge a make [a] claim.’ The Government, alone, chooses which causes of action to allege in its complaint.’’ GHz spectrum licensees—claims that violation that occurred during the Final the merger will cause T-Mobile’s Judgment’s term, for four years after it (citation omitted)). 103 Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460; see also Heckler v. spectrum holdings to exceed a expired or was terminated. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985) (citing Article II, ‘‘spectrum screen’’ that has been Section 3 of the Constitution for the proposition that the decision about what claims to bring ‘‘has 94 PFJ § XVIII(A). 105 Caldwell v. Kagan, 865 F. Supp. 2d 35, 44 long been regarded as the special province of the 95 Id. § XVIII(B). (D.D.C. 2012). Executive Branch’’); United States v. Fokker Servs., 96 106 Id. § XVIII(C). 818 F.3d 733, 738 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (recognizing the RWA Comment (Exhibit 24) at 11. 97 Id. ‘‘long-settled understandings about the 107 NTCH Comment (Exhibit 20) at 7–8. 98 Id. § XIX. The Final Judgment may be independence of the Executive with regard to 108 RWA Comment (Exhibit 24) at 11 (citing terminated after five years from the date of its entry charging decisions). Complaint ¶ 22). upon notice by the United States to the Court and 104 Rothe Dev., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 836 F.3d 109 See FCC Order ¶ 297 (concluding that Defendants that the divestitures have been 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 2016); cf. Maryland v. United concerns raised by RWA, NTCH, and others completed and that the continuation of the Final States, 460 U.S. 1001, 1003–06 (1983) (Rehnquist, regarding the impact of the transaction on roaming Judgment is no longer necessary or in the public J., dissenting) (noting concerns about the ability to rates were adequately addressed by existing FCC interest. Id. formulate judicially manageable standards for the regulations). 99 Id. § XVIII(D). Tunney Act inquiry). 110 NTCH Comment (Exhibit 20) at 16–20.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61653

applied by the FCC in certain past Nevertheless, the Economics Professors Second, when the protections of the merger reviews.111 They further allege and others argue that this does not proposed Final Judgment expire, that New T-Mobile will have ‘‘buyer sufficiently address potential harm that MVNOs will not be limited to market power in the 2.5 GHz band.’’ 112 could arise from the loss of competition purchasing wholesale service from Voqal proposes new, self-designed between T-Mobile and Sprint in AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile. By that divestitures of 2.5 GHz spectrum that providing wholesale mobile wireless point, DISH will have constructed a they claim would alleviate their services to MVNOs.117 They claim that mobile wireless network that could concerns.113 The question of whether future competition between the firms serve as an alternative host network for and in what manner a regulatory could yield even better rates and terms MVNOs.120 Indeed, as a new entrant ‘‘spectrum screen’’ should apply to this than those in the existing agreements, untethered to legacy business models, transaction is not before the Court.114 and that MVNOs will have no DISH may be especially willing to Moreover, the Complaint does not allege protection once the proposed Final partner with innovative MVNOs. Thus, a relevant market consisting of 2.5 GHz Judgment expires. Neither of these the Department believes that the spectrum, nor does it allege that the arguments warrants finding that this proposed Final Judgment provides merger would cause T-Mobile to acquire portion of the proposed Final Judgment sufficient protections to address the ‘‘buyer market power’’ in such a is not in the public interest. narrow wholesale-related harm alleged market.115 Thus, the Court should not First, T-Mobile and Sprint have both in the Complaint. factor these claims into its public been selling wholesale services to 3. Comments Regarding Other interest determination, and it should MVNOs for many years, and the rates Regulatory Matters reject Voqal’s proposal for new and terms in existing MVNO agreements divestitures to be added to the proposed are what have resulted from this NTCH claims that DISH could lose Final Judgment under review.116 competition. These terms will remain in some of its wireless licenses in the place for the duration of the proposed future, and if this were to occur, DISH 2. Comments Regarding Services Final Judgment, and the commenters would be unable to construct a network Provided to MVNOs cite no support for their prediction that that satisfies the provisions of the The proposed Final Judgment requires maintaining this same level of proposed Final Judgment.121 It argues the merged firm to extend T-Mobile’s competition would have yielded terms that DISH’s licenses could be revoked and Sprint’s existing MVNO agreements that are better than these. Moreover, by for one of two reasons, but neither for the term of the proposed Final increasing the capacity of T-Mobile’s provides a credible basis to reject the Judgment, subject to certain conditions. network and reducing its cost of decree. providing service to MVNOs who need First, NTCH argues that ‘‘it is possible 111 Voqal Comment (Exhibit 30) at 7–9. to compete against DISH, the merger that the FCC may deny’’ DISH’s request 112 Id. at 10. and proposed Final Judgment may for an extension of the upcoming 113 Id. at 12–14. construction deadlines for its AWS–4 114 combine to increase T-Mobile’s This question was addressed directly by the 122 FCC, which found that, although its spectrum incentive to provide wholesale service and H Block licenses. NTCH argues screen was triggered in much of the nation, the to MVNOs.118 The Economics Professors that, in the event of such a denial, DISH transaction should be approved because of its fail to account for this effect.119 would likely fail to meet its future potential to increase spectrum utilization and construction deadlines for these accelerate the deployment of 5G networks. See FCC 117 Order ¶¶ 97–99. Economics Professors Comment (Exhibit 12) at licenses, which could result in forfeiture 4, 9–11; see also Wool Comment (Exhibit 32) at 3. 115 The FCC also declined to define such a of the licenses. The FCC, however, has As an initial matter, the Economics Professors are market. See id. ¶ 64 (declining to ‘‘define a separate incorrect in claiming that ‘‘the DOJ’s Complaint product market for the sale or lease of 2.5 GHz spells out harms in two markets: The wholesale stand DISH up as an MVNO. Economics Professors spectrum’’). Comment (Exhibit 12) at 2–3. Later, in going on to 116 market and the retail market.’’ Economics Voqal proposes that T-Mobile be required to Professors Comment (Exhibit 12) at 3. The attack the settlement for not doing more to help divest certain 2.5 GHz licenses because, it claims, Complaint alleges only one relevant product MVNOs, the comment champions the competitive no other spectrum bands are sufficient substitutes market: the market for retail mobile wireless benefits that MVNOs provide, including allowing for the deployment of 5G mobile wireless services. services. See Complaint ¶ 14. The Complaint does carriers in effect to offer the same service at See Voqal Comment at 6–7, 12–14. The FCC has contain one paragraph alleging that ‘‘competition different price points under a different brand, and rejected this view and is actively working to make between Sprint and T-Mobile to sell mobile enabling cable companies to compete in wireless. additional mid-band spectrum available for 5G. FCC wireless service wholesale to MVNOs has benefited Economics Professors Comment (Exhibit 12) at 4. In Order ¶¶ 99, 110; see also In re Promoting consumers by furthering innovation’’ and that fact, while observing that by ‘‘bundl[ing] wireless Investment in the 3550–3700 MHz Band, Notice of ‘‘[t]he merger’s elimination of this competition offerings with other products like broadband and Proposed Rulemaking and Order Terminating likely would reduce future innovation.’’ Complaint pay television, cable companies such as Comcast Petition, 32 FCC Rcd 8071, ¶ 2 (2017) (‘‘[I]t has ¶ 22. It does not, however, allege the existence of and Charter have competed aggressively on price,’’ become increasingly apparent that the 3.5 GHz a distinct wholesale market. To the extent that the id., the comments overlook that this is precisely one Band will play a significant role as one of the core concerns expressed by the Economics Professors are of the benefits DISH will be able to provide mid-range bands for 5G network deployments premised on the existence of such a market, they consumers. See Chris Welch, The Verge, ‘‘Dish throughout the world. . . . In the two years since are outside the scope of the Complaint. See, e.g., loses more satellite TV customers as it embarks on the Commission first adopted rules for this Economics Professors Comment (Exhibit 12) at 4 a mobile future’’ (July 29, 2019) (‘‘Like other ‘innovation band,’ it has authorized service in other (calculating an HHI for ‘‘the national wholesale carriers, you can count on Dish combining its video bands that also will be critical to 5G deployment, and mobile products. A Sling TV and Dish Mobile and we are currently evaluating additional bands market’’ and arguing that there is a ‘‘presumption bundle is all but guaranteed.’’), https:// for 5G use.’’); In re Expanding Flexible Use of the of enhanced market power’’). See also FCC Order www.theverge.com/2019/7/29/20746191/dish-q2- 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, Order and Notice of Proposed ¶ 63 (declining to define ‘‘a separate product market 2019-earnings-mobile-carrier-plans-sling-tv-5g. The Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 6915, ¶ 1 (2018) (‘‘Today, for wholesale service offerings’’). 118 remedy thus creates an innovative MVNO we seek to identify potential opportunities for See FCC Order ¶ 290 (‘‘New T-Mobile’s vastly immediately, and further establishes DISH as a additional terrestrial use—particularly for wireless increased network capacity will likely give it likely future wholesale network provider. broadband services—of 500 megahertz of mid-band incentives to offer appealing terms and reasonable 120 spectrum between 3.7–4.2 GHz.... Today’s prices to wholesale service customers so as to put See FCC Order ¶ 292 (explaining that the action is another step in the Commission’s efforts that capacity to productive use by carrying as much proposed Final Judgment ‘‘would enable DISH to to close the digital divide by providing wireless revenue-generating traffic as it can.’’). emerge as a nationwide facilities-based provider broadband connectivity across the nation and to 119 More generally, the Economics Professors that would be capable of supplying, among other secure U.S. leadership in the next generation of Comment (Exhibit 12) is internally contradictory on things, robust wholesale wireless services to wireless services, including fifth-generation (5G) the influence of MVNOs in the marketplace. On the MVNOs.’’). wireless, Internet of Things (IoT), and other one hand, to attack the settlement the comment 121 NTCH Comment (Exhibit 20) at 11–15. advanced spectrum-based services.’’). dismisses any benefit from the divestitures that will 122 Id. at 11.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61654 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

concluded that granting these FCC to provide Northstar and SNR United States, and the Department of extensions would be in the public Wireless an opportunity to cure the Justice can resolve the dispute at its interest, and accordingly, has directed violation by amending its agreements ‘‘sole discretion’’ or at its sole discretion the relevant bureau of the agency to do with DISH.129 These efforts are ongoing. ‘‘after consultation with the affected so.123 Significantly, the D.C. Circuit went out Plaintiff States.’’ 134 Additionally, Second, NTCH contends that it might of its way to note that the FCC’s finding should any disputes be brought before prevail in its pending appeals of certain that DISH exercised de facto control the Court, the Final Judgment provides FCC orders that enabled DISH’s ‘‘does not compel a finding that the standards for resolving disputes over purchase of the H Block spectrum and applicants lacked candor.’’ 130 It also interpretation of any such terms. This is granted DISH the ability to use the emphasized that the FCC explicitly said accomplished both by reference to the AWS–4 spectrum to offer mobile that SNR and Northstar appropriately purpose of the decree ‘‘to give full effect wireless service.124 NTCH argues that disclosed their relationships with DISH, to the procompetitive purposes of the ‘‘reversal of the FCC’s license grants that no other auction participant was antitrust laws,’’ and by empowering the would doom this entire DISH-to-the- harmed by their conduct, and that no Court to enforce any provision of the rescue plan to failure.’’ 125 NTCH failed, evidence showed that SNR and Final Judgment, as ‘‘interpreted by the however, in its opposition of these Northstar ‘‘colluded with one another in Court in light of these procompetitive orders at the FCC, and there is no reason violation of federal antitrust laws.’’ 131 principles and in applying ordinary to believe that NTCH will prevail in its Without wading into the merits of that tools of interpretation,’’ to terms that are appeals. As the FCC and the United ongoing matter, the United States rejects ‘‘stated specifically and in reasonable States have explained in that litigation, CWA’s contention that this should detail, whether or not [they are] clear NTCH lacks standing to bring several of disqualify DISH from being a divestiture and unambiguous on [their] face.’’ 135 these challenges, and even if NTCH buyer here. were found to have standing, its E. Comments Regarding Procedural arguments for why the FCC should not 4. Other Negative Comments Aspects of This Review have adopted the orders at issue lack CWA objects that the proposed Final 1. Sufficiency of the Filings 126 Judgment ‘‘uses open-ended, vague and merit. In any event, it would be Mr. Bellemare argues that the ambiguous language with reference to improper for the Court to deny entry of ‘‘materials published in the Federal defendants’ obligations and/or the time the proposed Final Judgment on the Register do not allow meaningful public within which certain actions must be basis of a pending appeal in a separate comments.’’ 136 He asserts that the taken,’’ and that such language is matter whose outcome is uncertain. United States was required to include Separately, CWA argues that DISH is ‘‘deeply problematic’’ in a court additional information in its filings, not fit to be a divestiture buyer because order.132 Such terminology, however, is such as ‘‘pre- and post-merger levels of of the existence of a dispute between not unusual and has been present in concentration (Herfindahl-Hirschman DISH and the FCC over a past spectrum final judgments previously approved Index) (HHI); increase in HHI numbers auction.127 The referenced dispute arose under the Tunney Act.133 Moreover, the as a result of the merger; exact pre- and from the FCC’s auction of so-called Final Judgment minimizes any post- merger market shares of all entities AWS–3 spectrum. In that auction, two enforceability risks by providing for in the relevant market; trend toward entities (Northstar and SNR Wireless) resolution of any disputes that may arise concentration (or recent acquisitions)’’ purchased spectrum licenses using without the need to involve this Court. as well as ‘‘substantial information . . . bidding credits intended for use by For example, if there is no agreement on regulatory or nonregulatory entry small businesses. The FCC subsequently (regardless of the reason), the barriers in the relevant market.’’ 137 Mr. found that Northstar and SNR Wireless monitoring trustee will report to the Bellemare does not identify a source for were ineligible for the bidding credits his claim that these categories of they used because they were under the 129 Id. at 1043–46. information are required, and for good de facto control of DISH and therefore 130 Id. at 1028. 131 reason—neither the Tunney Act itself were not small businesses. Accordingly, Id. 132 nor the caselaw interpreting the Act the FCC revoked the credits and CWA Comment (Exhibit 10) at 21, 22. 133 See, e.g., Final Judgment, United States v. identifies such requirements. Under the imposed a fine. After Northstar and SNR Bayer AG, No. 18–cv–1241, at 19 (D.D.C. Feb. 08, Tunney Act, the United States must file Wireless appealed the FCC’s order, the 2019) (‘‘The divestitures shall be accomplished so a Competitive Impact Statement that U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, recites ‘‘(1) the nature and purpose of Columbia Circuit found that the FCC that none of the terms of any agreement between BASF and Bayer and Monsanto give Bayer and the proceeding; (2) a description of the had reasonably interpreted its rules but Monsanto the ability unreasonably to raise BASF’s practices or events giving rise to the had not provided sufficient notice of its costs, to lower BASF’s efficiency, or otherwise to alleged violation of the antitrust laws; interpretation.128 Thus, it ordered the interfere in the ability of BASF to compete effectively.’’); id. at 26 (‘‘The terms and conditions (3) an explanation of the proposal for a

123 of all agreements reached between Bayer and BASF consent judgment, including an See FCC Order ¶ 365. under Paragraph IV(G) must be acceptable to the 124 explanation of any unusual NTCH Comment (Exhibit 20) at 14–15. United States, in its sole discretion.’’); id. (‘‘Bayer 125 Id. at 15. shall perform all duties and provide all services circumstances giving rise to such 126 See Corrected Brief for Respondent/Appellee required of Bayer under the agreements reached proposal or any provision contained and Respondent, NTCH, Inc. v. Fed. Commc’ns between Bayer and BASF under Paragraph JV(G).’’). therein, relief to be obtained thereby, Comm’n, Nos. 18–1241 & 18–1242 (D.C. Cir. Mar. See also US Airways Final Judgment at 12 28, 2019). (requiring divestiture to be ‘‘accomplished so as to 134 See PFJ § IV.A.4. 127 CWA Comment (Exhibit 10) at 18–19. satisfy the United States in its sole discretion, in 135 PFJ § Section XVIII.B. Another commenter 128 See SNR Wireless LicenseCo, LLC v. Fed. consultation with the Plaintiff States, that none of Commc’ns Comm’n, 868 F.3d 1021, 1024–25 (D.C. the terms of any agreement between an Acquirer(s) expressed general opposition to the proposed Cir. 2017) (summarizing the background of the case and Defendants gives Defendants the ability remedy but did not provide a sufficient basis for his and the court’s opinion). In discussing de facto unreasonably to raise the Acquirer’s costs, to lower concern to allow the United States to respond. See control, the D.C. Circuit noted that while ‘‘the the Acquirer’s efficiency, or otherwise to interfere Hasten Comment (Exhibit 15) (‘‘No! No! No! No! question of whether one business exercises de jure in the ability of the Acquirer(s) to effectively No! You don’t need me to tell you the reasons control over another is binary, the highly contextual compete.’’); id. at 13 (‘‘Defendants shall use their why.’’). question of de facto control is a matter of degree.’’ best efforts to assist the Divestiture Trustee in 136 Bellemare Comment (Exhibit 6) at 1. Id. at 1026. accomplishing the required divestiture.’’). 137 Bellemare Comment (Exhibit 6) at 7–8.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61655

and the anticipated effects on thus delaying the date by which DISH this intent, courts routinely make competition of such relief; (4) the can begin offering mobile wireless Tunney Act determinations on the basis remedies available to potential private service to the public. In addition, the of only the Competitive Impact plaintiffs damaged by the alleged Department has a broader interest in Statement, comments filed by the violation in the event that such proposal ensuring that its proposed settlements public, and the response filed by the for the consent judgment is entered in are entered in an efficient manner. Department.148 With the benefit of the such proceeding; (5) a description of the Jeopardizing this ability would require Department’s Competitive Impact procedures available for modification of the Department to devote resources to Statement in this proceeding, the such proposal; and (6) a description and matters it has decided to settle rather comments filed, and this response, the evaluation of alternatives to such than matters it has not.143 For its part, Court now has before it a record proposal actually considered by the DISH has an interest in prompt entry of sufficient to support a public interest United States.’’ 138 The Competitive the proposed Final Judgment because of determination.149 Impact Statement filed in this case its fixed-date network deployment F. Comments Supporting Entry of the amply satisfies these requirements.139 deadlines. The proposed Final Judgment requires DISH to reach certain Proposed Final Judgment 2. Comments Regarding the Timing of milestones by June 14, 2023, and This Review Several commenters stated that delaying the Court’s consideration of the although they believe the settlement is Some commenters seek to delay this proposed Final Judgment would shorten unnecessary, they nevertheless endorse Court’s proceedings until after the the time available to DISH to comply entry of the proposed Final Judgment. conclusion of the litigation initiated by with this requirement.144 Scott Wallsten of the Technology Policy a group of state attorneys general in the Second, contrary to these Institute refers to an earlier analysis he 145 Southern District of New York commenters’ claims, the Court need conducted that concluded the empirical (‘‘S.D.N.Y. Litigation’’). AAI asks the not allow third parties to file ‘‘new or evidence was mixed as to whether 4-to- Court to ‘‘defer a public interest supplementary’’ comments after 3 mergers ‘‘necessarily harm’’ determination and keep the public conclusion of the S.D.N.Y. Litigation. consumers, but that also ‘‘identified comment period open pending a final Much of the record developed in the areas in which the merger might pose judgment in the States’ challenge to the S.D.N.Y. Litigation will pertain to the some concerns.’’ 150 Mr. Wallsten goes proposed transaction.’’ 140 Similarly, merits of the states’ Section 7 challenge on to state that, ‘‘[t]aken together, the Public Knowledge et al. ‘‘request[s] that and thus will not be relevant here. Some DOJ conditions address the concerns by of that evidence will also pertain to the DOJ ask the court to wait to decide aiming to lock in existing MVNO legal claims that the United States did whether to accept its proposed consent agreements while lowering the barriers not assert. Considering these claims decree until the pending state to entry by a facilities-based carrier enforcement action to block this merger would violate separation-of-powers 151 146 (DISH).’’ Mr. Wallsten observes that 141 principles. Even as to evidence that is resolved.’’ These commenters these conditions ‘‘appear designed to could arguably be relevant, the United assert that this approach would impose reduce the chances of consumer harm in States will not have participated in the no hardship on the merging parties and the areas otherwise most likely to be creation of that record, and it would would be in the best interests of both affected while allowing the New T- violate fundamental principles of the Department and the public. They Mobile to retain sufficient assets to procedural fairness to rely on such claim that this approach would be compete with AT&T and Verizon.’’ 152 appropriate because it would allow for evidence. Third, adopting the proposed delay Mr. Wallsten states that these ‘‘remedies a more comprehensive public comment lower the barriers to DISH’s entry into process and would promote the efficient would not promote the efficient use of judicial resources. When it passed the mobile cellular,’’ and that ‘‘[l]owering use of judicial resources. As discussed Tunney Act, Congress expressed its the cost of entry also increases the below (and in greater detail in the intent for courts making public interest chances DISH will enter the market, United States’s Response to States’ determinations to ‘‘adduce the thereby increasing competitive pressure Motion to File Brief as Amici Curiae necessary information through the least on the New T-Mobile (and other (‘‘Response to States’ Brief’’) filed with complicated and least time-consuming incumbents) from the threat of new this Court on October 23, 2019), AAI’s 153 means possible.’’ 147 Consistent with entry.’’ After noting that, ‘‘[f]or the assertions are incorrect. longer run, the DOJ also proposes to First, delay would prejudice the 143 See Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459 (noting in an reduce barriers to entry into facilities- public interest, the Department, and appeal of a Tunney Act decision that ‘‘a settlement, based provision for DISH,’’ Mr. Wallsten DISH. As the Department explained in particularly of a major case, will allow the concludes that ‘‘the conditions its Response to States’ Brief, T-Mobile’s Department of Justice to reallocate necessarily limited resources’’); see also Heckler, 470 U.S. at proposed by the DOJ are a reasonable obligation to begin preparing its 831 (explaining that ‘‘an agency’s decision not to approach to managing potential network for DISH subscribers is prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or concerns.’’ 154 triggered by entry of the proposed Final criminal process, is a decision generally committed 142 to an agency’s absolute discretion’’ because the Judgment. No useful purpose would 148 agency must consider, among other things, See supra Section III. be served by delaying this process and ‘‘whether agency resources are best spent on this 149 For this reason, the Court should also reject violation or another’’). Public Knowledge et al.’s unsupported request for 138 15 U.S.C. 16(b)(1)–(6). 144 See PFJ § VIII.A. an evidentiary hearing. See Public Knowledge et al. 139 Mr. Bellemare also points to the standards that 145 AAI Comment (Exhibit 2) at 12–13. Comment (Exhibit 22) at 4. 150 apply to motions to dismiss and motions for 146 See Heckler, 470 U.S. at 832 (noting that the Wallsten Comment (Exhibit 25) at 1. summary judgment under the Federal Rules. See decision about which claims to bring ‘‘has long 151 Id. at 1–2 (citing, inter alia, the divestiture of Bellemare Comment (Exhibit 6) at 2, 8. Those been regarded as the special province of the Sprint’s prepaid businesses, the MVNO agreement standards have no bearing on this proceeding. Executive Branch’’); Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 ‘‘to ensure [DISH] is able to sell a competitive 140 AAI Comment (Exhibit 2) at 11. (noting that district courts engaging in Tunney Act mobile product,’’ and the extension of all current 141 Public Knowledge et al. Comment (Exhibit 22) review are ‘‘barred from reaching beyond the MVNO agreements). at 4. complaint to examine practices the government did 152 Id. 142 See PFJ § IV.A.1; Response to States’ Brief at not challenge’’). 153 Id. at 5. 7–8. 147 S. Rep. No. 93–298, at 6 (1973). 154 Id. at 6.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61656 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

Similarly, Randolph May and Seth The United States construes these went so far as to withdraw from the Cooper of the Free State Foundation submissions 160 as comments in favor of S.D.N.Y. Litigation and enter an state that, while they ‘‘do not entry of the proposed Final Judgment. agreement with T-Mobile that relies on specifically endorse or oppose the Other states besides the Co-Plaintiff the relief obtained by the FCC and in proposed merger or the proposed States in this matter have also indicated this proposed Final Judgment.162 The settlement,’’ they believe there is their support for the proposed Final State of Colorado has now also ‘‘strong evidence’’ that the proposed Judgment. The Attorneys General of withdrawn from the S.D.N.Y. Litigation merger, ‘‘if approved pursuant to the Arizona and New Mexico have also and has requested to join as a plaintiff proposed settlement, would be in the expressed their support for this in this action.163 public interest.’’ 155 And the Enterprise settlement.161 The State of Mississippi Finally, the Attorneys General of Utah Wireless Alliance states that it supports and Arkansas filed a comment in this the merger because it ‘‘would promote ‘‘Comments of TechFreedom’’ filed with the FCC on proceeding stating that they ‘‘have Sept. 17, 2018). TechFreedom states that it agrees studied—and agree with—the competition in the nationwide with the analysis in the ICLE report discussed in commercial wireless marketplace and the text above, and that while it believes the remedy conclusions in the DOJ’s Competitive accelerate the deployment of a 5G measures ‘‘actually go too far,’’ it ‘‘believes that the Impact Statement.’’ 164 In their view, the network covering much of the quickest path to bringing forth the benefits of the proposed settlement ‘‘contains a merger is for the court to approve the merger as population including substantial agreed.’’ Id. See also Competitive Enterprise powerful divestiture component’’ and expansions in coverage to rural areas,’’ Institute Comment (Exhibit 11) at 1, 5, 7 (after will ‘‘greatly increase the probability and that it also ‘‘supports the stating the proposed merger ‘‘more-than passes that Dish will become a successful and introduction of DISH as a potential muster’’ under the DOJ/FTC horizontal merger significant fourth competitor in the deadlines, discusses the benefits of T-Mobile’s 165 fourth national wireless carrier’’ through commitments to the FCC and ‘‘respectfully market.’’ They conclude that ‘‘the the consent decree.156 encourage[s] DOJ to accept the proposed settlement embodied in the proposed A number of other commenters settlement’’). Final Judgment is in the public interest, expressed support for the merger 160 See also National Puerto Rican Chamber of mitigates the potential harms that the generally, without specifically Commerce Comment (Exhibit 19) (asking DOJ to ‘‘approve the merger to help Puerto Rico expedite merger could otherwise have created, commenting on the settlement. For its [hurricane] recovery and grow its economy’’); and offers benefits to rural communities example, several scholars affiliated with Overland Park Chamber of Commerce Comment while maximizing output and consumer the International Center for Law & (Exhibit 21) (‘‘we support approval of the proposed choice for all Americans.’’ 166 Economics submitted a letter along with merger’’); Vermont Telephone Co. Comment (Exhibit 28) (‘‘Rural America has so much to gain VI. Conclusion their recent report that ‘‘reviews 18 from this [merger], and so much to lose if it does empirical analyses in the last five years not go forward’’); Viaero Wireless Comment After careful consideration of the that study the effects of changes in (Exhibit 29) (the merger ‘‘will directly benefit public comments, the United States consumers and rural carriers like Viaero’’); Center continues to believe that the proposed market concentration (such as by for Individual Freedom Comment (Exhibit 9) (CFIF merger) in the wireless and its supporters ‘‘urge swift approval of the Final Judgment, as drafted, provides an telecommunications industry.’’ 157 proposed merger’’); Greater Kansas City Chamber of effective and appropriate remedy for the These scholars express the view that the Commerce Comment (Exhibit 14) (writing to antitrust violations alleged in the ‘‘express the KC Chamber’s support’’ for the Complaint, and is therefore in the divestiture package ‘‘is likely merger); National Diversity Coalition Comment unnecessary to ensure that the market (Exhibit 17) (stating it is ‘‘one of many organizations public interest. The United States will remains competitive.’’ 158 Nevertheless, that support the merger’’); Asian Business move this Court to enter the proposed and ‘‘regardless’’ of the proposed Association Comment (Exhibit 4) (stating ‘‘our Final Judgment after the comments and believe that this merger has the potential to greatly remedy, the scholars state that they benefit everyone in America’’); Williamson this response are published as required ‘‘believe that the DOJ was correct.’’ 159 Comment (Exhibit 31) (‘‘I strongly support the T- by 15 U.S.C. 16(d). Mobile-Sprint merger and am hopeful that the 155 May & Cooper Comment (Exhibit 23) at 1. Department of Justice will approve the Merger.’’); Balderas%E2%80%99_Statement_on_the_ Americans for Tax Reform Comment (Exhibit 3) at _ _ _ _ 156 EWA Comment (Exhibit 13) at 1. Two Department of Justice%E2%80%99s Announced 1 (‘‘I urge the Department of Justice to approve the _ _ _ _ additional commenters explain that, after their Agreement on T mobileSprint Merger.pdf. merger.’’); CalAsian Chamber of Commerce initial concerns were satisfied by negotiating 162 See ‘‘AG Hood Settles Concerns on T-Mobile- Comment (Exhibit 7) (‘‘We have been outspoken in Sprint Merger, Increases Services Available for additional relief directly with T-Mobile, they now our support for the merger of T-Mobile with Sprint Mississippians’’ (Oct. 9, 2019), available at https:// also support entry of the proposed Final Judgment. . . . .’’); Members of the United States House of www.ago.state.ms.us/releases/ag-hood-settles- See California Emerging Technology Fund Representatives Comment (Exhibit 27) (Oct. 10, concerns-on-t-mobile-sprint-merger-increases- Comment (Exhibit 8) at 1–2 (after becoming a legal 2019 letter resubmits ‘‘in support of the proposed services-available-for-mississippians/; Letter party in proceedings before the California Public Final Judgment’’ Jan. 25, 2019 letter sent to the FCC Agreement, ‘‘T-Mobile and Sprint Pledged Utilities Commission and negotiating a and the DOJ ‘‘to express our support for, and Commitments in Mississippi’’ (‘‘Mississippi Letter Memorandum of Understanding ‘‘that provides encourage your prompt consideration of, the Agreement’’) available at http:// unprecedented public benefits for California proposed merger of T-Mobile U.S., Inc. and Sprint www.ago.state.ms.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ consumers, especially the digitally-disadvantaged,’’ Corporation.’’). states that the ‘‘subsequent commitments secured 161 MS-T-Mobile-agreement-executed.pdf. See ‘‘Attorney General Brnovich Statement on 163 by DOJ ensure that there is increased competition DOJ-T-Mobile/Sprint Merger Settlement’’ (stating See Consent Motion for Leave to File Third and additional choices for all U.S. consumers’’); ‘‘the divestiture, the FCC commitments, and PFJ Amended Complaint (Oct. 28, 2019), Dkt. No. 40; National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators provide Dish the realistic ability to become a see also ‘‘Attorney General’s Office Secures 2,000 Comment (Exhibit 18) at 1, 4 (after securing competitive and fourth facilities-based wireless Jobs, Statewide 5G Network Deployment Under ‘‘commitments regarding deployment and hiring’’ carrier’’ and that the PFJ ‘‘also facilitates Dish’s Agreements with Dish, T-Mobile’’ (Oct. 21, 2019), through an ‘‘extensive Memorandum of ability to exercise its option to acquire the spectrum https://coag.gov/press-releases/attorney-generals- Understanding’’ between T-Mobile and the National assets, cell sites, and retail assets to establish itself office-secures-2000-jobs-statewide-5g-network- Diversity Coalition, supports the DOJ’s proposed as a viable competitor in the retail mobile wireless deployment-under-agreements-with-dish-t-mobile- settlement because it ‘‘addresses some residual services market’’), available at https:// 10-21-19/. concerns we had previously identified’’). www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general- 164 Utah/Arkansas Comment (Exhibit 5) at 1. 157 ICLE Report at 2. brnovich-statement-doj-t-mobilesprint-merger- 165 Id. at 2 (citing the ‘‘multifaceted and detailed 158 Id. settlement; ‘‘AG Balderas’ Statement on the nature’’ of the Divestiture Assets, DISH’s 159 Id. at 1–2. Similarly, Tech Freedom filed Department of Justice’s Announced Agreement on willingness to be bound as a party, provisions ‘‘comments in support of the proposed Final T-Mobile/Sprint Merger,’’ July 26, 2019 (the AG is allowing for DOJ and FCC verification, ‘‘all backed Judgment and Stipulation and Order’’ and ‘‘urge[s] ‘‘pleased’’ by the settlement), available at https:// by the potential of significant monetary penalties the Court to approve these Measures.’’ www.nmag.gov/uploads/PressRelease/ for non-compliance’’). TechFreedom Letter (Exhibit 26) at 1 (also attaching 48737699ae174b30ac51a7eb286e661f/AG_ 166 Id. at 3.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61657

Dated: November 6, 2019. LLC, Arlington, VA, have been added as Submit written comments about, or Respectfully submitted, parties to this venture. requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail lllllllllllllllllllll Also, Avionics Test & Analysis or courier to the U.S. Department of Frederick S. Young, Corporation, Niceville, FL; Veritech, Labor, Office of Workers’ Compensation Matthew R. Jones, LLC, Glendale, AZ; and Bascom Hunter Program, Division of Coal Mine U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Technologies, Inc., Baton Rouge, LA, Workers’ Compensation, Room S3323, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 4100, have withdrawn as parties from this 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 307–2869, venture. Washington, DC 20210; by email: [email protected]. No other changes have been made in [email protected]. [FR Doc. 2019–24642 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] either the membership or planned FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE 4410–11–P activity of the group research project. Contact Anjanette Suggs by telephone at Membership in this group research 202–354–9660 or by email at project remains open, and NSC intends [email protected]. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE to file additional written notifications SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DOL, disclosing all changes in membership. as part of continuing efforts to reduce Antitrust Division On September 24, 2014, NSC filed its paperwork and respondent burden, original notification pursuant to Section conducts a pre-clearance consultation Notice Pursuant to the National 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Cooperative Research and Production program to provide the general public Justice published a notice in the Federal and Federal agencies an opportunity to Act of 1993—National Spectrum Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Consortium comment on proposed and/or Act on November 4, 2014 (79 FR 65424). continuing collections of information The last notification was filed with Notice is hereby given that, on before submitting them to the OMB for the Department on August 13, 2019. A October 23, 2019, pursuant to Section final approval. This program helps to notice was published in the Federal 6(a) of the National Cooperative ensure requested data can be provided Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Research and Production Act of 1993, in the desired format, reporting burden Act on September 13, 2019 (84 FR 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), (time and financial resources) is 48377). National Spectrum Consortium (‘‘NSC’’) minimized, collection instruments are has filed written notifications Suzanne Morris, clearly understood, and the impact of simultaneously with the Attorney Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, collection requirements can be properly General and the Federal Trade Antitrust Division. assessed. Commission disclosing changes in its [FR Doc. 2019–24605 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] The Black Lung Benefits Act (the Act), membership. The notifications were BILLING CODE 4410–11–P 30 U.S.C. 901–944, requires coal mine filed for the purpose of extending the operators to be insured (either by Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of qualifying as a self-insurer or obtaining antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages DEPARTMENT OF LABOR commercial insurance) for liabilities under specified circumstances. arising from the Act; failure to do so Specifically, Parallel Wireless, Inc., Office of the Assistant Secretary for may result in civil money penalties. 30 Nashua, NH; Concurrent Technologies Administration and Management U.S.C. 933. Accordingly, 20 CFR part V, Corporation, Johnstown, PA; Aether Agency Information Collection subpart C, 726.208–.213 requires Argus Inc., Atlanta, GA; Selex Galileo Activities; Comment Request; Request insurance carriers to report to the Inc., Arlington, VA; NEC Corporation of for State or Federal Workers’ Division of Coal Mine Workers’ America, Irving, TX; A10 Systems LLC, Compensation Information Compensation (DCMWC) each policy Chelmsford, MA; The Kenjya-Trusant and endorsement issued, cancelled, or Group, LLC, Columbia, MD; iPosi Inc., ACTION: Notice. renewed with respect to operators in Denver, CO; Intel Federal LLC, Fairfax, such a manner and on such form as VA; Old Dominion University Research SUMMARY: The Department of Labor DCMWC may require. These regulations Foundation, Norfolk, VA; Starry, Inc., (DOL) is soliciting comments also require carriers to file a separate Boston, MA; QuayChain, Inc., San concerning a proposed extension for the report for each operator it insures. Pedro, CA; Wind Talker Innovations authority to conduct the information Carriers use Form CM–921, Notice of Inc., Fife, WA; Ewing Engineered collection request (ICR) titled, ‘‘Notice Issuance of Insurance Policy, to report Solutions, Allen, TX; Ericsson, Inc., of Issuance of Insurance Policy.’’ This issuance of insurance policies to Plano, TX; AnTrust, Clarksville, MD; comment request is part of continuing operators. This information collection is Novowi LLC, Brookline, MA; Frequency Departmental efforts to reduce currently approved for use through Electronics, Inc., Uniondale, NY; GATR paperwork and respondent burden in November 30, 2019. 30 U.S.C. 901 and Technologies, Huntsville, AL; T-Mobile accordance with the Paperwork 20 CFR 725.535 authorizes this USA Inc., Washington, DC; GreenSight Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). information collection. Agronomics, Inc., Boston, MA; Otava, DATES: Consideration will be given to all This information collection is subject Inc., Moorestown, NJ; William Marsh written comments received by January to the PRA. A Federal agency generally Rice University, Houston, TX; 13, 2020. cannot conduct or sponsor a collection Thinklogical, LLC, Milford, CT; Blue ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with of information, and the public is Danube Systems, Inc., Santa Clara, CA; applicable supporting documentation; generally not required to respond to an MixComm, Inc., Chatham, NJ; American including a description of the likely information collection, unless the OMB Systems Corporation, Chantilly, VA; respondents, proposed frequency of under the PRA approves it and displays University of Oklahoma, Normon, OK; responses, and estimated total burden a currently valid OMB Control Number. Qubitekk, Inc., Bakerfield, CA; may be obtained free by contacting In addition, notwithstanding any other LocatorX, Inc., Suwanne, GA; Anjanette Suggs by telephone at 202– provisions of law, no person shall Technology Unlimited Group, San 354–9660 or by email at generally be subject to penalty for Diego, CA; and Synoptic Engineering, [email protected]. failing to comply with a collection of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61658 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

information that does not display a Authority: 30 U.S.C. 901 and 20 CFR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Annual valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 725.535. reporting to the Internal Revenue 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. Anjanette Suggs, Service (IRS), the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), and Interested parties are encouraged to Agency Clearance Officer. the Pension Benefit Guaranty provide comments to the contact shown [FR Doc. 2019–24620 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] in the ADDRESSES section. Written Corporation (PBGC) is required by law BILLING CODE 4510–CK–P comments will receive consideration, for most employee benefit plans. For and summarized and included in the example, section 4065 of the Employee request for OMB approval of the final Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ICR. In order to help ensure appropriate PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY (ERISA) requires annual reporting to consideration, comments should CORPORATION PBGC for pension plans covered by title mention 1240–0048. IV of ERISA. To accommodate these Submitted comments will also be a Submission of Information Collection filing requirements, IRS, EBSA and matter of public record for this ICR and for OMB Review; Comment Request; PBGC have jointly promulgated the posted on the internet, without Annual Reporting (Form 5500 Series) Form 5500 Series, which includes the redaction. The DOL encourages Form 5500 Annual Return/Report of AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Employee Benefit Plan and the Form commenters not to include personally Corporation. identifiable information, confidential 5500–SF Short Form Annual Return/ business data, or other sensitive ACTION: Notice of request for extension Report of Small Employee Benefit Plan. PBGC is proposing modifications to statements/information in any of OMB approval, with modifications. the 2020 Schedule R (Retirement Plan comments. SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Information) and its related instructions. The DOL is particularly interested in Corporation (PBGC) is requesting that Schedule R is part of the Form 5500 comments that: the Office of Management and Budget Series. The proposed modifications to • Evaluate whether the proposed (OMB) extend approval, with Schedule R affect multiemployer collection of information is necessary modifications, under the Paperwork defined benefit plans covered by title IV for the proper performance of the Reduction Act of 1995, of its collection of ERISA. PBGC also is proposing minor functions of the agency, including of information for Annual Reporting. modifications to the Form 5500 Series to whether the information will have This notice informs the public of improve the accuracy of reported practical utility. PBGC’s request and solicits public information. The modifications are • Evaluate the accuracy of the comment on the collection. described in greater detail in the agency’s estimate of the burden of the DATES: Comments must be submitted by supporting statement submitted to OMB proposed collection of information, December 13, 2019. with this information collection, along including the validity of the ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to with PBGC’s rationale for each methodology and assumptions used. the Office of Information and Regulatory modification. • Section 103(f)(2)(C) of ERISA requires Enhance the quality, utility, and Affairs, Office of Management and that a multiemployer defined benefit clarity of the information to be Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for plan include in its annual report, ‘‘[t]he collected; and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, number of participants under the plan • Minimize the burden of the via electronic mail at OIRA_ on whose behalf no contributions were collection of information on those who [email protected] or by fax to made by an employer as an employer of are to respond, including through the (202) 395–6974. the participant for such plan year and use of appropriate automated, A copy of the request will be posted electronic, mechanical, or other for each of the 2 preceding plan years.’’ on PBGC’s website at: https:// Line 14a of Schedule R requires the plan technological collection techniques or www.pbgc.gov/prac/laws-and- other forms of information technology, to report the inactive participant counts regulations/information-collections- for the current plan year’s filing. Lines e.g., permitting electronic submission of under-omb-review. It may also be responses. 14b and 14c require the plan to report obtained without charge by writing to the inactive participant counts for the Agency: DOL–OWCP. the Disclosure Division of the Office of previous two respective plan years. Type of Review: Extension. the General Counsel of PBGC, 1200 K PBGC has found a majority of plans that Title of Collection: Notice of Issuance Street NW, Washington, DC 20005– are required to report do not provide of Insurance Policy. 4026; faxing a request to 202–326–4042; accurate information on line 14 of Form: Notice of Issuance of Insurance or, calling 202–326–4040 during normal Schedule R. Policy, CM–921. business hours (TTY users may call the The current instructions for line 14 OMB Control Number: 1240–0048. Federal Relay Service toll-free at 800– require multiemployer plans to count 877–8339 and ask to be connected to Affected Public: Federal government, inactive participants using the last 202–326–4040). The Disclosure Division State, Local, or Tribal Government. contributing employer counting method. will email, fax, or mail the information Under the last contributing employer Estimated Number of Respondents: to you, as you request. 3,450. method, a plan counts only those FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: inactive participants whose last Frequency: Annually. Karen Levin ([email protected]), contributing employer withdrew from Total Estimated Annual Responses: Attorney, Regulatory Affairs Division, the plan by the beginning of the relevant 3,450. Office of the General Counsel, Pension plan year for which the Form 5500 Estimated Average Time per Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K relates. The plan does not count any Response: 1 minute. Street NW, Washington, DC 20005– inactive participants whose employers Estimated Total Annual Burden 4026, 202 229–3559. TTY users may call had not withdrawn from the plan. Hours: 58 hours. the Federal Relay Service toll-free at PBGC is proposing to modify Total Estimated Annual Other Cost 800–877–8339 and ask to be connected Schedule R to provide multiemployer Burden: $0. to 202–229–3559. plans with a choice of the last

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61659

contributing employer counting method the plan’s approximation method, in support of the collection of and two other proposed counting including a description of the data and information. PBGC is requesting that methods: The alternative method and a breakdown describing the number of OMB extend approval of the collection, the reasonable approximation method. clearly identified inactive participants with modifications, for three years. An PBGC anticipates that providing plans and the number of estimated inactive agency may not conduct or sponsor, and with three available counting methods participants. a person is not required to respond to, will allow each plan to choose the PBGC is also proposing that when a a collection of information unless it counting method that will be most plan reports a number on line 14b or displays a currently valid OMB control accurate and least burdensome for the 14c that differs from the number it number. reported for the plan year immediately plan to count its inactive participants. PBGC estimates that it will receive preceding the current plan year, it Under the alternative method, a plan approximately 24,800 Form 5500 and would be required to submit an would count only those inactive Form 5500–SF filings per year under attachment with an explanation of the participants whose last contributing this collection of information. PBGC reason for the change. employer and all prior contributing Both attachments will provide PBGC further estimates that the total annual employers had withdrawn from the plan with data to be used in its Pension burden of this collection of information by the beginning of the relevant plan Insurance Modeling System (PIMS). for PBGC will be 1,200 hours and year. Under this method, the plan PBGC’s evaluation of the data submitted $1,664,000. would review the list of all contributing in the attachments will allow PBGC to Issued in Washington, DC, by employers (employers that had not review the integrity of the data. PBGC Hilary Duke, withdrawn from the plan by the estimates that the proposed changes beginning of the relevant plan year), and Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory would have an offsetting effect and Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty include on Line 14 only those inactive would not change the hour or cost Corporation. participants who had no covered service burden for the Schedule R. [FR Doc. 2019–24619 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] with any of these employers. The existing collection of information BILLING CODE 7709–02–P Under the reasonable approximation was approved under OMB control method, a plan that is unable to use the number 1212–0057 (expires January 31, other two counting methods must make 2022). On August 20, 2019, PBGC a reasonable, good faith effort to count published in the Federal Register (at 84 POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION inactive participants to satisfy the FR 43189) a notice informing the public requirements of section 103(f)(2)(C) of of its intent to request an extension of Notice Initiating Docket(s) for Recent ERISA. The plan would also be required this collection of information, as Postal Service Negotiated Service to provide an attachment that explains modified. PBGC received one comment Agreement Filings

Docket No.

Competitive Product Prices, Priority Mail Contract 473, (MC2019–12), Negotiated Service Agreements ...... CP2019–12 Competitive Product Prices, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contracts, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Serv- MC2020–21 ice, Contract 125. Competitive Product Prices, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service, Contract 125 (MC2020–21), Negotiated Service CP2020–20 Agreements. Competitive Product Prices, Priority Mail Contracts, Priority Mail Contract 559 ...... MC2020–22 Competitive Product Prices, Priority Mail Contract 559, (MC2020–22), Negotiated Service Agreements ...... CP2020–21

Issued November 7, 2019. proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 (Public Representative). Section II also CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) I. Introduction establishes comment deadline(s) that the Postal Service states concern The Commission gives notice that the pertaining to each request. competitive product(s), applicable Postal Service filed request(s) for the The public portions of the Postal statutory and regulatory requirements Commission to consider matters related Service’s request(s) can be accessed via include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, to negotiated service agreement(s). The the Commission’s website (http:// 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and request(s) may propose the addition or www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment removal of a negotiated service the Postal Service’s request(s), if any, deadline(s) for each request appear in agreement from the market dominant or can be accessed through compliance section II. with the requirements of 39 CFR the competitive product list, or the II. Docketed Proceeding(s) modification of an existing product 3007.301.1 currently appearing on the market The Commission invites comments on 1. Docket No(s).: CP2019–12; Filing dominant or the competitive product whether the Postal Service’s request(s) Title: USPS Notice of Amendment to list. in the captioned docket(s) are consistent Priority Mail Contract 473, Filed Under Section II identifies the docket with the policies of title 39. For Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: November number(s) associated with each Postal request(s) that the Postal Service states 6, 2019; Filing Authority: 39 CFR Service request, the title of each Postal concern market dominant product(s), 3015.5; Public Representative: Kenneth Service request, the request’s acceptance applicable statutory and regulatory R. Moeller; Comments Due: November date, and the authority cited by the requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 15, 2019. Postal Service for each request. For each 2. Docket No(s).: MC2020–21 and 1 See Docket No. RM2018–3, Order Adopting request, the Commission appoints an Final Rules Relating to Non-Public Information, CP2020–20; Filing Title: USPS Request officer of the Commission to represent June 27, 2018, Attachment A at 19–22 (Order No. to Add Priority Mail & First-Class the interests of the general public in the 4679). Package Service Contract 125 to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61660 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

Competitive Product List and Notice of POSTAL SERVICE restate the MSRB’s August 2, 2012 Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing interpretive notice concerning the Acceptance Date: November 6, 2019; Product Change—Priority Mail application of MSRB Rule G–17 to Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR Negotiated Service Agreement underwriters of municipal securities (the ‘‘2012 Interpretive Notice’’).3 The 3020.30 et seq., and 39 CFR 3015.5; AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. Public Representative: Kenneth R. original proposed rule change was ACTION: Notice. Moeller; Comments Due: November 15, published for comment in the Federal Register on August 9, 2019.4 2019. SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives The Commission received three notice of filing a request with the Postal 3. Docket No(s).: MC2020–22 and comment letters in response to the Regulatory Commission to add a CP2020–21; Filing Title: USPS Request original proposed rule change.5 On domestic shipping services contract to to Add Priority Mail Contract 559 to September 10, 2019, the MSRB granted the list of Negotiated Service Competitive Product List and Notice of an extension of time for the Commission Agreements in the Mail Classification Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing to act on the filing until November 7, Schedule’s Competitive Products List. Acceptance Date: November 6, 2019; 2019. On October 7, 2019, the MSRB Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR DATES: Date of required notice: responded to the comments 6 and filed 3020.30 et seq., and 39 CFR 3015.5; November 13, 2019. Amendment No. 1 to the original Public Representative: Kenneth R. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: proposed rule change (‘‘Amendment No. Moeller; Comments Due: November 15, Sean Robinson, 202–268–8405. 1’’).7 The Commission published notice 2019. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The of Amendment No. 1 in the Federal This Notice will be published in the United States Postal Service® hereby Register on October 15, 2019.8 In Federal Register. gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. response to Amendment No. 1, the 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 6, Commission received three comment Darcie S. Tokioka, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory letters.9 On October 31, 2019, the MSRB Acting Secretary. Commission a USPS Request to Add submitted a response to comments [FR Doc. 2019–24646 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Priority Mail Contract 559 to received on Amendment No. 1 10 and BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket 3 The 2012 Interpretive Notice was approved by the SEC on May 4, 2012 and became effective on Nos. MC2020–22, CP2020–21. August 2, 2012. See Release No. 34–66927 (May 4, Sean Robinson, 2012); 77 FR 27509 (May 10, 2012) (File No. SR– POSTAL SERVICE MSRB–2011–09); and MSRB Notice 2012–25 (May Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. 7, 2012). The 2012 Interpretive Notice is available Product Change—Priority Mail and [FR Doc. 2019–24606 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] here. 4 Exchange Act Release No. 86572 (Aug. 5, 2019), BILLING CODE 7710–12–P First-Class Package Service 84 FR 39646 (Aug. 9, 2019) (‘‘Notice of Filing’’). The Negotiated Service Agreement comment period closed on August 30, 2019. 5 See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Tamara K. Salmon, Associate General Counsel, COMMISSION Investment Company Institute dated Aug. 26, 2019 ACTION: Notice. (the ‘‘ICI Letter’’), Letter to Secretary, Commission, [Release No. 34–87478; File No. SR–MSRB– from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and 2019–10] Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives Financial Markets Association, dated August 30, 2019 (the ‘‘First SIFMA Letter’’); Letter to Secretary, notice of filing a request with the Postal Self-Regulatory Organizations; Regulatory Commission to add a Commission, from Susan Gaffney, Executive Municipal Securities Rulemaking Director, National Association of Municipal domestic shipping services contract to Board; Notice of Filing of Amendment Advisors, dated August 30, 2019 (the ‘‘First NAMA the list of Negotiated Service No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Letter’’). 6 Agreements in the Mail Classification Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Gail Schedule’s Competitive Products List. Marshall, Chief Compliance Officer, MSRB, dated as Modified by Amendment No. 1 and October 7, 2019 (the ‘‘First Response Letter’’), DATES: Date of required notice: Amendment No. 2, To Amend and available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr- November 13, 2019. Restate the MSRB’s August 2, 2012 msrb-2019-10/srmsrb201910-6261133-193028.pdf. Interpretive Notice Concerning the 7 Amendment No. 1 is available at http:// msrb.org/∼/media/Files/SEC-Filings/2019/MSRB- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Application of Rule G–17 to Sean Robinson, 202–268–8405. 2019-10-A-1.ashx?. Underwriters of Municipal Securities 8 See Exchange Act Release No. 87255 (October 8, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 2019), 84 FR 55192 (October 15, 2019) (the ‘‘Notice ® November 6, 2019. of Amendment No. 1’’). The comment period closed United States Postal Service hereby on October 29, 2019. gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. I. Introduction 9 See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Susan 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 6, On August 1, 2019, the Municipal Gaffney, Executive Director, National Association of 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Municipal Advisors, dated October 29, 2019 (the Securities Rulemaking Board (the ‘‘Second NAMA Letter’’); Letter to Secretary, Commission a USPS Request to Add ‘‘MSRB’’ or ‘‘Board’’) filed with the Commission, from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Priority Mail & First-Class Package Securities and Exchange Commission Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Service Contract 125 to Competitive (the ‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’), pursuant Industry and Financial Markets Association, dated Product List. Documents are available at October 29, 2019 (the ‘‘Second SIFMA Letter’’); to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Michael www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2020–21, Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’ Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, Bond Dealers of CP2020–20. or ‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 America, dated October 29, 2019 (the ‘‘BDA a proposed rule change (the ‘‘original Letter’’). Sean Robinson, 10 proposed rule change’’) to amend and See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Gail Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. Marshall, Chief Compliance Officer, MSRB, dated October 31, 2019 (the ‘‘Second Response Letter’’ [FR Doc. 2019–24602 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). and, together with the First Response Letter, the BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. ‘‘MSRB Response Letters’’), available at https://

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61661

filed Amendment No. 2 to the original i. Applicability of the Revised 2012 Interpretive Notice, including proposed rule change (‘‘Amendment No. Interpretive Notice to the Continuous certain private placement activities.21 2’’).11 This order approves the original Offering of Municipal Fund Securities The MSRB stated that the proposed rule proposed rule change, as modified by The MSRB noted that the change would incorporate this concept Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. Implementation Guidance makes clear from the Implementation Guidance into 2 (as so modified, the ‘‘proposed rule that the 2012 Interpretive Notice applies the Revised Interpretive Notice with change’’), on an accelerated basis. not only to primary offerings of new certain revisions, as discussed in further issues of municipal bonds and notes by detail in the Notice of Filing and II. Description of Proposed Rule Change an underwriter, but also to a dealer Amendment No. 1.22 Pursuant to Amendment No. 1, the MSRB added As described more fully in the Notice serving as primary distributor (but not language to the Revised Interpretive of Filing, Amendment No. 1, and to dealers serving solely as selling Notice clarifying that the disclosures Amendment No. 2, the MSRB stated that dealers) in a continuous offering of delivered by an underwriter to an issuer the purpose of the proposed rule change municipal fund securities, such as interests in 529 savings plans.16 In the must not be inaccurate or misleading, is to update and streamline certain original proposed rule change, the and that nothing in the Revised obligations specified in the 2012 MSRB incorporated this concept from Interpretive Notice should be construed Interpretive Notice (the 2012 the Implementation Guidance, adding a as requiring an underwriter to make a Interpretive Notice, so amended by the reference to Achieving a Better Life disclosure to an issuer that is false.23 proposed rule change, is referred to 17 Experience (ABLE) programs. In In addition, the MSRB stated that the herein as the ‘‘Revised Interpretive response to concerns raised in the proposed rule change would update the Notice’’) and, thereby, benefit issuers comments to the original proposed rule 2012 Interpretive Notice by and underwriters of municipal change, the MSRB proposed in incorporating supplemental language securities alike by reducing the burdens Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. into the Revised Interpretive Notice associated with those obligations, 2 to modify the proposed rule change to intended to harmonize it with the including the obligation of underwriters state, ‘‘[t]his notice does not apply to a Commission’s adoption of its permanent to make, and the burden on issuers to dealer acting as a primary distributor in rules regarding the registration and acknowledge and review, written a continuous offering of municipal fund record-keeping requirements applicable 18 disclosures that itemize risks and securities.’’ Thus, the MSRB stated, to municipal advisors, and related conflicts that are unlikely to materialize the original proposed rule change, as exclusions and exceptions, which went during the course of a transaction, not revised by Amendment No. 1 and into effect after the effective date of the unique to a given transaction or a Amendment No. 2, makes clear that the 2012 Interpretive Notice.24 The MSRB particular underwriter where a specific fair dealing duties outlined in stated that it believes that the guidance syndicate is formed, and/or otherwise the proposed rule change—which provided by this harmonizing language articulate the delivery of certain duplicative.12 is in keeping with the existing disclosures at particular times during references included in the 2012 A. Incorporation of Subsequent MSRB the course of an underwriting Interpretive Notice and its guidance Guidance Into Revised Interpretive transaction—would not be applicable to regarding the existence of other relevant Notice the situations of a dealer serving as a or similar legal obligations that could primary distributor in a continuous have a bearing on an underwriter’s fair The MSRB stated that the proposed offering of municipal fund securities.19 dealing obligations under Rule G–17.25 rule change would integrate certain The MSRB noted that Amendment No. concepts (with revisions as described in 1 did not revise the portion of the text iii. Statements Regarding Negotiated the Notice of Filing, Amendment No. 1, of the original proposed rule change Offerings and Defining Negotiated and and Amendment No. 2) from (i) the indicating that the fair dealing Competitive Offerings for Purposes of MSRB’s implementation guidance dated obligations outlined in the interpretive the Revised Interpretive Notice July 18, 2012 concerning the 2012 notice may serve as one of many bases Interpretive Notice (the for dealers acting in a capacity not The MSRB stated that by its terms, and as presently stated in the ‘‘Implementation Guidance’’) 13 and (ii) specifically addressed therein—such as Implementation Guidance, the 2012 the regulatory guidance dated March 25, a dealer serving as a primary distributor Interpretive Notice applies primarily to 2013 answering certain frequently asked in a continuous offering of municipal negotiated offerings of municipal questions regarding the 2012 fund securities—to determine how to establish appropriate policies and securities, with many of its provisions Interpretive Notice (the ‘‘FAQs’’) 14 into procedures for ensuring it meets its fair not applicable to competitive the Revised Interpretive Notice, thereby dealing obligations under Rule G–17.20 offerings.26 The MSRB noted that the consolidating the Implementation Implementation Guidance clarified what Guidance, FAQs, and the Revised ii. Applicability of the Revised constitutes a negotiated offering for Interpretive Notice into a single Interpretive Notice to a Primary Offering purposes of the 2012 Interpretive publication.15 That Is Placed With Investors by a Notice, and the MSRB stated that the Placement Agent proposed rule change would incorporate The MSRB noted that the this language into the Revised www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2019-10/ Implementation Guidance provides that Interpretive Notice.27 srmsrb201910-6381148-197768.pdf. no type of underwriting is wholly 11 Amendment No. 2 is available at http:// excluded from the application of the 21 See Notice of Filing. ∼ msrb.org/ /media/Files/SEC-Filings/2019/MSRB- 22 See Notice of Filing, Amendment No. 1. 2019-10-A-2.ashx?. 16 Id. 23 See Amendment No. 1. 12 See Notice of Filing. 17 Id. 24 See Notice of Filing. 13 See MSRB Notice 2012–38 (July 18, 2012). 18 See Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2. 25 Id. 14 See MSRB Notice 2013–08 (Mar. 25, 2013). 19 See Amendment No. 1. 26 Id. 15 See Notice of Filing. 20 Id. 27 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61662 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

iv. Applicability of the Revised revisions, including the removal of Interpretive Notice with clarifying Interpretive Notice to Persons Other language regarding ‘‘normal course of language regarding the relevance of facts Than Issuers of Municipal Securities business’’ payments that the MSRB discovered during the course of an The MSRB noted that the 2012 believed was redundant, as more fully underwriter’s due diligence, including 33 Interpretive Notice outlines the duties described in the Notice of Filing. diligence related to the transaction that a dealer owes to an issuer of vii. Need for Each Underwriter in a generally or pursuant to an municipal securities when the dealer Syndicate To Deliver Dealer-Specific underwriter’s own determination of underwrites a new issuance, and that Conflicts of Interest When Applicable whether it has any actual material the Implementation Guidance provides conflicts of interest or potential material The MSRB noted that the FAQs that the 2012 Interpretive Notice ‘‘does conflicts of interest.39 Specifically, the clarify what disclosures may be effected not set out the underwriter’s fair dealing Revised Interpretive Notice by a syndicate manager on behalf of co- obligations to other parties involved supplements the existing statement from managing underwriters in the syndicate. with a municipal securities financing, the FAQs with language intended to The MSRB stated that the proposed rule including a conduit borrower.’’ 28 The change would incorporate the relevant clarify that if an underwriter becomes MSRB stated that the proposed rule language from the FAQs into the aware of a fact through the normal change would incorporate the language Revised Interpretive Notice with certain course of its diligence that would lead from the Implementation Guidance into revisions, including the technical it to doubt a representation of an issuer the Revised Interpretive Notice with clarification that such disclosures apply official, such information may rise to conforming revisions, stating ‘‘[t]his to ‘‘actual material conflicts of interest’’ the level of a red flag that would not notice does not set out the underwriter’s and ‘‘potential material conflicts of allow the underwriter to reasonably rely fair-practice duties to other parties to a 40 interest’’ in order to make the on the written representation. municipal securities financing (e.g., statements consistent with related conduit borrowers).’’ 29 x. Statements Regarding an Underwriter amendments in the proposed rule Having a Reasonable Basis for Its v. Statements Regarding Underwriters’ change, as more fully described in the Representations and Other Material Discouragement of the Engagement of a Notice of Filing.34 Information Provided to Issuers Municipal Advisor viii. Statements Regarding the Timing The MSRB noted that the for the Delivery of Certain Disclosures The MSRB noted that the 2012 Implementation Guidance further Interpretive Notice states that The MSRB noted that the clarifies the scope of the prohibition underwriters must ‘‘have a reasonable Implementation Guidance and FAQs included in the 2012 Interpretive basis for representations and other clarify the timing for the delivery of the Notice, affirming that an underwriter material information provided to disclosures under the 2012 Interpretive must not recommend that the issuer not issuers’’ and clarifies that the obligation Notice.35 The MSRB stated that the retain a municipal advisor.30 The MSRB proposed rule change would incorporate ‘‘extends to the reasonableness of stated that the proposed rule change these timing concepts from the assumptions underlying the material would incorporate this concept into the Implementation Guidance and FAQs information being provided,’’ and that Revised Interpretive Notice certain into the Revised Interpretive Notice the Implementation Guidance further revisions, as more fully discussed in the with certain revisions (e.g., by utilizing contextualizes this reasonable basis Notice of Filing, providing that the Revised Interpretive Notice’s standard.41 The MSRB stated that the ‘‘Underwriters also must not defined terms of ‘‘standard disclosure,’’ proposed rule change would incorporate recommend issuers not retain a ‘‘dealer-specific disclosures,’’ and this language from the Implementation municipal advisor. Accordingly, ‘‘transaction-specific disclosures’’).36 Guidance into the Revised Interpretive underwriters may not discourage issuers The MSRB stated that the proposed Notice with certain revisions, including from using a municipal advisor or rule change also would incorporate the removing certain language regarding an otherwise imply that the hiring of a concept that the timelines are defined to underwriter’s use of assumptions, municipal advisor would be redundant ensure that underwriters act promptly to which the MSRB believed was because the sole underwriter or deliver disclosures in light of all the potentially confusing and redundant, as underwriting syndicate can provide the relevant facts and circumstances, but are further described in the Notice of services that a municipal advisor not ‘‘intended to establish strict, hair- Filing.42 would.’’ 31 trigger tripwires resulting in mere technical rule violations.’’ 37 xi. Statements Regarding Whether a vi. Statements Regarding Third-Party Particular Recommended Financing Payments ix. Statements Regarding Whether Structure or Product Is Complex The MSRB noted that the Underwriters May Rely on Certain Implementation Guidance clarifies the Representations of Issuer Officials The MSRB noted that the 2012 obligation of underwriters to disclose The MSRB noted that the FAQs Implementation Guidance contains a certain third-party payments, as well as clarify the circumstances under which description of a ‘‘complex municipal other payments, values or credits an underwriter may rely on the securities financing’’ that is further received by an underwriter.32 The representations of issuer officials.38 The clarified in the Implementation 43 MSRB stated that proposed rule change MSRB stated that the proposed rule Guidance. The MSRB further noted would incorporate the language from change would incorporate this language the 2012 Interpretive Notice then the Implementation Guidance into the from the FAQs into the Revised provides a non-exclusive, illustrative Revised Interpretive Notice, with certain list of examples of new issue structures 33 Id. 28 Id. 34 Id. 39 Id. 29 Id. 35 Id. 40 Id. 30 Id. 36 Id. 41 Id. 31 Id. 37 Id. 42 Id. 32 Id. 38 Id. 43 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61663

that constitute a complex municipal original sale by the underwriter to the the original proposed rule change would securities financing.44 investor), constitute a violation of the obligate only the syndicate manager 55 The MSRB stated that the proposed underwriter’s fair dealing obligation of a syndicate—or sole underwriter, as rule change would incorporate this under Rule G–17.’’ 50 The MSRB stated the case may be—to make the standard language from the Implementation that the proposed rule change would disclosures and transaction-specific Guidance into the Revised Interpretive incorporate into the Revised Interpretive disclosures and would eliminate any Notice with conforming revisions and Notice additional language from the obligation of other co-managing an update to the illustrative, non- Implementation Guidance, which reads, underwriters in the syndicate to make exclusive list of interest rate in relevant part, ‘‘[u]nderwriters should the standard disclosures and benchmarks to include the Secured be mindful that, depending on the facts transaction-specific disclosures.56 In Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR).45 The and circumstances, such an arrangement response to concerns raised in the MSRB stated that it believes this edit is may be inferred from a purposeful but comments to the original proposed rule a necessary update to ensure that the not otherwise justified pattern of change, the MSRB proposed in Revised Interpretive Notice would transactions or other course of action, Amendment No. 1 to modify the reflect current market practices.46 even without the existence of a formal original proposed rule change to state 51 xii. Statements Regarding the Specificity written agreement.’’ that the underwriter making a recommendation to an issuer regarding of Disclosures B. Amending the Nature, Timing, and a financing structure or product, Manner of Disclosures The MSRB noted that the 2012 including, when applicable, a Complex Interpretive Notice provides that an The MSRB stated that the proposed Municipal Securities Financing underwriter of a negotiated issue that rule change would define certain Recommendation,57 has the fair dealing recommends a complex municipal categories of underwriter disclosures obligation to deliver the applicable securities transaction or product to an and assign the responsibility for the transaction-specific disclosures.58 issuer has an obligation to disclose all delivery of certain disclosures to the Consequently, the MSRB stated, financial material risks known to the syndicate manager in circumstances pursuant to Amendment No. 1, when underwriter and reasonably foreseeable where a syndicate is formed, as the syndicate manager (or any other at the time of the disclosure, financial described below and as further underwriter in the syndicate) is not the characteristics, incentives, and conflicts described in the Notice of Filing and underwriter making the of interest regarding the transaction or Amendment No. 1.52 recommendation of a financing product.47 The MSRB further noted that structure or product to the issuer, such the Implementation Guidance provided i. Definitions of Certain Categories of Underwriter Disclosures underwriter does not have a fair dealing clarification and additional guidance obligation under the proposed rule with respect to this obligation, as further The MSRB stated that the proposed change to deliver the transaction- described in the Notice of Filing.48 The rule change would define the following specific disclosures with respect to such MSRB stated that the proposed rule terms in order to delineate a dealer’s financing structure or product.59 change would incorporate the language various fair dealing obligations under In addition, the MSRB stated that the from the Implementation Guidance into the Revised Interpretive Notice: proposed rule change provides that any the Revised Interpretive Notice with ‘‘standard disclosures’’ as collectively disclosures delivered by a syndicate certain revisions as further described in referring to the disclosures concerning manager prior to or concurrent with the the Notice of Filing and Amendment the role of an underwriter and an formation of a syndicate would not need No. 1, including the removal of the underwriter’s compensation; ‘‘dealer- to be identified as delivered in the statement regarding how such specific disclosures’’ as collectively capacity of the syndicate manager or disclosures might assist issuers.49 referring to the disclosures concerning otherwise redelivered ‘‘on behalf’’ of the xiii. Statements Regarding Profit an underwriter’s actual material syndicate.60 Sharing Arrangements conflicts of interest and potential The MSRB further noted that, material conflicts of interest; and pursuant to the proposed rule change, The MSRB noted that the 2012 ‘‘transaction-specific disclosures’’ as each member of the syndicate would Interpretive Notice states that, collectively referring to the disclosures remain responsible for ensuring the ‘‘[a]rrangements between the concerning the material aspects of delivery of any dealer-specific underwriter and an investor purchasing financing structures that the disclosures if, but only if, such new issue securities from the underwriter recommends.53 syndicate member had actual material underwriter according to which profits ii. Assignment of Responsibility for the conflicts of interest or potential material realized from the resale by such investor conflicts of interest that must be of the securities are directly or Standard Disclosures and Transaction- disclosed.61 indirectly split or otherwise shared with Specific Disclosures the underwriter also would, depending The MSRB noted that the 2012 iii. Separate Identification of the on the facts and circumstances Interpretive Notice states that a Standard Disclosures (including in particular if such resale syndicate manager is permitted, but not The MSRB noted that the 2012 occurs reasonably close in time to the required, to make the standard Interpretive Notice currently permits the disclosures and the transaction-specific delivery of omnibus disclosure 44 Id. disclosures on behalf of the other documents, in which the standard 45 Id. underwriters in the syndicate.54 The 46 Id. MSRB stated that the amendments in 55 As defined in Exhibit 5 to Amendment No. 2. 47 Id. 56 See Notice of Filing. 48 Id. 50 See Notice of Filing. 57 As defined in Exhibit 5 to Amendment No. 2. 49 See Notice of Filing, Amendment No. 1. See 51 58 also ‘‘Amending the Nature, timing and Manner of Id. See Amendment No. 1. Disclosures—Assignment of responsibility for the 52 See Notice of Filing, Amendment No. 1. 59 Id. Standard Disclosures and Transaction-Specific 53 See Notice of Filing. 60 See Notice of Filing. Disclosures,’’ infra. 54 Id. 61 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61664 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

disclosures need not be separately financing or reasonably would influence any written disclosures on the part of identified from the transaction-specific an issuer to engage in a particular issuer personnel or any other parties to disclosures and dealer-specific complex municipal securities the transaction as part of the standard disclosures.62 The proposed rule change financing.68 disclosures, dealer-specific disclosures, would require the separate or the transaction-specific disclosures.73 v. ‘‘Reasonably Likely’’ Standard for identification and formatting of the Disclosure of Potential Material vii. Disclosures Must Be ‘‘Clear and standard disclosures (i.e., disclosures Conflicts of Interest Concise’’ concerning the role of the underwriter and the underwriter’s compensation) The MSRB noted that the 2012 The MSRB noted that the 2012 from the transaction-specific disclosure Interpretive Notice currently requires Interpretive Notice currently requires and the dealer-specific disclosures.63 the underwriter to disclose to the issuer disclosures to be ‘‘designed to make any actual material conflicts of interest clear to such official the subject matter iv. Meaning of ‘‘Recommendation’’ for and any potential material conflicts of of such disclosures and their Purposes of Disclosures Related to interest, and that the Implementation implications for the issuer.’’ 74 The Complex Municipal Securities Guidance provides guidance as to when MSRB stated that the proposed rule Financings such obligation is triggered.69 The change would provide that an The MSRB noted that the 2012 MSRB stated that these aspects of the underwriter’s disclosures must be Interpretive Notice provides that an 2012 Interpretive Notice would remain delivered in a ‘‘clear and concise’’ underwriter in a negotiated offering that applicable under the Revised manner.75 recommends a complex municipal Interpretive Notice. However, the MSRB securities financing to an issuer must noted, the proposed rule change viii. Definition of Municipal Entity disclose the material financial provides that an underwriter’s potential The MSRB noted that the 2012 characteristics of the complex material conflict of interest must be Interpretive Notice currently provides a municipal securities financing, as well disclosed as part of the dealer-specific definition of ‘‘municipal entity’’ that as the material financial risks of the disclosures if, but only if, the potential references Section 15B(e)(8) under the financing that are known to the material conflict of interest is Exchange Act.76 In light of the underwriter and reasonably foreseeable ‘‘reasonably likely’’ to mature into an Commission’s definition contained in at the time of the disclosure (a ‘‘complex actual material conflict of interest Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1–1 77 and the municipal securities financing during the course of that specific MSRB’s definition of ‘‘municipal entity’’ disclosure’’).64 As the MSRB further transaction.70 The MSRB noted that the as used under Rule G–42, both of which noted, the Implementation Guidance proposed rule change will not diminish were adopted after the publication of provides that the requirement to provide an underwriter’s fair dealing obligation the 2012 Interpretive Notice, the MSRB a complex municipal securities to update, or otherwise supplement, its stated that the proposed rule change financing disclosure is triggered if: the dealer-specific disclosures in would incorporate a specific reference new issue is sold in a negotiated circumstances when a previously to this rule definition, in addition to the offering; the new issue is a complex undisclosed potential conflict of interest general statutory definition, to avoid municipal securities financing; and later ripens into an actual material any confusion about the scope of the such financing was recommended by conflict of interest.71 Revised Interpretive Notice and to the underwriter.65 The MSRB stated that promote harmonization with Exchange vi. Underwriters Are Not Obligated To these aspects of the 2012 Interpretive Act Rule 15Ba1–1 and Rule G–42.78 Provide Written Disclosure of Conflicts Notice would remain applicable under of Other Parties C. Additional Standard Disclosure the Revised Interpretive Notice.66 However, the MSRB noted that the As the MSRB noted, the 2012 Regarding the Engagement of Municipal 2012 Interpretive Notice does not define Interpretive Notice requires Advisors the term ‘‘recommendation’’ for underwriters to provide issuers with The MSRB noted that the 2012 purposes of this requirement.67 The certain standard disclosures, dealer- Interpretive Notice currently requires an MSRB stated that it believes it is specific disclosures, and transaction- underwriter to make five discrete important to provide this clarification to specific disclosures, when and if statements regarding the underwriter’s facilitate dealer compliance with the applicable. By their respective role as part of the standard disclosures, proposed rule change. Therefore, as definitions, the standard disclosures including a disclosure that, ‘‘unlike a further described in the Notice of Filing, cover generic conflicts of interest that municipal advisor, the underwriter does the MSRB stated that the proposed rule could apply to any underwriter in any not have a fiduciary duty to the issuer change would clarify that a underwriting; the dealer-specific under the federal securities laws and is, communication by an underwriter is a disclosures are the actual material therefore, not required by federal law to ‘‘recommendation’’ that triggers the conflicts of interest and potential act in the best interest of the issuer obligation to deliver a complex material conflicts of interest generally without regard to its own or other municipal securities financing unique to a specific underwriter; and interests.’’ 79 The MSRB stated that the disclosure if—given its content, context, the transaction-specific disclosures proposed rule change would incorporate and manner of presentation — the relate to the specific financing structure communication reasonably would be recommended by an underwriter.72 The 73 Id. viewed as a call to action to engage in MSRB stated that the proposed rule 74 Id. a complex municipal securities change would expressly state that 75 Id. underwriters are not required to make 76 Id. 77 See Registration of Municipal Advisors, 62 Id. Release No. 34–70462 (September 20, 2013), 78 FR 63 Id. 68 Id. 67467 (hereinafter, the ‘‘MA Rule Adopting 64 Id. 69 Id. Release’’) (November 12, 2013) (available at http:// 65 Id. 70 Id. www.sec.gov/rules/final/2013/34-70462.pdf). 66 Id. 71 Id. 78 See Notice of Filing. 67 Id. 72 Id. 79 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61665

a new standard disclosure that ‘‘the In the Notice of Filing, the MSRB The MSRB responded that it believes issuer may choose to engage the services stated that it will publish a regulatory there is merit to the commenter’s view of a municipal advisor with a fiduciary notice within 90 days of the publication that the proposed rule change ‘‘should obligation to represent the issuer’s of approval of the proposed rule change provide additional guidance regarding interests in the transaction.’’ 80 in the Federal Register, and such notice its application to underwriters of 529 will specify the compliance date for the plans,’’ but that the MSRB did not D. Permit Email Read Receipt To Serve amendments described in the proposed believe incorporating the specific as Issuer Acknowledgement rule change, which in any case shall be revisions proposed by the commenter The MSRB noted that the 2012 not less than 90 days, nor more than one would be prudent because such Interpretive Notice currently requires year, following the date of the notice revisions may reduce the clarity of the underwriters to attempt to receive establishing such compliance date.85 disclosure obligations applicable to written acknowledgement of receipt by The MSRB is requesting accelerated other underwriters and, thereby, reduce the official of the issuer other than by approval of Amendment No. 1 and the overall clarity of the Revised evidence of automatic email receipt.81 Amendment No. 2.86 Interpretive Notice.94 The MSRB further The MSRB stated that the proposed rule III. Summary of Comments Received stated that it believes that the change would permit an email read and MSRB’s Responses to Comments commenter’s comments regarding the receipt to serve as the issuer’s need to provide more clarity in this acknowledgement under the Revised As noted previously, the Commission regard would be better addressed in an Interpretive Notice.82 The proposed rule received three comment letters in interpretation or other guidance change would define the term ‘‘email response to the Notice of Filing and separately issued under Rule G–17 that read receipt’’ to mean ‘‘an automatic three comment letters in response to more narrowly considers the fair dealing response generated by a recipient issuer Amendment No. 1. The MSRB obligations of dealers serving as primary official confirming that an email has responded to the comment letters on the distributors in a continuous offering of been opened.’’ The MSRB stated that it Notice of Filing in its First Response municipal fund securities.95 87 believes that this proposed change will Letter, and the MSRB responded to the Consequently, rather than not compromise issuer protection, comment letters on Amendment No. 1 incorporating the specific text proposed 88 because the proposed rule change in its Second Response Letter. One by the commenter, the MSRB, in would require the email read receipt to commenter expressed its support for the Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 89 come from an issuer official that is not original proposed rule change and for 2, incorporated a revision to the original 90 party to a conflict, based on the Amendment No. 1. proposed rule change that, the MSRB underwriter’s knowledge, and either has A. Application to Underwriters of stated, would strike the relevant text been specifically identified by the issuer Municipal Fund Securities incorporated from the Implementation Guidance, which, as filed, would clarify to receive such disclosure In the original proposed rule change, the application of the original proposed communications or, in the absence of the MSRB proposed to revise the 2012 rule change to the circumstances of a such specific identification, is an issuer Interpretive Notice to incorporate official who the underwriter reasonably continuous offering of municipal fund existing language from the 96 believes has the authority to bind the Implementation Guidance clarifying the securities. The proposed rule change, issuer by contract with the underwriter. application of the notice ‘‘to a dealer as amended by Amendment No.1 and The MSRB further stated that the serving as a primary distributor (but not Amendment No. 2, would replace this proposed rule change would also clarify to dealers serving solely as selling group language with a statement that ‘‘[t]his that, ‘‘[w]hile an email read receipt may members) in a continuous offering of notice does not apply to a dealer acting generally be an acceptable form of an municipal fund securities, such as as a primary distributor in a continuous issuer’s written acknowledgement under interests in 529 savings plans and offering of municipal fund 97 this notice, an underwriter, may not rely Achieving a Better Life Experience securities.’’ The MSRB further states on such an email read receipt as an (ABLE) programs.’’ 91 In response to the that it intends to make clear that the issuer’s written acknowledgement Notice of Filing, one commenter specific fair practice duties outlined in where such reliance is unreasonable requested that the MSRB revise the the Revised Interpretive Notice under all of the facts and circumstances, original proposed rule change to further articulating the delivery of certain such as where the underwriter is on ‘‘distinguish the disclosure required of disclosures at particular times during notice that the issuer official to whom 529 underwriters from those required of the course of an underwriting the email is addressed has not in fact bond offering underwriters’’ and transaction would not be applicable to received or opened the email.’’ 83 recommended specific revisions in this the situations of a dealer serving as a 92 primary distributor in a continuous E. Other Technical and Conforming regard. For example, the commenter offering of municipal fund securities.98 Amendments requested that the standard disclosures concerning the underwriter’s role under B. Delivery of Complex Municipal The MSRB stated that the proposed the original proposed rule change allow Securities Financing Disclosures rule change would make certain other such disclosures to be amended ‘‘to the technical and conforming changes to the extent applicable to the nature of the In response to the Notice of Filing, proposed rule change, as described in relationship with the issuer.’’ 93 one commenter expressed concern that detail in the Notice of Filing, the text of the original proposed rule Amendment No. 1, and Amendment No. 85 See Notice of Filing. change did not identify ‘‘who needs to 2.84 86 See Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2. provide transaction specific disclosures 87 See First Response Letter. for a swap recommendation if not made 80 Id. 88 See Second Response Letter. 81 Id. 89 See First NAMA Letter. 94 See First Response Letter. 82 Id. 90 See Second NAMA Letter. 95 Id. 83 Id. 91 See Notice of Filing. 96 Id. 84 See Notice of Filing, Amendment No. 1, 92 See ICI Letter. 97 Id. Amendment No. 2. 93 Id. 98 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61666 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

by the syndicate manager or sole of the 2012 Interpretive Notice.105 The because an underwriter’s overarching manager.’’ 99 This commenter MSRB also believes that these revisions fair dealing obligation under Rule G–17 encouraged the MSRB to amend the in Amendment No. 1 will continue to prohibits it from engaging in any original proposed rule change to make reduce the number of duplicative deceptive or dishonest practice.113 clear that ‘‘the duty to provide such disclosures that an issuer receives disclosures should remain with the during the course of a transaction D. Certain Standardized Disclosures for underwriter or dealer providing or involving an underwriting syndicate.106 Complex Municipal Securities recommending the derivatives, even Financing C. Application to Underwriters Serving after a syndicate is formed.’’ 100 The In response to Amendment No. 1, two as Placement Agents commenter stated that commenters raised concerns about the ‘‘recommendations on derivatives In the original proposed rule change, standardized disclosures with respect to require specialized knowledge and . . . the MSRB proposed to revise the 2012 complex municipal securities in this case, the underwriter or dealer Interpretive Notice to incorporate financings.114 One commenter making the recommendation and existing language from the expressed concerns that the proposed otherwise providing the derivative Implementation Guidance that clarifies rule change would create a vague and product be responsible for making the the application of the 2012 Interpretive imprecise standard for determining appropriate transaction-specific Notice to circumstances in which a what is a complex municipal securities disclosures on the material aspects of dealer serves as an agent of an issuer in financing and what kinds of information this financing structure to the the placement of the issuer’s municipal related to the transaction would need to issuer.’’ 101 securities.107 In response to the Notice be disclosed and under what The MSRB stated that it believes that of Filing, one commenter expressed conditions.115 The commenter stated there is merit to this point and agreed concerns regarding this portion of the that underwriters need more precision with the commenter’s suggestion that original proposed rule change.108 The and guidance around this standard in the original proposed rule change commenter encouraged the MSRB to order to implement sound compliance should be amended to clarify in the strike the language in footnote 12 of and consistent disclosures, and urged amended revised interpretive notice Exhibit 5 of the original proposed rule the MSRB to revise this element of the that, except in limited circumstances, change and replace it with language that proposed rule change.116 Another the underwriter making a financing grants dealers the flexibility to omit and commenter stated that its members read recommendation to an issuer has a fair disclaim certain fair dealing disclosures the term ‘‘individualized’’ in the dealing obligation to deliver the when an engagement with an issuer to proposed rule changed to mean that requisite transaction-specific place municipal securities makes such standard or model disclosures are 109 disclosures.102 More specifically, the disclosures not true. Specifically, the designed to be clear, concise and MSRB agreed with the commenter’s commenter requested that the proposed tailored to the specific type or class of view that the duty to provide a complex language in footnote 12 of Exhibit 5 be financing, and not a book of disclosures municipal securities financing replaced with the following statement, relating to all potential types of disclosure generally should remain with ‘‘[i]f the nature of the engagement makes financings, and requested confirmation the dealer ‘‘recommending’’ a financing one or more of the required disclosures from the MSRB that this interpretation structure and/or ‘‘providing’’ a specific not true, then it should be permissible is accurate.117 product within that structure (such as a to omit such disclosures and disclaim The MSRB stated that it generally such in the relevant engagement agrees with the statement that it would derivative product), ‘‘even after the 110 syndicate is formed.’’ 103 letter.’’ be consistent with the current text of the Accordingly, pursuant to Amendment The MSRB stated that it believes there proposed rule change, as well as the No. 1, the MSRB revised the original is merit to the commenter’s concern that intent of the original proposed rule proposed rule change to make clear that: the Revised Interpretive Notice should change, for an underwriter to develop (1) The underwriter making a not be interpreted to require a dealer policies and procedures that provide for recommendation to the issuer regarding serving as an agent to an issuer in the the development and delivery of certain a financing structure has the fair dealing placement of the issuer’s municipal standardized transaction-specific securities to deliver inaccurate obligation to deliver the applicable disclosures for complex municipal disclosures.111 Therefore, the MSRB transaction-specific disclosures, and (2), securities financings for which an proposed in Amendment No. 1, to revise conversely, when the syndicate manager underwriter anticipates commonly the original proposed rule change to (or any other underwriter in the recommending to its issuer clients supplement the existing language with syndicate) is not the underwriter (‘‘Standardized Complex Municipal the following text, ‘‘[a]s a threshold making such a recommendation to the Securities Transaction Disclosures’’).118 matter, the disclosures delivered by an issuer, then such underwriter does not The MSRB further provided that, underwriter to an issuer must not be have a fair dealing obligation under the assuming that the content of such inaccurate or misleading, and nothing in amended revised interpretive notice to Standardized Complex Municipal this notice should be construed as deliver the transaction-specific Securities Transaction Disclosure is (a) 104 requiring an underwriter to make a disclosures. The MSRB stated that it disclosure to an issuer that is false.’’ 112 drafted in a clear and concise manner believes that these revisions in The MSRB stated that it believes this for issuer personnel of both greater and Amendment No. 1 are responsive to this revision to be a clarifying change, lesser degrees of sophistication and (b) comment and are consistent with the otherwise consistent with the goal of the Board’s retrospective review 105 Id. requirements of the Revised Interpretive 106 Id. 99 See First SIFMA Letter. 107 See Notice of Filing. 113 Id. 100 Id. 108 See First SIFMA Letter. 114 See BDA Letter, Second SIFMA Letter. 101 Id. 109 Id. 115 See BDA Letter. 102 See First Response Letter. 110 Id. 116 Id. 103 Id. 111 See First Response Letter. 117 See Second SIFMA Letter. 104 Id. 112 Id. 118 See Second Response Letter.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61667

Notice, the proposed rule change would underwriters or issuers, and requiring currently exist, but is reasonably likely only require the underwriter to tailor different disclosure standards for to ripen into an actual material conflict the content of such Standardized different issuers may have unintended of interest during the course of the Complex Municipal Securities consequences that compromise issuer underwriting transaction, the MSRB Transaction Disclosure to the extent that protections.125 The MSRB stated that stated that it continues to believe that such disclosure did not fully describe the comments do not alter the MSRB’s the municipal securities market is best the material financial features and risks conclusions in this regard.126 served by the underwriter providing advanced notification to the issuer of unique to that particular recommended F. Standard for the Disclosure of the likelihood of such material conflict financing in such a clear and concise Potential Material Conflicts of Interest manner for the issuer personnel of interest, rather than waiting to receiving the disclosure.119 The MSRB In response to the Notice of Filing, disclose the conflict until it has ripened stated that it does not need to amend the and again in response to Amendment into an actual conflict.132 proposed rule change to address this No. 1, two commenters requested that the MSRB amend the original proposed G. Standard Disclosure Regarding the comment because, as outlined in the Engagement of a Municipal Advisor Second Response Letter and as noted by rule change to require only disclosures 127 the commenter, the concept can be of actual conflicts of interest. The In response to the Notice of Filing, reasonably understood from the existing MSRB noted that the 2012 Interpretive and again in response to Amendment language of the amended proposed rule Notice currently requires the No. 1, two commenters requested that change.120 underwriter to disclose to the issuer any the MSRB amend the original proposed In response to the commenter’s actual material conflicts of interest and rule change to eliminate the new concern that the standard for any potential material conflicts of standard disclosure that ‘‘the issuer may determining what is a complex interest, which requirement is triggered choose to engage the services of a municipal securities financing is vague, if: The new issue is sold in a negotiated municipal advisor with a fiduciary the MSRB stated that it previously has underwriting; the matter to be disclosed obligation to represent the issuer’s 133 addressed these concerns in its previous represents a conflict of interest, either in interests in the transaction.’’ One statements.121 reality or potentially; and any such commenter also stated that the Revised actual or potential conflict of interest is Interpretive Notice should make clear E. Tiered Disclosure Requirements material.128 The MSRB stated that these that neither municipal advisors nor Based on Issuer Characteristics aspects of the 2012 Interpretive Notice underwriters may misrepresent the In response to the Notice of Filing, would remain applicable under the services and duties that the other is and again in response to Amendment proposed rule change. However, the permitted to provide.134 The MSRB No. 1, one commenter stated that it proposed rule change would provide reiterated that it believes that this believes that tiered disclosure that an underwriter’s potential material additional disclosure will further clarify requirements may be beneficial to conflict of interest must be disclosed as the distinctions between an issuers and underwriters.122 The part of the dealer-specific disclosures if, underwriter—who is subject to a duty of commenter requested that the MSRB but only if, the potential material fair dealing when providing advice ‘‘provide examples of concrete conflict of interest is ‘‘reasonably likely’’ regarding the issuance of municipal hypotheticals in order to provide clarity to mature into an actual material securities to municipal entities—and a to regulated dealers regarding how the conflict of interest during the course of municipal advisor—who is subject to a content of [the] transaction-based that specific transaction.129 This MSRB federal statutory fiduciary duty when disclosures may potentially vary by further noted that this revision would providing advice regarding the issuance issuer sophistication and still survive reduce a dealer’s burden by narrowing of municipal securities to municipal regulatory scrutiny.’’ 123 the dealer-specific disclosures currently entities—and, thereby, would promote The MSRB noted that the proposed required under the 2012 Interpretive the protection of municipal entity rule change sets out a principles-based Notice from all potential material issuers in accordance with the MSRB’s approach to an underwriter’s fair conflicts to those potential material statutory mandate at a relatively 135 dealing obligation to deliver certain conflicts that meet this more focused minimal burden to underwriters. The disclosures and incorporates existing standard.130 MSRB acknowledged that the additional hypothetical examples from the The MSRB reiterated that, as disclosure would cause underwriters to Implementation Guidance and FAQs.124 indicated in the Notice of Filing, it incur costs associated with revising The MSRB stated that it evaluated believes that the disclosure of material their policies and procedures and formal disclosure tiers and declined to conflicts of interest remains significant delivering the new disclosure in their adopt such tiers or other disclosure to an issuer’s evaluation of the dealer standard disclosures during requirements based on rigid issuer providing underwriting services, which transactions; however, the MSRB concluded that any costs associated classifications in response to prior justifies the obligation for underwriters with the proposed rule change would be stakeholder comments because the to continue to provide these 131 outweighed by its benefits.136 The MSRB believes there is not an obvious, disclosures. To the degree that an MSRB further stated that, because the appropriate methodology for classifying underwriter has knowledge that a Revised Interpretive Notice is limitedly issuers in a manner that would advance material conflict of interest does not focused on underwriters’ fair dealing the policies underlying the 2012 125 obligations to issuers, not the duties of Interpretive Notice or that would See First Response Letter, Second Response Letter. loyalty and care that municipal advisors materially relieve burdens for 126 Id. 127 See First SIFMA Letter, Second SIFMA Letter, 132 Id. 119 Id. BDA Letter. 133 See First SIFMA Letter, Second SIFMA Letter, 120 Id. 128 See First Response Letter. BDA Letter. 121 Id. 129 Id. 134 See Second SIFMA Letter. 122 See First SIFMA Letter, Second SIFMA Letter. 130 Id. 135 See First Response Letter, Second Response 123 See First SIFMA Letter. 131 See First Response Letter, Second Response Letter. 124 See First Response Letter. Letter. 136 See Second Response Letter.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61668 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

owe their municipal entity clients, the that it had indicated in the original manipulative acts and practices, remove Revised Interpretive Notice is not the proposed rule change that, if the impediments to and perfect the appropriate vehicle to address the proposed rule change is approved by the mechanism of a free and open market, duties of municipal advisors, Commission, it will publish a regulatory and promote just and equitable recognizing that MSRB Rule G–42, on notice within 90 days of the publication principles of trade. the duties of non-solicitor municipal of such approval in the Federal Register The Commission believes that the advisors, effectively prohibits a and such notice would specify the proposed rule change would promote municipal advisor from knowingly compliance date for the amendments the protection of municipal entities by misrepresenting its services or the described in the proposed rule change, protecting them from fraudulent and services of an underwriter.137 which in any case would be not less manipulative acts and practices. By (i) than 90 days, nor more than one year, Specifying which underwriters are H. Interaction of Proposed Rule Change obligated to deliver the ‘‘standard With Pending Matters following the date of the regulatory notice.145 The MSRB stated that this is disclosures,’’ ‘‘transaction-specific In response to the Notice of Filing, consistent with the commenter’s disclosures’’ and ‘‘dealer-specific and again in response to Amendment request.146 The MSRB will work with disclosures’’;, (ii) requiring the separate No. 1, two commenters expressed stakeholders, as needed, to determine identification and formatting of the concerns about the interaction of the reasonable compliance dates for the standard disclosures by underwriters; proposed rule change with other changes, recognizing the commenter’s and (iii) requiring that disclosures be pending matters.138 One commenter 139 request for at least a one-year clear and concise, the proposed rule expressed concerns that the text of the compliance timeline given that policy change will enable issuers to more proposed rule change may ‘‘front-run’’ a and procedures would need to be efficiently and carefully evaluate the related issue that is now under updated to conform to the proposed rule information contained in the disclosures consideration by the Commission change.147 they do receive, which may result in regarding the duties of municipal better-informed issuers. Further, the placement agents under the federal IV. Discussion and Commission Commission believes the addition by securities laws.140 Another commenter Findings the proposed rule change of a new expressed the belief that the MSRB The Commission has carefully standard disclosure that the issuer may missed an important and timely considered the original proposed rule choose to engage the services of a opportunity to provide substantial change, the comment letters received, municipal advisor with a fiduciary compliance efficiencies by combining the MSRB Response Letters, obligation to represent the issuer’s and integrating underwriter disclosures Amendment No. 1, and Amendment No. interests in the transaction will promote required under MSRB Rules G–17 and 2. The Commission finds that the the protection of municipal entities by G–23, and urged the MSRB to do so.141 proposed rule change is consistent with expressly informing them that they may The MSRB declined to address these the requirements of the Act and the obtain the advice of a municipal concerns, stating that the matters that rules and regulations thereunder advisor, who would serve as a fiduciary commenters requested the MSRB applicable to the MSRB. to the issuer. address are outside the scope of the In particular, the proposed rule The Commission believes that the proposed rule change, which does not change, as modified by Amendment No. proposed rule change would remove pertain to the duties of municipal 1 and Amendment No. 2, is consistent impediments to and perfect the advisors.142 with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act.148 mechanism of a free and open market, Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires and promote just and equitable I. Compliance Date for the Proposed that the MSRB’s rules be designed to principles of trade by clarifying and Rule Change prevent fraudulent and manipulative streamlining underwriters’ disclosure In response to Amendment No. 1, one acts and practices, to promote just and obligations to municipal entity issuers, commenter requested that the MSRB set equitable principles of trade, to foster thereby facilitating more efficient a compliance date of one year from the cooperation and coordination with compliance with those obligations. By date the proposed rule change’s persons engaged in regulating, clearing, incorporating certain provisions of the amendments to the 2012 Interpretive settling, processing information with Implementation Guidance and FAQs, Notice are final.143 The commenter respect to, and facilitating transactions with certain revisions, into the Revised requested this timeframe to allow in municipal securities and municipal Interpretive Notice, the proposed rule ‘‘sufficient time’’ for dealers to financial products, to remove change provides for a single implement the proposed rule change’s impediments to and perfect the consolidated document to which amendments and revise their policies mechanism of a free and open market in underwriters may look, facilitating the and procedures.144 The MSRB noted municipal securities and municipal efficient identification of any applicable financial products, and in general, to fair dealing obligations. By (i) specifying 137 Id. protect investors, municipal entities, that the standard disclosures and many 138 See First SIFMA Letter, Second SIFMA Letter, obligated persons, and the public transaction-specific disclosures should BDA Letter. 149 be sent to issuers only from the 139 See First SIFMA Letter, Second SIFMA Letter. interest. The Commission believes that the syndicate manager or sole underwriter; 140 See ‘‘Notice of Proposed Exemptive Order (ii) clarifying that underwriters are not Granting a Conditional Exemption from the Broker proposed rule change is consistent with Registration Requirements of Section l5(a) of the the provisions of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of obligated to provide written disclosures Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for Certain the Act because it will protect regarding the conflicts of issuer Activities of Registered Municipal Advisors,’’ municipal entities from fraudulent and personnel or other parties to the Exchange Act Release No. 87204 (Oct. 2, 2019), 84 transaction; and (iii) providing that FR 54062 (Oct. 9, 2019). disclosures must be made in a clear and 141 See BDA Letter. 145 See Second Response Letter. 142 See First Response Letter, Second Response 146 Id. concise manner, the proposed rule Letter. 147 Id. change would remove impediments to 143 See Second SIFMA Letter. 148 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C). and perfect the mechanism of a free and 144 Id. 149 Id. open market, and promote just and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61669

equitable principles of trade, by that the underwriter reasonably believes V. Solicitation of Comments on eliminating certain redundant and has authority to bind the issuer by Amendment No. 2 generic disclosures currently delivered contract with the underwriter. In Interested persons are invited to by underwriters to issuers that provide addition, the proposed rule change submit written data, views, and little, if any, informational benefits to would not permit an underwriter to rely arguments concerning the foregoing, issuers, but do create non-trivial on an email read receipt as an issuer’s including whether Amendment No. 2 to compliance and recordkeeping burdens acknowledgement where such reliance the proposed rule change is consistent on underwriters. By clarifying the is unreasonable under all of the facts with the Act. Comments may be definition of Complex Municipal and circumstances, such as where the submitted by any of the following Securities Financing Recommendation, underwriter is on notice that the issuer methods: and specifying the particular official to whom the email is addressed underwriter that must provide these has not in fact received or opened the Electronic Comments particularized transaction-specific email. Further, the recipient of such an • Use of the Commission’s internet disclosures to issuers, the proposed rule automatic email read receipt request comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ change would promote just and would still have the option to not rules/sro.shtml); or equitable principles of trade by provide this form of acknowledgement. • Send an email to rule-comments@ In approving the proposed rule eliminating legal ambiguity under the sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– change, the Commission also has Revised Interpretive Notice, thereby MSRB–2019–10 on the subject line. reducing the compliance burden for considered the impact of the proposed underwriters without diminishing the rule change, on efficiency, competition, Paper Comments 150 protection of municipal entities. By and capital formation. The • Send paper comments in triplicate specifying that the underwriter making Commission believes that the proposed to Secretary, Securities and Exchange a Complex Municipal Securities rule change clarifies underwriter Commission, 100 F Street NE, Financing Recommendation must disclosure obligations and will Washington, DC 20549. provide the transaction-specific streamline certain obligations specified disclosure for that recommendation, the in the 2012 Interpretive Notice and, All submissions should refer to File proposed rule change may improve the thereby, reduce the burdens associated Number SR–MSRB–2019–10. This file accuracy and usefulness of such with those obligations, including the number should be included on the disclosures to municipal entities. obligation of underwriters to make, and subject line if email is used. To help the The Commission further believes that the burden on issuers to acknowledge Commission process and review your proposed rule change would remove and review, written disclosures that are comments more efficiently, please use impediments to and perfect the duplicative, itemize risks and conflicts only one method. The Commission will mechanism of a free and open market by that are not reasonably likely to post all comments on the Commission’s clarifying which potential material materialize during the course of a internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ conflicts of interest must be disclosed transaction, and/or are not unique to a rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the by underwriters and at what time. This particular transaction or underwriting submission, all subsequent portion of the proposed rule change may engagement. The Commission further amendments, all written statements reduce the volume of initial conflicts believes that the proposed rule change with respect to the proposed rule disclosures that must be provided, may increase the efficiency of certain change that are filed with the limiting such disclosures to those market practices, such as enhancing the Commission, and all written conflicts that are most concrete and ability of issuers to efficiently and communications relating to the probable, and therefore most useful to properly evaluate the risks associated proposed rule change between the issuers at that time. with a given transaction (thereby Commission and any person, other than The Commission further believes that improving the protection of issuers), those that may be withheld from the the proposed rule change would remove including by separately identifying the public in accordance with the impediments to and perfect the different categories of disclosures, provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be mechanism of a free and open market, providing additional clarity to available for website viewing and and facilitate transactions in municipal underwriters regarding the scope of printing in the Commission’s Public securities, by permitting an email read their regulatory obligations to municipal Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, receipt to serve as the issuer’s entity issuers, and permitting an email Washington, DC 20549 on official acknowledgement of receipt of the read receipt to serve the issuer’s business days between the hours of applicable disclosures under the acknowledgment of receipt of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the Revised Interpretive Notice. This disclosures in certain circumstances, filing also will be available for provision of the proposed rule change thereby reducing the burdens of inspection and copying at the principal would improve the efficiency of the obtaining acknowledgment in those office of the MSRB. All comments disclosure process by allowing cases. received will be posted without change; underwriters to seek, and issuers to As noted above, the Commission we do not edit personal identifying provide, acknowledgement received three comment letters on the information from submissions. You electronically through the built-in, Notice of Filing and three comment should submit only information that automatic process of an email system. letters on Amendment No. 1. The you wish to make available publicly. All The Commission believes that Commission believes that the MSRB, submissions should refer to File municipal entities would continue to be through its responses and through Number SR–MSRB–2019–10 and should protected under the Revised Interpretive Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. be submitted on or before December 4, Notice because the underwriter would 2, has addressed commenters’ concerns. 2019. have a fair dealing obligation to receive For the reasons noted above, the the email read receipt from a specific Commission believes that the proposed VI. Accelerated Approval of Proposed official identified as the issuer’s primary rule change is consistent with the Act. Rule Change contact for the receipt of such The Commission finds good cause for disclosures or from an issuer official 150 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). approving the original proposed rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61670 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

change, as modified by Amendment No. SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission unless, before the 1 and Amendment No. 2, prior to the Commission is publishing this notice to expiration of that time period, it is 30th day after the date of publication of announce that the Chairman of the renewed in accordance with the Federal the Notices of Amendment No. 1 and Commission, with the concurrence of Advisory Committee Act. A copy of the Amendment No. 2 in the Federal the other Commissioners, has approved charter for the Committee has been filed Register. As discussed above, the renewal of the Securities and with the Committee on Banking, Amendment No. 1 proposes to revise Exchange Commission Fixed Income Housing, and Urban Affairs of the the original proposed rule change to Market Structure Advisory Committee. United States Senate, the Committee on state that (1) the underwriter making a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Financial Services of the United States recommendation to the issuer regarding David Dimitrious, Senior Special House of Representatives, and the a financing structure, including, when Counsel, at (202) 551–5131, or Arisa Committee Management Secretariat of applicable, a Complex Municipal Kettig, Special Counsel, at (202) 551– the General Services Administration. A Securities Financing Recommendation, 5676, Division of Trading and Markets, copy of the charter as so filed also will has the fair dealing obligation to deliver Securities and Exchange Commission, be filed with the Chairman of the the applicable transaction-specific 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC Commission, furnished to the Library of disclosures and (2) the notice does not 20549–7010. Congress, and posted on the Commission’s website at www.sec.gov. apply to a dealer acting as a primary SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In distributor in a continuous offering of accordance with the requirements of the By the Commission. municipal fund securities. Amendment Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 Dated: November 7, 2019. No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 otherwise U.S.C.—App, the Commission is Vanessa A. Countryman, propose to revise the original proposed publishing this notice that the Chairman Secretary. rule change with technical of the Commission, with the modifications intended to more [FR Doc. 2019–24653 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] concurrence of the other BILLING CODE 8011–01–P precisely define the scope of its Commissioners, has approved the application and/or to promote clarity in renewal of the Securities and Exchange its interpretation. The MSRB has stated Commission Fixed Income Market SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE that it believes that the modifications to Structure Advisory Committee (the COMMISSION the original proposed rule change are ‘‘Committee’’). The Chairman of the responsive to commenters, and are [Release No. 34–87474; File No. SR–DTC– Commission affirms that the renewal of 2019–010] consistent with the original proposed the Committee is necessary and in the rule change.151 public interest.1 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The For the foregoing reasons, the The Committee’s objective is to Depository Trust Company; Notice of Commission finds good cause for provide the Commission with diverse Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of approving the original proposed rule perspectives on the structure and a Proposed Rule Change in change, as modified by Amendment No. operations of the U.S. fixed income Connection With Changes to the 1 and Amendment No. 2, on an markets, as well as advice and Account Structure of Euroclear Bank accelerated basis, pursuant to Section recommendations on matters related to at The Depository Trust Company 19(b)(2) of the Act. fixed income market structure. VII. Conclusion No more than 21 voting members will November 6, 2019. be appointed to the Committee. Such Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Securities Exchange Act of 1934 152 members shall represent a cross-section Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 proposed rule change (SR–MSRB–2019– of those directly affected by, interested in, and/or qualified to provide advice to notice is hereby given that on October 10) be, and hereby is, approved on an 24, 2019, The Depository Trust accelerated basis. the Commission on matters related to fixed income market structure. The Company (‘‘DTC’’) filed with the For the Commission, pursuant to delegated Committee’s membership will continue Securities and Exchange Commission 153 authority. to be balanced fairly in terms of points (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule Jill M. Peterson, of view represented. Non-voting change as described in Items I, II and III Assistant Secretary. members may also be named. below, which Items have been prepared [FR Doc. 2019–24601 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] The charter provides that the duties of by the clearing agency. DTC filed the BILLING CODE 8011–01–P the Committee are to be solely advisory. proposed rule change pursuant to The Commission alone will make any Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule determinations of actions to be taken 19b–4(f)(4) thereunder.4 The SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE and policies to be expressed with Commission is publishing this notice to COMMISSION respect to matters within the solicit comments on the proposed rule [Release No. 34–87482; File No. 265–30] Commission’s jurisdiction. The change from interested persons. Committee will meet at such intervals as I. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the Fixed Income Market Structure are necessary to carry out its functions. Terms of Substance of the Proposed Advisory Committee The charter contemplates that the full Rule Change Committee will meet four times. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 5 Meetings of subgroups or The proposed rule change of DTC Commission. subcommittees of the full Committee would make technical amendments to ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory may occur more frequently. 1 Committee renewal. The Committee will operate for one 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. year from the date it is renewed or such 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 151 See Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2. earlier date as determined by the 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(4). 152 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 5 Each capitalized term not otherwise defined 153 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 1 See 41 CFR 102–3.30(a). herein has its respective meaning as set forth in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61671

Rule 34 (EB Link) in connection with CP Participant, with respect to the CP DVP Account (‘‘New EB Account’’) changes to the account structure of Sub-Account of the CP Participant.9 become its main Securities Account, Euroclear Bank SA/NV (‘‘EB’’) at DTC, The CP Participant instructs DTC to and that the EB CP Account become a as described below. deliver securities from the CP sub-account of the New EB Account. Participant’s Securities Account to its II. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the In light of this development, DTC has CP Sub-Account, in order to identify the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the reviewed Rule 34 and determined that, securities that it wishes to make Proposed Rule Change although no substantive changes may be available for EB Collateral Positioning necessary, it would be preferable to In its filing with the Commission, the and collateral transfers on the books of clearing agency included statements EB (‘‘EB Collateral Transactions’’). After clarify certain provisions of Rule 34 to concerning the purpose of and basis for the CP Securities have been credited to more accurately reflect the new EB the proposed rule change and discussed the CP Sub-Account, EB, as CP account structure. Specifically, DTC is any comments it received on the Representative of the CP Participant, proposing to make minor technical proposed rule change. The text of these instructs DTC to make a FOP delivery of amendments to Rule 34 that would (i) statements may be examined at the the CP Securities from the CP Sub- more clearly differentiate between the places specified in Item IV below. The Account to the EB CP Account. After CP EB CP Account and other Securities clearing agency has prepared Securities have been credited to the EB Accounts of EB, and (ii) expressly summaries, set forth in sections A, B, CP Account, it is then EB’s provide EB with the option to instruct and C below, of the most significant responsibility to credit them to an DTC to deliver CP Securities from the aspects of such statements. account at EB maintained for the CP EB CP Account to another Securities (A) Clearing Agency’s Statement of the Participant, as an EB participant using Account of EB for EB Liquidating Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the EB collateral management services (‘‘EB Transactions if a CP Participant that is Proposed Rule Change Collateral Participant’’), for EB an EB Collateral Participant has Collateral Transactions. defaulted on one of its EB Collateral 1. Purpose Pursuant to Rule 34, EB may also Transaction obligations. The proposal would make technical instruct DTC to make a FOP delivery of A. EB Collateral Positioning amendments to Rule 34 (EB Link) in CP Securities from the EB CP Account connection with changes to the account to the Securities Account of a Currently, the language of Rule 34 structure of EB at DTC, as described Participant that EB has designated to reflects that the EB CP Account is the below. DTC as EB’s global custodian (‘‘EB only EB Account at DTC.11 In particular, (i) Background Global Custodian’’) in order to liquidate Rule 34 defines the Securities Account CP Securities, if a CP Participant that is EB was accepted by DTC as a established by EB for purposes of Rule an EB Collateral Participant has 34 as the ‘‘EB Account.’’ However, Participant on February 18, 2016. At the defaulted on its obligations in respect of time, the purpose of EB’s membership because EB’s application to establish a any EB Collateral Transaction (‘‘EB DVP Account has been approved by was to establish a free-of-payment Liquidating Transaction’’). (‘‘FOP’’) Account at DTC (‘‘EB CP DTC, the Securities Account established Account’’) 6 to facilitate the positioning (ii) Proposed Rule Change by EB for Rule 34 will no longer be the only EB Account. Therefore, to more of securities (‘‘CP Securities’’) held at EB has now applied to DTC for a DTC (‘‘EB Collateral Positioning’’) for delivery-versus-payment (‘‘DVP’’) clearly differentiate between the EB CP transfers on the books of EB in Account, and its application was Account and other Securities Accounts connection with EB collateral approved by DTC on September 20, of EB that may be established, management services.7 To support EB 2019. With a DVP Account, EB will be including, but not limited to the New Collateral Positioning, DTC filed Rule permitted to engage in other EB Account, DTC is proposing to change 34, which was approved by the transactions, including DVP the defined term in Rule 34 from ‘‘EB Commission on July 19, 2016.8 transactions, at DTC, in addition to the Account’’ to ‘‘EB CP Account.’’ In Under Rule 34, a DTC Participant that FOP deliveries provided for under Rule addition, to conform with that change, is also a participant of EB (‘‘CP 34.10 EB has also requested that the new DTC is proposing to replace the current Participant’’) may designate a sub- title of Rule 34, ‘‘EB Link,’’ with a new account at DTC (‘‘CP Sub-Account’’) for 9 In addition, Rule 34 provides that the CP title, ‘‘EB Collateral Positioning,’’ and to use under Rule 34, thereby authorizing Participant has to be a user of the DTCC Euroclear delete the defined term ‘‘EB Link’’ from EB as its representative (‘‘CP Global Collateral Ltd. (‘‘DEGCL’’) Inventory Rule 34. Management Service (‘‘DEGCL IMS’’). DEGCL is a Representative’’), and authorizing DTC United Kingdom joint venture of The Depository to provide position and transaction Trust & Clearing Corporation, the corporate parent Brussels Office, as Operator of the Euroclear information to EB and to accept EB of DTC, and Euroclear S.A./N.V. (‘‘Euroclear’’). As System; Order Approving Application for instructions submitted on behalf of such noted in the Rule 34 Approval Order, DTC Exemption From Registration as a Clearing Agency, understands that by providing Participants with a Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39643 mechanism for EB Collateral Positioning, Rule 34 (February 11, 1998), 63 FR 8232 (February 18, Rules, By-Laws and Organization Certificate of The indirectly supports the DEGCL IMS service. DEGCL 1998); Self-Regulatory Organizations; Morgan Depository Trust Company (the ‘‘Rules’’), available IMS is operated by EB and other entities in the Guaranty Trust Company, Brussels Office, as at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and- Euroclear group, as the service provider to DEGCL, Operator of the Euroclear System and Euroclear procedures.aspx. in accordance with appropriate agreements among Bank, S.A.; Order Approving Application to Modify 6 Rule 34 provides that the adjectival use of ‘‘CP’’ them and in compliance with applicable regulatory an Existing Exemption From Clearing Agency in Rule 34 refers to terms or matters relating and requirements. There is no direct relationship Registration, Securities Exchange Act Release No. limited to ‘‘Collateral Positioning’’ under Rule 34. between DTC and DEGCL IMS. 43775 (December 28, 2000), 66 FR 819 (January 4, See id. 10 DTC understands that EB performs certain 2001); and Euroclear Bank SA/NV; Order of the 7 Prior to the establishment of the EB CP Account, functions of a clearing agency with respect to U.S. Commission Approving an Application To Modify EB had not been a DTC Participant nor had an securities for its U.S. participants pursuant to an an Existing Exemption From Clearing Agency Account at DTC. exemption from clearing agency registration Registration, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 8 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78358 approved by the Commission (the ‘‘EB 79577 (December 16, 2016), 81 FR 93994 (December (July 19, 2016), 81 FR 48482 (July 25, 2016) (SR– Exemption’’). See Self-Regulatory Organizations; 22, 2016) (File No. 601–01). DTC–2016–004) (‘‘Rule 34 Approval Order’’). Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York, 11 See supra note 7.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61672 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

B. EB Liquidating Transactions Participants to more accurately and IV. Solicitation of Comments Rule 34 currently provides that EB efficiently deploy their securities collateral for EB Collateral Transactions. Interested persons are invited to may instruct DTC to deliver CP submit written data, views and Securities from the EB CP Account to Therefore, DTC believes that the arguments concerning the foregoing, the EB Global Custodian in connection proposed rule change is designed to with an EB Liquidating Transaction. promote the prompt and accurate including whether the proposed rule With its new account structure, EB may clearance and settlement of securities change is consistent with the Act. process EB Liquidating Transactions collateral transactions, consistent with Comments may be submitted by any of through its own DVP Securities the requirements of the Act, in the following methods: particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F), cited Accounts, including the New EB Electronic Comments Account, and may no longer require an above. • EB Global Custodian. Therefore, DTC is (B) Clearing Agency’s Statement on Use the Commission’s internet proposing to amend Rule 34 to Burden on Competition comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ expressly provide EB with the option to rules/sro.shtml); or deliver CP Securities from the EB CP DTC believes that the proposed rule • Send an email to rule-comments@ Account to another Securities Account change would not have an impact on sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– of EB for EB Liquidating Transactions. competition.15 The proposed rule DTC–2019–010 on the subject line. Specifically, the proposed rule change change would make minor technical would provide that ‘‘EB may, from time amendments to Rule 34 in connection Paper Comments to time . . . (iii) in connection with an with changes requested by EB to its EB Liquidating Transaction, instruct the account structure at DTC by (i) clearly • Send paper comments in triplicate Corporation to make a Free Delivery of differentiating between the EB CP to Secretary, Securities and Exchange CP Securities from the EB CP Account 12 Account and other Securities Accounts Commission, 100 F Street NE, to the Securities Account of the EB of EB, and (ii) expressly providing EB Washington, DC 20549. Global Custodian or to another with the option, under specific All submissions should refer to File Securities Account of EB, whereupon circumstances, to instruct DTC to Number SR–DTC–2019–010. This file such Securities shall no longer be CP deliver securities from the EB CP Securities [emphasis added].’’ Account to another Securities Account number should be included on the In addition, DTC is proposing to make of EB. The proposed rule change would subject line if email is used. To help the conforming changes to the definitions of not make any substantive changes to the Commission process and review your ‘‘CP Securities’’ and ‘‘EB Global rights and obligations of Participants or comments more efficiently, please use Custodian.’’ other interested parties under Rule 34, only one method. The Commission will and so would not affect such rights and post all comments on the Commission’s 2. Statutory Basis obligations. Therefore, DTC believes internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ DTC believes that the proposed rule that the proposed rule change to make rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the change is consistent with the technical amendments to Rule 34 would submission, all subsequent requirements of the Act, and the rules not have an impact on competition.16 amendments, all written statements and regulations thereunder applicable to with respect to the proposed rule (C) Clearing Agency’s Statement on DTC, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F) change that are filed with the 13 Comments on the Proposed Rule of the Act. Commission, and all written Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others communications relating to the requires, inter alia, that the rules of the proposed rule change between the clearing agency be designed to promote Written comments relating to the Commission and any person, other than the prompt and accurate clearance and proposed rule change have not been those that may be withheld from the settlement of securities transactions.14 solicited or received. DTC will notify public in accordance with the The proposed rule change would make the Commission of any written provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be minor technical amendments to Rule 34 comments received by DTC. in connection with changes requested available for website viewing and by EB to its account structure at DTC in III. Date of Effectiveness of the printing in the Commission’s Public order to (i) clearly differentiate between Proposed Rule Change, and Timing for Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, the EB CP Account and other Securities Commission Action Washington, DC 20549 on official Accounts of EB, and (ii) expressly business days between the hours of provide EB with the option, under The foregoing rule change has become 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the specific circumstances, to instruct DTC effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) filing also will be available for of the Act 17 and paragraph (f) of Rule inspection and copying at the principal to deliver securities from the EB CP 18 Account to another Securities Account 19b–4 thereunder. At any time within office of DTC and on DTCC’s website of EB. By amending Rule 34 in this 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule- manner, the proposed rule change change, the Commission summarily may filings.aspx). All comments received would enhance the clarity and temporarily suspend such rule change if will be posted without change. Persons transparency of Rule 34 so that it appears to the Commission that such submitting comments are cautioned that Participants may better understand how action is necessary or appropriate in the we do not redact or edit personal to use Rule 34 for EB Collateral public interest, for the protection of identifying information from comment Positioning, which would allow investors, or otherwise in furtherance of submissions. You should submit only the purposes of the Act. information that you wish to make 12 As noted above, pursuant to the proposed rule available publicly. All submissions 15 change, DTC would change the defined term ‘‘EB 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(I). should refer to File Number SR–DTC– Account’’ to ‘‘EB CP Account.’’ 16 Id. 13 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 2019–010 and should be submitted on 14 Id. 18 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f). or before December 4, 2019.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61673

For the Commission, by the Division of DEPARTMENT OF STATE • Total Estimated Burden Time for Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Professional Contact Survey: 100 hours. authority.19 [Public Notice 10933] • Estimated Number of Professional Jill M. Peterson, Contact Interviews: 40. 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information • Assistant Secretary. Collection: Evaluation of the Estimated Number of Number of [FR Doc. 2019–24600 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Professional Fellows Program Professional Contact Interview BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Responses: 40. ACTION: Notice of request for public • Average Time per Professional comment. Contact Interview: 40 minutes. • Total Estimated Burden Time for SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY: The Department of State is Professional Contact Interviews: 26.7 seeking Office of Management and hours. Budget (OMB) approval for the • [Disaster Declaration #16145 and #16146; Estimated Number of Host Family information collection described below. Survey Respondents: 855. SOUTH CAROLINA Disaster Number SC– • 00060] In accordance with the Paperwork Estimated Number of Host Family Reduction Act of 1995, we are Survey Responses: 86. Presidential Declaration Amendment of requesting comments on this collection • Average Time per Host Family a Major Disaster for Public Assistance from all interested individuals and Survey Response: 15 minutes. Only for the State of South Carolina organizations. The purpose of this • Total Estimated Burden Time for notice is to allow 60 days for public Host Family Survey Response: 21.5 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business comment preceding submission of the hours. Administration. collection to OMB. • Estimated Number of Homestay ACTION: Amendment 1. DATES: The Department will accept Host Interviews: 40. comments from the public up to January • Estimated Number of Homestay SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the 13, 2020. Host Interview Responses: 40. • Presidential declaration of a major ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Average Time per Homestay Host disaster for Public Assistance Only for by the following methods: Interview: 30 minutes. the State of South Carolina (FEMA– • Web: persons with access to the • Total Estimated Burden Time for 4464–DR), dated 09/30/2019. internet may comment on this notice by Homestay Host Interviews: 20 hours. Incident: Hurricane Dorian. going to www.Regulations.gov. You can • Total Estimated Burden Time (All Incident Period: 08/31/2019 through search for the document by entering Instruments for U.S Audiences): 168 09/06/2019. ‘‘Docket Number: DOS–2019–0038’’ in hours. • DATES: the Search field. Then click the Frequency: Once. Issued on 11/05/2019. • Physical Loan Application Deadline ‘‘Comment Now’’ button and complete Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. Date: 11/29/2019. the comment form. We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to: Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan You must include the DS form • Evaluate whether the proposed Application Deadline Date: 06/30/2020. number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control information collection is necessary for ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan number in any correspondence. the proper functions of the Department. applications to: U.S. Small Business • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evaluate the accuracy of our Administration, Processing and Direct requests for additional estimate of the time and cost burden for Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport this proposed collection, including the Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests validity of the methodology and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. assumptions used. for copies of the proposed collection • Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, instrument and supporting documents, Enhance the quality, utility, and U.S. Small Business Administration, to Natalie Donahue, Chief of Evaluation, clarity of the information to be 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, collected. Bureau of Educational and Cultural • Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205–6734. Affairs, who may be reached on (202) Minimize the reporting burden on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice 632- 6193 or at [email protected]. those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques of the President’s major disaster SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: or other forms of information declaration for Private Non-Profit • Title of Information Collection: technology. organizations in the State of South Evaluation of the Professional Fellows Please note that comments submitted Carolina, dated 09/30/2019, is hereby Program (PFP). amended to include the following areas • OMB Control Number: None. in response to this Notice are public as adversely affected by the disaster. • Type of Request: New Collection. record. Before including any detailed • personal information, you should be Primary Counties: Allendale. Originating Office: Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA/P/V). aware that your comments as submitted, All other information in the original • Form Number: No form. including your personal information, declaration remains unchanged. • Respondents: Contacts at will be available for public review. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance institutions and organizations that Abstract of Proposed Collection Number 59008) hosted and interacted with foreign Fellows; families that hosted PFP The PFP is a two-way, global James Rivera, fellows in their homes. exchange program for mid-level Associate Administrator for Disaster • Estimated Number of Professional emerging leaders from select foreign Assistance. Contact Survey Respondents: 1,526. countries. The PFP is managed by the [FR Doc. 2019–24622 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] • Estimated Number of Professional Professional Fellows Division of the BILLING CODE 8026–03–P Contact Survey Responses: 300. Bureau of Educational and Cultural • Average Time per Professional Affairs. Foreign fellows come to the 19 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). Contact Survey Response: 20 minutes. United States for a five- to six-week

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61674 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

fellowship, including a minimum four- profile of the program and at the same 2018), 83 FR 49153 (September 28, week tailored placement in a relevant time, capture rich qualitative data. 2018), 83 FR 65198 (December 19, 2018), 84 FR 7966 (March 5, 2019), 84 professional organization (NGO’s, Nini Forino, business, government, etc.) and an end FR 20459 (May 9, 2019), 84 FR 29576 Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, of program conference in Washington, (June 24, 2019), 84 FRN 38717 (August Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 7, 2019), 84 FR 46212 (September 3, DC. While in the Unites States, the Department of State. foreign fellows volunteer in their local 2019), 84 FR 49591 (September 20, [FR Doc. 2019–24638 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] 2019), and 84 FR 57803 (October 28, community, stay with local families, BILLING CODE 4710–05–P and create follow-on project plans to 2019). Effective September 24, 2018, the U.S. implement back in their home country. Trade Representative imposed A select number of U.S. counterparts OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES additional 10 percent duties on goods of travel overseas on an outbound program TRADE REPRESENTATIVE China classified in 5,757 full and partial that is approximately two weeks in subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff length to directly support foreign Notice of Product Exclusions: China’s Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), fellows’ follow-on projects. This Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to with an approximate annual trade value program is funded pursuant to the Technology Transfer, Intellectual of $200 billion. See 83 FR 47974, as Mutual Educational and Cultural Property, and Innovation modified by 83 FR 49153. In May 2019, Exchanges Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2451– AGENCY: Office of the United States the U.S. Trade Representative increased 2464). Trade Representative. the additional duty to 25 percent. See 84 FR 20459. On June 24, 2019, the U.S. To fully evaluate the effectiveness and ACTION: Notice of product exclusions. impacts of the program, the U.S. Trade Representative established a Department of State’s Bureau of SUMMARY: In September of 2018, the process by which U.S. stakeholders can request exclusion of particular products Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) U.S. Trade Representative imposed classified within an 8-digit HTSUS intends to collect data to include the additional duties on goods of China subheading covered by the $200 billion perspectives of: with an annual trade value of approximately $200 billion as part of action from the additional duties. See 84 • The foreign fellows who the action in the Section 301 FR 29576 (the June 24 notice). participated in the PFP between 2013 investigation of China’s acts, policies, Under the June 24 notice, requests for and 2018; and practices related to technology exclusion had to identify the product • U.S. professionals who interacted transfer, intellectual property, and subject to the request in terms of the physical characteristics that distinguish the foreign fellows during their innovation. The U.S. Trade the product from other products within exchange in the United States; and Representative initiated a product exclusion process in June 2019, and the relevant 8-digit subheading covered • U.S. families who hosted the interested persons have submitted by the $200 billion action. Requestors foreign fellows during their stay. requests for the exclusion of specific also had to provide the 10-digit In order to do so, ECA contracted with products. This notice announces the subheading of the HTSUS most GDIT to administer surveys and conduct U.S. Trade Representative’s applicable to the particular product face-to-face interviews with the determination to grant certain exclusion requested for exclusion, and could stakeholders listed above. requests, as specified in the Annex to submit information on the ability of U.S. this notice. Customs and Border Protection to Methodology administer the requested exclusion. DATES: The product exclusions Requestors were asked to provide the Data will be collected with a focus on announced in this notice will apply as quantity and value of the Chinese-origin answering how the program is of the September 24, 2018, effective date product that the requestor purchased in advancing DoS strategic policy of the $200 billion action, to August 7, the last three years. With regard to the priorities, how well the program is 2020. rationale for the requested exclusion, meeting its goals and how alumni have FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For requests had to address the following operationalized skills and knowledge general questions about this notice, factors: learned during their exchange contact Assistant General Counsels • Whether the particular product is experience to promote mutual Philip Butler or Megan Grimball, or available only from China and understanding, create positive change, Director of Industrial Goods Justin specifically whether the particular and build collaborative networks. Hoffmann at (202) 395–5725. For product and/or a comparable product is specific questions on customs available from sources in the United The evaluation will employ a mixed- classification or implementation of the States and/or third countries. methods data collection strategy, product exclusions identified in the • Whether the imposition of including face-to face interviews and annex to this notice, contact additional duties on the particular online surveys. Online surveys will be [email protected]. product would cause severe economic administered to all foreign fellows, U.S. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: harm to the requestor or other U.S. professionals and U.S. homestay hosts. interests. To collect more in depth responses, A. Background • Whether the particular product is face-to-face interviews will be For background on the proceedings in strategically important or related to conducted with a subset of foreign this investigation, please see the prior ‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese fellows, foreign colleagues, U.S. notices issued in the investigation, industrial programs. professional contacts and U.S. homestay including 82 FR 40213 (August 23, The June 24 notice stated that the U.S. hosts. The combination of methods will 2017), 83 FR 14906 (April 6, 2018), 83 Trade Representative would take into allow GDIT to generate a quantitative FR 28710 (June 20, 2018), 83 FR 33608 account whether an exclusion would (July 17, 2018), 83 FR 38760 (August 7, undermine the objective of the Section 2018), 83 FR 47974 (September 21, 301 investigation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61675

The June 24 notice required U.S. Trade Representative has September 24, 2018, to August 7, 2020. submission of requests for exclusion determined to grant the product U.S. Customs and Border Protection will from the $200 billion action no later exclusions set out in the Annex to this issue instructions on entry guidance and than September 30, 2019, and noted that notice. The U.S. Trade Representative’s implementation. the U.S. Trade Representative would determination also takes into account The U.S. Trade Representative will periodically announce decisions. In advice from advisory committees and continue to issue determinations on August 2019, the U.S. Trade any public comments on the pertinent pending requests on a periodic basis. Representative granted an initial set of exclusion requests. exclusion requests. See 84 FR 38717. As set out in the Annex, the Joseph Barloon, The U.S. Trade Representative granted exclusions are reflected in two 10-digit General Counsel, Office of the U.S. Trade additional exclusions in September and HTSUS subheadings and 34 specially Representative. prepared product descriptions, which October 2019. See 84 FR 49591 and 84 Annex FR 57803. The Office of the United cover 42 separate exclusion requests. In accordance with the June 24 notice, States Trade Representative (USTR) A. Effective with respect to goods the exclusions are available for any regularly updates the status of each entered for consumption, or withdrawn product that meets the description in pending request on the USTR from warehouse for consumption, on or the Annex, regardless of whether the Exclusions Portal at https:// after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on importer filed an exclusion request. exclusions.ustr.gov/s/PublicDocket. September 24, 2018, subchapter III of Further, the scope of each exclusion is chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff B. Determination To Grant Certain governed by the scope of the product Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) Exclusions descriptions in the Annex, and not by is modified: the product descriptions set out in any Based on the evaluation of the factors particular request for exclusion. 1. By inserting the following new set out in the June 24 notice, which are Paragraph A, subparagraphs (3)–(5) heading 9903.88.34 in numerical summarized above, pursuant to sections are conforming amendments to the sequence, with the material in the new 301(b), 301(c), and 307(a) of the Trade HTSUS reflecting the modification heading inserted in the columns of the Act of 1974, as amended, and in made by the Annex. HTSUS labeled ‘‘Heading/Subheading’’, accordance with the advice of the As stated in the September 20, 2019 ‘‘Article Description’’, and ‘‘Rates of interagency Section 301 Committee, the notice, the exclusions will apply from Duty 1—General’’, respectively:

Rates of duty Heading/ Article description 1 subheading 2 General Special

‘‘9903.88.34 ...... Articles the product of China, as provided for in U.S. note 20(mm) The duty provided in ...... to this subchapter, each covered by an exclusion granted by the the applicable sub- U.S. Trade Representative. heading’’.

2. by inserting the following new U.S. (4) Vinyl floor tiles of polymers of (7) Standard wood moldings, of oak note 20(mm) to subchapter III of chapter vinyl chloride, designed to click (described in statistical reporting 99 in numerical sequence: together during installation, each number 4409.29.4100) ‘‘(mm) The U.S. Trade Representative measuring 4.7 mm or more but not over (8) Engineered flooring, of oak, determined to establish a process by 8 mm in thickness, 18 cm or more but consisting of a 1.2 mm thick oak veneer which particular products classified in not over 23 cm in width and 120 cm or top layer, 5.8 mm stone-plastic heading 9903.88.03 and provided for in more but not over 182 cm in length composite core and a 2 mm U.S. notes 20(e) and (f) to this (described in statistical reporting polyethylene backing, such flooring subchapter could be excluded from the number 3918.10.1000) coated with aluminum oxide, measuring additional duties imposed by heading not over 191 cm long by 19 cm wide by (5) Vinyl floor tiles of polymers of 9903.88.03. See 83 FR 47974 (September 0.9 cm thick (described in statistical vinyl chloride, designed to click 21, 2018) and 84 FR 29576 (June 24, reporting number 4412.99.5105) together during installation, measuring 2019). Pursuant to the product (9) Flooring panels constructed of a exclusion process, the U.S. Trade 7 mm in thickness, 18 cm or more but hardwood veneer measuring 0.6 mm or Representative has determined that the not over 19 cm in width and 120 cm or more but not over 1.2 mm in thickness additional duties provided for in more but not over 125 cm in length laminated onto a waterproof stone- heading 9903.88.03 shall not apply to (described in statistical reporting polymer composite base, with the the following particular products, which number 3918.10.1000) thickness of each panel between 5 mm are provided for in the enumerated (6) Dog and cat leashes, collars, and 7.5 mm, with tongue and groove statistical reporting numbers: harnesses, retractable leashes, muzzles, mechanism for installation and an attached foam pad (described in (1) 8409.91.3000 and head halters of nylon, polyester or statistical reporting number soy-based webbing of various sizes; and (2) 8708.50.9500 4412.99.5105) (3) Floor coverings of polyvinyl tie out cables, stakes and aerials of iron (10) Assembled fence sections, of chloride, presented in the form of tiles or steel of various sizes, such cables, reeds held together with rows of wire, or planks designed to snap together stakes and aerials presented in a form to each section measuring 1.8 m or more during installation (described in be sold individually or in sets but not over 1.9 m in height and 4.5 m statistical reporting number (described in statistical reporting or more but not over 4.6 m in width, or 3918.10.1000) number 4201.00.3000) measuring not over 1.3 m in height and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61676 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

not over 2.5 m in width (described in statistical reporting number in cars or homes, valued not over $2 statistical reporting number 8716.90.3000) each (described in statistical reporting 4421.91.7020) (21) Bicycle speedometers designed to number 8504.40.8500) (11) Rigid boxes of paperboard be handlebar mounted, wired, with a (33) Electrical insulators of glass weighing 1.2 kg per m2 covered with digital display, capable of measuring the (described in statistical reporting paper with a decorative design, each following seven variables: Current number 8546.10.0000) presented with hang tag, a handle and speed, average speed, maximum speed, two imitation leather straps with snaps, trip distance, total distance, elapsed (34) Road wheels of aluminum for such boxes measuring 21 cm or more time and time (described in statistical motor vehicles of subheading but not over 23 cm in height, 21 cm or reporting number 9029.20.2000) 8703.21.01, each measuring 30 cm or more but not over 23 cm in length and (22) Folding chairs with frames of more but not over 51 cm in diameter 5 cm or more but not over 9 cm in depth steel and/or aluminum, each measuring and 14 cm or more but not over 28 cm (described in statistical reporting 30 cm or more but not over 97 cm in in width (described in statistical number 4819.50.4040) width, 20 cm or more but not over 89 reporting number 8708.70.4545) (12) Silk fabrics, containing 85 cm in depth and 30 cm or more but not (35) Drive shafts, also known as percent or more by weight of silk or of over 117 cm in height (described in propeller shafts, that connect a silk waste other than noil silk, the statistical reporting number foregoing not printed, not jacquard 9401.79.0015) transmission to a differential, allowing a woven, measuring over 127 cm in width (23) Foldable stools with frames of vehicle to move, designed for use in the (described in statistical reporting steel or aluminum, each measuring not manufacture of motor vehicles primarily number 5007.20.0065) over 30.5 cm in width, 26 cm in depth used for amusement, recreation, (13) Silk fabrics, containing 85 and 39 cm in height (described in sporting and off-road transportation percent or more by weight of silk or of statistical reporting number classified in heading 8703 (described in silk waste other than noil silk, the 9401.79.0035) statistical reporting number foregoing not printed, not jacquard (24) Fiberboard sheets, containing 8708.99.6805) woven, measuring 107 cm or more but phenolic resin, each not exceeding (36) Tension pole shower caddies, not over 127 cm in width (described in 0.635 mm in thickness (described in each of which adjusts to a height not to statistical reporting number statistical reporting number exceed 305 cm, and consists of 5 steel 5007.20.0085) 4411.93.9090) poles, 3 steel wire baskets and small (14) High tenacity single yarn of (25) Circular knitted fabrics of plastic parts to hold the shelves on the polyester multifilament, of 554 decitex polyester and spandex, printed, other or more but not over 556 decitex, with than of double knit or interlock poles (described in statistical reporting twist of 5 turns or more per meter construction, on rolls (described in number 9403.20.0050)’’ (described in statistical reporting statistical reporting number 3. by amending the last sentence of number 5402.20.3030) 6006.34.0080) the first paragraph of U.S. note 20(e) to (15) Sinks, of cast iron enameled with (26) Cutting pliers, each weighing 90 subchapter III of chapter 99: porcelain (described in statistical g or more but not over 545 g, measuring a. By deleting the word ‘‘or’’ where it not over 32 cm in length, not over 10.5 reporting number 7324.90.0000) appears after the phrase ‘‘U.S. note (16) Portable drill presses for use with cm in width and not over 3 cm in 20(w) to subchapter III of chapter 99;’’; hand drills of subheading 8467.21 thickness (described in statistical and (described in statistical reporting reporting number 8203.20.6030) number 8467.99.0190) (27) Bolt-on tips of carbon alloy steel b. by inserting the phrase ‘‘; or (4) (17) Static converters designed for of a kind used in tub or horizontal heading 9903.88.34 and U.S. note wireless (inductive) charging of grinders (described in statistical 20(mm) to subchapter III of chapter 99’’ telecommunication apparatus reporting number 8207.90.7585) after the phrase ‘‘U.S. note 20(ll to (described in statistical reporting (28) Tool tips, strips and sticks of subchapter III of chapter 99’’. number 8504.40.8500) tungsten carbide (described in statistical 4. by amending U.S. note 20(f) to (18) Gas ignition safety controls, reporting number 8209.00.0030) subchapter III of chapter 99; measuring 3.8 to 5.3 cm in height, 6.4 (29) Mountings, each weighing less to 10.1 cm in width and 13.2 to 13.9 cm than 2 kg, designed for use in motor a. by deleting the word ‘‘or’’ where it in depth; weighing 160 g to 380 g each; vehicles primarily used for amusement, appears after the phrase ‘‘U.S. note and valued not over $26 each; of a kind recreation, sporting and off-road 20(w) to subchapter III of chapter 99;’’; used in patio heaters, agricultural transportation classified in heading and heaters or clothes dryers (described in 8703 or motorcycles in heading 8711 b. by inserting the phrase ‘‘; or (4) statistical reporting number (described in statistical reporting heading 9903.88.34 and U.S. note 8537.10.9170) number 8302.30.3060) 20(mm) to subchapter III of chapter 99’’ (19) Extension cords, as defined in (30) Ratcheting chain hoists, other after the phrase ‘‘U.S. note 20(ll) to statistical note 6 to chapter 85, for a than skip hoists or hoists of a kind used subchapter III of chapter 99’’. voltage not exceeding 1,000 V, each for raising motor vehicles, such chain with a receptacle at one end and a male hoists not powered by an electric motor 5. by amending the Article plug at the other with prongs (described in statistical reporting Description of heading 9903.88.03: perpendicular to the rest of the cord, the number 8425.19.0000) a. By deleting ‘‘9903.88.18 or’’ and plug under a cover of plastics measuring (31) Ultrasonic cleaners, with tanks of inserting ‘‘9903.88.18,’’ in lieu thereof; 115 mm in length and 70 mm in width stainless steel and of a liquid capacity and (described in statistical reporting not over 32 liters (described in b. by inserting ‘‘or 9903.88.34,’’ after number 8544.42.9010) statistical reporting number (20) Casters, with diameter (including, 8479.89.9485) ‘‘9903.88.33,’’. where appropriate, tires) of 20 cm or (32) Static converters of a kind used [FR Doc. 2019–24623 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] more but not over 23 cm (described in to charge telecommunication apparatus BILLING CODE 3290–F0–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61677

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION becomes solely liable for carrying out responsibilities it assumed from FHWA the responsibilities it has assumed, in on December 28, 2015, as specified in a Federal Highway Administration lieu of FHWA. The ODOT published its memorandum of understanding (MOU) [FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2019–001] application for assumption under the signed on December 11, 2015, and NEPA Assignment Program on April 12, amended on June 6, 2018. Within Surface Transportation Project 2015, and made it available for public ODOT, the Division of Planning Office Delivery Program; Ohio Department of comment for 30 days. After considering of Environmental Services (OES) is Transportation Audit Report public comments, ODOT submitted its responsible to manage and deliver the application to FHWA on May 27, 2015. environmental program. This audit AGENCY: Federal Highway The application served as the basis for examined ODOT’s performance under Administration (FHWA), U.S. developing the memorandum of the MOU regarding responsibilities and Department of Transportation (DOT). understanding (MOU) that identifies the obligations assigned therein. ACTION: Notice. responsibilities and obligations that Prior to the on-site visit, the team ODOT would assume. The FHWA performed reviews of ODOT’s project SUMMARY: The Moving Ahead for published a notice of the draft MOU in NEPA approval documentation in Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP– the Federal Register on October 15, EnviroNet (ODOT’s official electronic 21) established the Surface 2015, at 80 FR 62153, with a 30-day environmental document filing system). Transportation Project Delivery Program comment period to solicit the views of This audit consisted of a review of a that allows a State to assume FHWA’s the public and Federal agencies. After sample of 39 higher-risk project files out environmental responsibilities for the comment period closed, FHWA and of 1,042 approved documents for environmental review, consultation, and ODOT considered comments and Federal projects in ODOT’s EnviroNet compliance under the National executed the MOU. system with an environmental approval Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for Section 327(g) of Title 23, U.S.C., date between April 1, 2017, and March Federal highway projects. When a State requires the Secretary to conduct annual 31, 2018. The team also reviewed assumes these Federal responsibilities, audits to ensure compliance with the ODOT’s response to the pre-audit the State becomes solely responsible MOU during each of the first 4 years of information request (PAIR) and ODOT’s and liable for carrying out the State participation and, after the fourth Self-Assessment report. In addition, the responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu year, monitor compliance. The results of team reviewed ODOT’s environmental of FHWA. This program mandates each audit must be made available for processes, manuals, and guidance; annual audits during each of the first 4 public comment. The FHWA published ODOT NEPA Quality Assurance and years of State participation to ensure a notice in the Federal Register on Quality Control (QA/QC) Processes and compliance with program requirements. March 8, 2018, at 84 FR 8560, soliciting Procedures; and the ODOT NEPA This notice makes available the final public comment for 30 days, pursuant to Assignment Training Plan (collectively, report of Ohio Department of 23 U.S.C. 327(g). The FHWA received ‘‘ODOT procedures’’). The team Transportation’s (ODOT) third audit comments on the draft report from the conducted an on-site review during the under the program. American Road and Transportation week of August 6 to August 10, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Builders Association (ARTBA). The The team conducted interviews with James G. Gavin, Office of Project ARTBA’s comments were supportive of ODOT’s central office staff on August 6, Development and Environmental the Surface Transportation Project 2018, and with three district office staffs Review, (202) 366–1473, James.Gavin@ Delivery Program and did not relate on August 7, 2018. The team also dot.gov, Federal Highway specifically to Audit 3. The team has interviewed staff with the Ohio Administration, U.S. Department of considered these comments in finalizing Department of Natural Resources Transportation, 1200 New Jersey this audit report. This notice makes (ODNR) on July 23, 2018, as part of the Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, or available the final report of ODOT’s review. Mr. David Sett, Office of the Chief third audit under the program. Overall, the team found evidence that Counsel, (404) 562–3676, david.sett@ ODOT continues to make reasonable dot.gov, Federal Highway Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law progress in implementing the NEPA 112–141; Section 6005 of Public Law 109–59; Administration, U.S. Department of 23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773. Assignment Program based on Audit 1 Transportation, 60 Forsyth Street 8M5, and Audit 2 observations and Atlanta, GA 30303. Office hours are Nicole R. Nason, demonstrated commitment to success of from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday Administrator, Federal Highway the program. The team found zero non- through Friday, except Federal holidays. Administration. compliance observations but did note SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Surface Transportation Project Delivery six general observations. Electronic Access Program Background An electronic copy of this notice may FHWA Audit of the Ohio Department of The Surface Transportation Project be downloaded from the specific docket Transportation Delivery Program (NEPA Assignment page at www.regulations.gov. August 5, 2017, to August 10, 2018 Program) allows a State to assume FHWA’s responsibilities for review, Background Executive Summary consultation, and compliance with The Surface Transportation Project This is the third audit of the Ohio environmental laws for Federal-aid Delivery Program, codified at 23 U.S.C. Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) highway projects. When a State assumes 327, commonly known as the NEPA assumption of National Environmental these responsibilities, it becomes solely Assignment Program, allows a State to Policy Act (NEPA) responsibilities, responsible and liable for carrying out assume FHWA’s responsibilities for conducted by a team of Federal the responsibilities assumed, in lieu of environmental review, consultation, and Highway Administration (FHWA) staff FHWA. compliance for Federal highway (the team). The ODOT made the The State of Ohio represented by projects. When a State assumes these effective date of the project-level NEPA ODOT completed the application Federal responsibilities, the State and environmental review process and entered an MOU with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61678 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

FHWA on December 28, 2015, and ODOT’s EnviroNet system with an interviews. The team documented the amended on June 6, 2018. With this environmental approval date between results of its reviews and interviews and agreement, ODOT assumed FHWA’s April 1, 2017, and March 31, 2018. The consolidated the results into related project approval responsibilities under selection of these projects was based on topics or themes. From these topics or NEPA and NEPA-related Federal a 100 percent sampling of d-listed themes, the team developed the review environmental laws. Categorical Exclusions (CE), as well as observations and successful practices. The FHWA is obligated to conduct all Environmental Assessments (EA) The audit results are described below. four annual compliance audits of and Environmental Impact Statements. Overall, the team found evidence that ODOT’s compliance with the provisions The team excluded from review those ODOT continues to make reasonable of the MOU. Audits serve as FHWA’s projects approved by ODOT under 23 progress in implementing the NEPA primary mechanism of determining CFR 771.117(c) (c-listed CEs) based on Assignment Program based on the Audit ODOT’s compliance with the MOU, the review performance of those types of 1 and Audit 2 observations and applicable Federal laws and policies, projects since ODOT assumed NEPA demonstrated commitment to success of evaluating ODOT’s progress toward responsibilities in 2015. The projects the program. The team found zero non- achieving the performance measures reviewed represented all remaining compliance observations but did note identified in the MOU, and collecting NEPA classes of action available, six general observations. information needed for the Secretary’s including projects representing 9 out of The FHWA team urges ODOT to annual report to Congress. 12 ODOT Districts and the Ohio Rail monitor and make additional The team provided a draft of this Development Commission. improvements to the program for report to ODOT for its review and the In addition, the team reviewed continued successes of the program. team considered the resulting comments ODOT’s project file review associated Observations and Successful Practices in preparing the draft which was made with its self-assessment to determine if available for public review and ODOT evaluated its projects in a similar Program Management comment. The FHWA considered public fashion and using similar standards to Observation 1: Opportunities Exist To comments on the draft in finalizing this that of the Federal portion of this Strengthen Coordination Between report. review. The ODOT reviewed projects ODOT OES and ODOT ODI. within the same sampling period as Scope and Methodology FHWA, however, ODOT samples The team encourages ODOT to ensure The team conducted a careful included Federal-aid and State-only that a proper level of communication examination of the ODOT NEPA funded projects. The ODOT conducts exists between OES and ODI in order to Assignment Program through a review NEPA on all projects regardless of facilitate the coordination of OES of ODOT procedures and project funding source as they routinely convert guidance and training with the ongoing documentation, ODOT’s PAIR response, funding from State to Federal later via ODOT-wide Title VI program and the self-assessment summary report, the Advanced Construction process. The enhancements. The FHWA recognizes as well as interviews with ODOT central ODOT reviewed 248 projects, including and is supportive of the coordination office and district environmental staff 186 c-listed projects, 61 d-listed and partnering efforts between OES and and resource agency staff. This review projects, and 1 EA. The team ODI undertaken to date and stands focuses on the following six NEPA determined the State performed a ready to contribute to these efforts, Assignment Program elements: (1) rigorous annual QA review of its own where appropriate. Program management; (2) projects. Observation 2: There Are documentation and records During the on-site review week, the Inconsistencies in the Communication management; (3) QA/QC; (4) legal team conducted interviews with 21 and Management of ODOT Policy, sufficiency; (5) performance ODOT staff members at the central Manuals, Procedures, and Guidance measurement; and (6) training. office and three districts: District 6 The PAIR consisted of 18 questions, (Delaware); District 7 (Sydney); and The ODOT developed and based on the responsibilities assigned to District 10 (Marietta). Interviewees implemented over 140 procedures to ODOT in the MOU. The team reviewed included ODOT OES management and implement NEPA Assignment, manage ODOT’s response and compared the subject matter experts, Office of the program, and provide detailed responses to ODOT’s written Diversity and Inclusion (ODI), District instruction for completion of procedures. The team utilized ODOT’s Environmental Coordinators (DEC), environmental actions to document responses to draft interview questions to environmental staff, and public preparers and reviewers. The ODOT clarify information in ODOT’s PAIR information officers, representing a shares these documents and other response. diverse range of expertise and guidance with NEPA practitioners on a The ODOT provided its NEPA experience. These interviews focused on quarterly basis via email, NEPA chats Assignment Self-Assessment summary NEPA Assignment with emphasis on and DEC Meetings, and via training. In report 30 days prior to the team’s on-site items where additional information was addition, these documents are saved on review. The team considered this deemed necessary to complete the a local drive accessible by ODOT summary report both in focusing on review. environmental staff and posted to issues during the project file reviews The team conducted interviews 2 ODOT’s website for consultants and and in drafting interview questions. The weeks prior to the on-site review with local public agencies. report was compared against the personnel from the ODNR. The ODNR The FHWA found that policies, previous year’s self-assessment report staff provided valuable insight to the manuals, and other guidance documents and the requirements in the MOU to review team regarding ODOT’s are readily available. However, identify any trends. performance and relationships with interviews with district staff indicate Between March 16 and May 31, 2018, partner resource agencies. that opportunities exist to improve upon the team conducted a project file review The team identified gaps between the the communication of this by identifying and reviewing 39 higher- information from the desktop review of documentation in order to ensure more risk project files out of 1,042 approved ODOT procedures, PAIR, self- consistent implementation. In addition, documents of Federal-aid projects in assessment, project file review, and there are examples of training materials

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61679

containing information that is not transportation decisionmaking Selected ODOT OES and district included in the related guidance processes. environmental staff said that they rely documents. In these cases, some on the ODOT Central Office for QC Documentation and Records environmental staff indicated they rely support. No training is provided Management on the information in the guidance exclusively for QA/QC. while others indicated they rely on OES Observation 4: Opportunities Exist To Legal Sufficiency Review instruction provided verbally or through Continue Improving Documentation in email. Information prepared for ODOT the Areas of PI, EJ, and Environmental The ODOT utilized its guidance for staff should exhibit consistency, Commitments legal sufficiency to review one regardless of the form in which its In response to previous audits and Environmental Impact Statement Re- presented. self-assessments, ODOT updated many evaluation, one EA, and two Individual Section 4(f) approvals. Observation 3: Inconsistencies Remain procedures relating to the NEPA process in Public Involvement (PI) Activities to improve its processes and meet Performance Measures Specifically Regarding Outreach Federal requirements. The updates The development of Performance Activities to Underserved and Protected included changes to ODOT’s internal Measures is required in MOU Section Populations documentation and filing guidelines 10.2. The ODOT has refined its and updates to EnviroNet. The review The team notes and appreciates Performance Measures to provide a team thinks these changes have ongoing efforts by ODOT in response to better overall indication of ODOT’s positively impacted the program since previous audit recommendations for execution of its responsibilities as Audits 1 and 2. assigned by the MOU. The team found improvement and enhancement of the The quality of documentation for PI process. The team was provided projects is trending in a positive evidence that the results obtained examples of effective PI efforts during direction since Audits 1 and 2, as through the Performance Measures are the interviews with district staff. approximately 50 percent of all projects beginning to provide actionable However, as demonstrated in the project reviewed had zero deficiencies noted by feedback, allowing ODOT to make file reviews and the interviews, there the team. However, although there were appropriate changes as it manages its remain areas of note in application and examples of high quality PI, EJ reviews, environmental program. consistency of public involvement development of environmental Training Program efforts and activities. commitments, and documentation for During FHWA’s review, ODOT stated During the previous audits, it was some projects, these same elements that the intent of its process regarding noted that ODOT has a robust were lacking in others. For the projects Environmental Justice (EJ) is to identify environmental training program and any disproportionately high and adverse reviewed, 42 percent of substantive provides adequate budget and time for impacts and disparate impacts on the comments made by the team related to staff to access a variety of internal and associated populations. Although OES EJ, 22 percent to PI, 17 percent to external training. To add to the training staff indicated that they have updated environmental commitments, 11 percent program and plan, ODOT has the guidance, developed new training, to QA/QC, and 8 percent to complemented its traditional, and provided forums for instructive documentation. This demonstrates instructor-based training courses, discussion for all environmental staff, inconsistencies in practice, which may quarterly DEC meetings, and monthly consultants, and Local Public Agencies, indicate additional training, guidance, NEPA chats with the development of it is not clear how ODOT will ensure and/or quality controls may be needed several online courses. During the audit, that outreach efforts and activities are to improve consistency in application of ODOT reported that 10 online courses commensurate with the level of impact documentation statewide. are anticipated to be available in August The team met with ODOT to discuss or potential mitigation, as there is no 2018, with an additional 19 online individual deficiencies noted by both discussion of outreach efforts in the courses anticipated to be developed FHWA and ODOT OES during this ODOT–OES’ Underserved Populations within the year. As of October 2018, it audit. The ODOT evaluated these Guidance. It is unclear that the is not evident that these courses were deficiencies at OES and then distinctions and specific requirements yet deployed. of protected populations are fully communicated them individually with discerned and distinguished from each the districts. The ODOT remains Observation 6: Opportunities Exist To other in the guidance document, committed to improvements in Expand Required and Continuous including thresholds and requirements. documentation, with plans to continue Training to Additional Staff and In addition, interview responses within updates to EnviroNet and guidance, as Develop Additional Instructor-Led or OES indicated a difference of opinion in needed, and with the training required Online Training in NEPA-Related terms of what constituted outreach to to deliver results. Subject Areas underserved and protected populations. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Also, during the previous audit, it was At the district level, ODOT District noted ODOT’s training plan states that environmental staff indicated that they Observation 5: There Are Variations in all ODOT environmental staff (both had inconsistent information on how to Awareness, Understanding, and central and district offices) and determine if there were protected Implementation of QA/QC Process and environmental consultants are required populations and how to conduct the Procedures to take the pre-qualification training required outreach activities, even if The inconsistencies and missing courses. The ODOT should consider there were no disproportionately information noted in the Documentation extending this requirement to NEPA negative impacts. However, OES is and Records Management section are an project managers and public trusting the districts, on projects with a indication of inconsistency in ODOT’s involvement officers. Extending the lower level of NEPA classification, to QA/QC process. The team found training to additional staff may improve ensure full and fair participation by inconsistencies in awareness and use of public outreach efforts and overall underserved and protected populations peer reviews in the ODOT Districts, as program delivery. The ODOT should in public involvement, NEPA and the well as use of comments in EnviroNet. focus on training in NEPA and NEPA-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61680 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

related subject areas such as Limited Transportation, 60 Forsyth Street 8M5, report incorporates the results of the English Proficiency and Public Atlanta, GA 30303. Office hours are draft report unchanged. Involvement. The FHWA encourages from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday Authority: Section 1313 of Public Law ODOT to include specific EJ training through Friday, except Federal holidays. 112–141; Section 6005 of Public Law 109–59; opportunities in its training plan, such SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 23 U.S.C. 327; 23 CFR 773. as the Web-based course currently under development. Electronic Access Nicole R. Nason, Administrator, Federal Highway Finalization of Report An electronic copy of this notice may Administration. be downloaded from the specific docket The FHWA received one response to page at www.regulations.gov. Surface Transportation Project Delivery the Federal Register Notice during the Program public comment period for the draft Background report. This response, from the FHWA Audit of the Utah Department of The Surface Transportation Project Transportation American Road and Transportation Delivery Program, codified at 23 U.S.C. June 10, 2017–June 30, 2018 Builders Association, was supportive of 327, commonly known as the NEPA the Surface Transportation Delivery Assignment Program, allows a State to Executive Summary Program and did not relate specifically assume FHWA’s environmental to Audit 3. This final report is This report summarizes the results of responsibilities for review, consultation, the Federal Highway Administration’s substantively the same as the draft and compliance for Federal highway version. (FHWA) second audit of the Utah projects. When a State assumes these Department of Transportation’s (UDOT) [FR Doc. 2019–24654 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] Federal responsibilities, the State National Environmental Policy Act BILLING CODE 4910–22–P becomes solely liable for carrying out (NEPA) review responsibilities and the responsibilities it has assumed, in obligations that FHWA has assigned and lieu of FHWA. The UDOT published its DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UDOT has assumed pursuant to 23 application for NEPA assumption on United States Code (U.S.C.) 327. Federal Highway Administration October 9, 2015, and made it available Throughout this report, FHWA uses the for public comment for 30 days. After term ‘‘NEPA Assignment Program’’ to [FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2019–0009] considering public comments, UDOT refer to the program codified at 23 submitted its application to FHWA on U.S.C. 327. Under the authority of 23 Surface Transportation Project December 1, 2015. The application U.S.C. 327, UDOT and FHWA executed Delivery Program; Utah Department of served as the basis for developing a a memorandum of understanding Transportation Audit Report memorandum of understanding (MOU) (MOU) on January 17, 2017, to AGENCY: Federal Highway that identified the responsibilities and memorialize UDOT’s NEPA Administration (FHWA), U.S. obligations that UDOT would assume. responsibilities and liabilities for Department of Transportation (DOT). The FHWA published a notice of the Federal-aid highway projects and ACTION: Notice. draft MOU in the Federal Register on certain other FHWA approvals for November 16, 2016, with a 30-day transportation projects in Utah. The SUMMARY: The Moving Ahead for comment period to solicit the views of FHWA’s only NEPA responsibilities in Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP– the public and Federal agencies. After Utah are oversight and review of how 21) established the Surface the close of the comment period, FHWA UDOT executes its NEPA Assignment Transportation Project Delivery Program and UDOT considered comments and Program obligations. The section 327 that allows a State to assume FHWA’s proceeded to execute the MOU. MOU covers environmental review environmental responsibilities for Effective January 17, 2017, UDOT responsibilities for projects that require environmental review, consultation, and assumed FHWA’s responsibilities under the preparation of environmental compliance under the National NEPA, and the responsibilities for assessments (EA), environmental impact Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for NEPA-related Federal environmental statements (EIS), and non-designated Federal highway projects. When a State laws described in the MOU. documented categorical exclusions assumes these Federal responsibilities, Section 327(g) of title 23, U.S.C., (DCE). A separate MOU, pursuant to 23 the State becomes solely responsible requires the Secretary to conduct annual U.S.C. 326, authorizes UDOT’s and liable for carrying out the audits to ensure compliance with the environmental review responsibilities responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu MOU during each of the first 4 years of for other categorical exclusions (CE), of FHWA. This program mandates State participation and, after the fourth commonly known as CE Program annual audits during each of the first 4 year, monitor compliance. The FHWA Assignment. This audit does not cover years of State participation to ensure must make the results of each audit the CE Program Assignment compliance with program requirements. available for public comment. This responsibilities and projects. This notice finalizes the findings of the notice finalizes the findings of the As part of its review responsibilities second audit report for the Utah second audit report for UDOT under 23 U.S.C. 327, FHWA formed a Department of Transportation (UDOT). participation in the NEPA Assignment team (the ‘‘Audit Team’’) in July 2018 to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. program. The FHWA published a draft plan and conduct an audit of NEPA Deirdre Remley, Office of Project version of this report in the Federal responsibilities UDOT assumed. Prior to Development and Environmental Register on April 16, 2019, at 84 FR the on-site visit, the Audit Team Review, (202) 366–0524, 15663, and made it available for public reviewed UDOT’s NEPA project files, [email protected], 1200 New review and comment for 30 days in UDOT’s response to FHWA’s pre-audit Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC accordance with 23 U.S.C. 327(g). The information request (PAIR), UDOT’s 20590; or Mr. David Sett, Office of the FHWA did not receive any responses to self-assessment of its NEPA Program, Chief Counsel, (404) 562–3676, the Federal Register notice during the UDOT’s NEPA Quality Assurance/ [email protected], Federal Highway public comment period for the draft Quality Control (QA/QC) Guidance, its Administration, U.S. Department of report. This final version of the audit NEPA Assignment Training Plan, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices 61681

its NEPA Assignment Self-Assessment Assignment Program requirements. This management to participate to ensure the Report. The Audit Team conducted an includes ensuring compliance with interviews represented a diverse range on-site review during the week of applicable Federal laws and policies, of staff expertise, experience, and October 15 to October 18, 2018. The evaluating UDOT’s progress toward program responsibility. Audit Team conducted interviews with achieving the performance measures Throughout the document reviews seven members of UDOT central office identified in MOU Section 10.2, and and interviews, the Audit Team verified staff, three staff members of UDOT’s collecting information needed for the information on the UDOT NEPA legal counsel, and two staff members Secretary’s annual report to Congress. Assignment Program including UDOT from the Utah State Historic The FHWA must present the results of policies, guidance, manuals, and Preservation Office as part of this on-site each audit in a report and make it reports. This included the NEPA QA/QC review. available for public comment in the Guidance, the NEPA Assignment Overall, the Audit Team found that Federal Register. Training Plan, and the NEPA UDOT is successfully adding DCE, EA, The Audit Team consisted of NEPA Assignment Self-Assessment Report. and EIS project review responsibilities subject matter experts from FHWA Utah to an already successful CE review Division, as well as additional FHWA The Audit Team compared the program. The UDOT has made efforts to Division staff from California, the procedures outlined in UDOT respond to FHWA findings of the first District of Columbia, Georgia, and environmental manuals and policies to audit, including improving document Alaska. These experts received training the information obtained during management, internal communication, on how to evaluate implementation of interviews and project file reviews to and use of terms related to Section 4(f). the NEPA Assignment Program. determine if there were discrepancies In the first audit, FHWA Audit Team between UDOT’s performance and Scope and Methodology made the observation that there was documented procedures. The Audit inconsistent understanding of QA/QC The Audit Team conducted an Team documented observations under procedures among UDOT staff. In the examination of UDOT’s NEPA project the six NEPA Assignment Program topic second audit, FHWA Audit Team files, UDOT responses to the PAIR, and areas. Below are the audit results. identified an observation related to four UDOT self-assessment. The audit also Overall, UDOT has carried out the instances of UDOT’s lack of adherence included interviews with staff and environmental responsibilities it to its QA/QC procedures. In addition, reviews of UDOT policies, guidance, assumed through the MOU and the although UDOT has improved its and manuals pertaining to NEPA application for the NEPA Assignment document management, the second responsibilities. All reviews focused on Program, and as such the Audit Team audit found that UDOT continues to objectives related to the six NEPA finds UDOT is substantially compliant lack procedures for retaining draft and Assignment Program elements: Program with the provisions of the MOU. deliberative materials for project management; documentation and records. records management; QA/QC; legal Observations and Successful Practices sufficiency; training; and performance The Audit Team identified two This section summarizes the Audit measurement. observations as well as several Team’s observations of UDOT’s NEPA successful practices. The Audit Team The focus of the audit was on UDOT’s process and program implementation. Assignment Program implementation, finds UDOT is carrying out the including successful practices UDOT responsibilities it has assumed and is in Therefore, while the Audit Team reviewed project files to evaluate may want to continue or expand. substantial compliance with the Successful practices are positive results provisions of the MOU. UDOT’s NEPA process and procedures, the Audit Team did not evaluate FHWA would like to commend UDOT Background UDOT’s project-specific decisions to for developing. These may include ideas The NEPA Assignment Program determine if they were, in FHWA’s or concepts that UDOT has planned but allows a State to assume FHWA’s opinion, correct or not. The Audit Team not yet implemented. Observations are environmental responsibilities for reviewed 23 NEPA Project files with items the Audit Team would like to review, consultation, and compliance DCEs, EAs, and EISs, representing all draw UDOT’s attention to, which may for Federal-aid highway projects and projects with decision points or other benefit from revisions to improve certain FHWA approvals. Under 23 actionable items between June 10, 2017, processes, procedures, or outcomes. The U.S.C. 327, a State that assumes these and June 30, 2018. The Audit Team also UDOT may have already taken steps to Federal responsibilities becomes solely interviewed environmental staff in address or improve upon the Audit responsible and solely liable for UDOT’s headquarters office. Team’s observations, but at the time of carrying them out. Effective January 17, The PAIR consisted of 29 questions the audit they appeared to be areas 2017, UDOT assumed FHWA’s about specific elements in the MOU. where UDOT could make responsibilities under NEPA and other The Audit Team used UDOT’s response improvements. This report addresses all related environmental laws. Examples to the PAIR to develop specific follow- six MOU topic areas as separate of responsibilities UDOT has assumed up questions for the on-site interviews discussions. Under each area, this report in addition to NEPA include section 7 with UDOT staff. discusses successful practices followed consultation under the Endangered The Audit Team conducted seven in- by observations. Species Act and consultation under person interviews with UDOT This audit report provides an section 106 of the National Historic environmental staff, one in-person opportunity for UDOT to implement Preservation Act. interview with two staff members of the actions to improve its program. The Following this second audit, FHWA UDOT State Historic Preservation FHWA will consider the status of areas will conduct two more annual audits to Office, two phone interviews with identified for potential improvement in satisfy provisions of 23 U.S.C. 327(g) UDOT’s outside legal counsel, and one this audit’s observations as part of the and Part 11 of the MOU. Audits are the interview with legal counsel from the scope of Audit #3. The third audit primary mechanism through which Utah Attorney General’s office. The report will include a summary FHWA may oversee UDOT’s compliance Audit Team invited UDOT staff, middle discussion that describes progress since with the MOU and the NEPA management, and executive the last audit.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 61682 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Notices

Program Management recordkeeping could result in document apprised of all communications between loss and difficulty of retrieval, UDOT staff and outside counsel and Successful Practices hampering the ability to demonstrate reviews all bills submitted by outside The UDOT and FHWA Division office support for Agency decisions, including counsel. Outside counsel have been meet on a quarterly basis to keep staff compilation of administrative records in included as part of the ‘‘project team’’ updated on current topics related to legal challenges. from the start of projects, and some have UDOT implementing the NEPA Quality Assurance/Quality Control reviewed draft notices of intent for EISs. Assignment Program. During FHWA/ In addition, the UDOT, an Assistant AG, UDOT quarterly meetings, the agencies Observation #2: Inconsistent and outside counsel hold quarterly work to ensure project delivery Application of UDOT’s QA/QC meetings at which UDOT staff apprise schedules of non-assigned Federal Procedures counsel of upcoming project reviews actions, such as Federal land transfers Section 8.2.4 of the MOU requires and anticipated review deadlines. and Interstate access change requests as UDOT to develop a QA/QC process. they relate to projects assigned to UDOT Project file reviews revealed that one of Training under the MOU. This meeting is also the two Draft EISs that UDOT approved Successful Practices used to address program-level NEPA for circulation during the audit period Assignment questions, such as occurred prior to completion of the The UDOT has created a training plan clarifying starting dates of EAs for required QA/QC process. This approval that is customized to each employee’s performance tracking. was not in accordance with either the needs and disciplines to provide more Documentation and Records QA/QC Plan or the UDOT Manual of focused training opportunities by Management Instruction, which require the specialty. The UDOT provides training Environmental Document QC Form, on general environmental topics such as Successful Practices signed by the Environmental Program NEPA, and provides opportunities for Manager and the Director of ProjectWise is a document database subject matter experts to take training Environment, be provided to the UDOT UDOT uses to maintain final project related to their disciplines. records for DCEs, EAs, and EISs. Signatory Official with the request for Though it was not developed approval of the Draft EIS. Performance Measures specifically for producing and Project file reviews and interviews Successful Practices maintaining environmental documents, with UDOT staff revealed an ProjectWise is accessible to all staff and inconsistent approach to conducting and documenting the QA/QC process The UDOT’s self-assessment can store final environmental documented the performance documents and technical reports. Since for DCEs. The Audit Team reviewed project files for four DCEs. This review management details of the NEPA the last audit, UDOT has started using Assignment program in Utah, which organizational tools such as subfolders revealed three different approaches to conducting the required QA/QC for demonstrates UDOT’s procedures under in ProjectWise to better organize final NEPA assignment have resulted in a 50 environmental documents. Once the these projects. Two of these QA/QC percent reduction in the time to environmental review process is reviews used one form, the third used complete DCEs, EAs, and EISs. The complete for a project and the a different form, and the fourth project average time to complete environmental consultant has submitted final project had neither a form nor other files, UDOT uses project record documentation in ProjectWise. These documents is 5 months for DCEs, 18 checklists to confirm completeness of inconsistencies in practice suggest that months for EAs, and 37 months for an ProjectWise files. UDOT’s QA/QC procedures may not be EIS. Although these data are based on a effective. The UDOT may also be limited number of completed UDOT Observation #1: Incomplete Retention of unnecessarily increasing its risks when NEPA reviews since January 2017 (nine Environmental Project Records staff ignore stipulated quality control DCEs, two EAs, and one EIS), UDOT’s The project reviews and interviews reviews prior to making NEPA initial timeliness results are promising. determined UDOT retains final decisions. The UDOT will continue to monitor its environmental documents such as EAs, Legal Sufficiency progress towards improving timeliness Draft EISs, Final EISs, Findings of No of environmental reviews as part of its Significant Impact, and Records of Successful Practices performance under the NEPA Decision, and certain technical reports During the audit period, outside Assignment Program. in ProjectWise. There is, however, no counsel issued two findings of legal procedure for retaining other types of sufficiency per the requirements of 23 Finalizing the Report supporting materials that inform NEPA CFR 771.125(b) and 23 CFR 774.7(d), The FHWA published a draft version decisions and other environmental copies of which were provided to the of this report in the Federal Register on determinations. Other records, such as Audit Team. Through interviews, the April 16, 2019, at 84 FR 15663, and meeting summaries documenting Audit Team learned UDOT has made it available for public review and coordination with resource agencies and continued using the legal sufficiency comment for 30 days in accordance with stakeholders or telephone memos process it put in place for both Section 23 U.S.C. 327(g). The FHWA did not documenting conversations used to 326 CE and section 327 NEPA receive any responses to the Federal gather substantive information related to Assignment, which is contracting with Register notice during the public environmental decisions, were generally outside counsel who have extensive comment period for the draft report. absent from the ProjectWise files experience in NEPA, other reviewed. Some environmental staff environmental laws, and Federal This version of the audit report said they store these types of documents environmental litigation. The UDOT incorporates the results of the draft on personal drives, local servers, or as Environmental Managers work directly report unchanged. hardcopy in filing cabinets. This with outside counsel. Nevertheless, an [FR Doc. 2019–24655 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] dispersal and inconsistency of Assistant AG assigned to UDOT is kept BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM 13NON1 Vol. 84 Wednesday, No. 219 November 13, 2019

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions; Proposed Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61684 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION considered the official comment and 2. Outreach Activities After Failing To AGENCY should include discussion of all points Meet a Lead Service Line Replacement you wish to make. The EPA will Goal 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 generally not consider comments or 3. Notification of Tap Sample Results and Other Outreach [EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0300; FRL–10001–16– comment contents located outside of the G. Monitoring Requirements for Lead and OW] primary submission (i.e., on the web, Copper in Tap Water Sampling cloud, or other file sharing system). For 1. Tiering of Tap Sample Collection Sites RIN 2040–AF15 additional submission methods, the full 2. Number of Tap Samples and Frequency of Sampling National Primary Drinking Water EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 3. Sample Collection Methods Regulations: Proposed Lead and H. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring Copper Rule Revisions submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit 1. Calcium Carbonate Stabilization 2. Find-and-Fix Water Quality Parameter AGENCY: Environmental Protection https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ Monitoring Agency (EPA). commenting-epa-dockets. All 3. Review of Water Quality Parameters ACTION: Proposed rule, request for submissions received must include the During Sanitary Surveys public comment. Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. 4. Additional Water Quality Parameter Comments received may be posted Requirements SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection without change to https:// I. Source Water Monitoring Agency (EPA) proposes regulatory www.regulations.gov/, including any J. Public Education and Sampling at revisions to the National Primary personal information provided. Schools and Child Care Facilities Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for K. Find-and-Fix FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik L. Reporting lead and copper under the authority of Helm, Standards and Risk Management 1. Reporting Requirements for Tap the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Division, Office of Ground Water and Sampling for Lead and Copper and for This proposed rule provides more Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Water Quality Parameter Monitoring effective protection of public health by Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 2. Lead Service Line Inventory and reducing exposure to lead and copper in Ave. NW, Mail Code 4607M, Replacement Reporting Requirements 3. Lead Trigger Level Notification drinking water. This proposed rule also Washington, DC 20460; telephone strengthens procedures and Requirements number: (202) 566–1049 (TTY 800–877– 4. Reporting Requirements for School and requirements related to health 8339); email address: Helm.Erik@ protection and the implementation of Child Care Public Education and EPA.gov. For more information visit Sampling the existing Lead and Copper Rule https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead- IV. Other Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part (LCR) in the following areas: Lead tap and-copper-rule. 141 sampling; corrosion control treatment; A. Consumer Confidence Report SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: lead service line replacement; consumer B. Public Notification awareness; and public education. This I. General Information C. Definitions proposal does not include revisions to A. What is the EPA proposing? V. Rule Implementation and Enforcement the copper requirements of the existing B. Does this action apply to me? A. What are the requirements for primacy? LCR. In addition, this proposal includes II. Background B. What are the State record keeping new requirements for community water A. Health Effects of Lead and Copper requirements? B. Statutory Authority C. What are the State reporting systems to conduct lead in drinking C. Regulatory History requirements? water testing and public education in III. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Subpart I D. What are the special primacy schools and child care facilities. Control of Lead and Copper requirements? DATES: Comments must be received on A. Lead Trigger Level VI. Economic Analysis or before January 13, 2020. Under the B. Corrosion Control Treatment A. Affected Entities and Major Data Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 1. Corrosion Control Evaluation During Sources Used To Characterize the comments on the information collection Sanitary Surveys Sample Universe provisions are best assured of 2. Corrosion Control Treatment B. Overview of the Cost-Benefit Model Requirements Based on Lead 90th C. Cost Analysis consideration if the Office of Percentile 1. Sampling Costs Management and Budget (OMB) 3. Calcium Carbonate Stabilization 2. Corrosion Control Treatment Costs receives a copy of your comments on or C. Lead Service Line Inventory 3. Lead Service Line Inventory and before December 13, 2019. D. Lead Service Line Replacement Replacement Costs ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 1. Lead Service Line Replacement Plan 4. Point-of-Use Costs identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 2. Partial Lead Service Line Replacement 5. Public Education and Outreach Costs OW–2017–0300, at http:// 3. Lead Service Line Replacement After a 6. Drinking Water System Implementation Lead Trigger Level Exceedance and Administrative Costs www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 4. Lead Service Line Replacement After a 7. Annualized per Household Costs instructions for submitting comments. Lead Action Level Exceedance 8. Primacy Agency Costs Once submitted, comments cannot be E. Compliance Alternatives for a Lead 9. Costs and Ecological Impacts Associated edited or removed from http:// Action Level Exceedance for Small With Additional Phosphate Usage www.regulations.gov. The EPA may Community Water Systems and Non- 10. Summary of Rule Costs publish any comment received to its Transient, Non-Community Water D. Benefits Analysis public docket. Do not submit Systems 1. Modeled Drinking Water Lead electronically any information you 1. Lead Service Line Replacement Concentrations consider to be Confidential Business 2. Corrosion Control Treatment 2. Impacts on Childhood IQ 3. Point-of-Use Devices 3. Impacts on Adult Blood Lead Levels Information (CBI) or other information 4. Replacement of Lead Bearing Plumbing 4. Total Monetized Benefits whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Materials E. Cost-Benefit Comparison Multimedia submissions (audio, video, F. Public Education 1. Non-Monetized Costs etc.) must be accompanied by a written 1. Notification for Customers With a Lead 2. Non-Quantified Non-Monetized Benefits comment. The written comment is Service Line F. Other Regulatory Options Considered

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61685

1. Lead Public Education and Sampling at contaminated by historical sources. The exposure to lead through drinking Schools and Child Care Facilities Option Federal Action Plan (Action Plan) to water, the Action Plan highlights several 2. Lead Tap Sampling Requirements for Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and key actions, including the EPA’s Water Systems With Lead Service Lines Associated Health Impacts, issued in commitment to making regulatory 3. Reporting of Lead Service Line Related Information December 2018, provides a blueprint for changes to the definition of lead-free G. Cost-Benefit Determination reducing further lead exposure and plumbing products and assisting VII. Request for Comment associated harm through collaboration schools and childcare centers with the VIII. Administrative Requirements among Federal agencies and with a 3Ts approach (Training, Testing and A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory range of stakeholders, including States, Taking Action) for lead in drinking Planning and Review) and Executive tribes, and local communities, along water. The Action Plan also highlights Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and with businesses, property owners, and the EPA’s continued support to States Regulatory Review) parents. The Action Plan is the product and communities by providing funding B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing of the President’s Task Force on opportunities through the Drinking Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Cost Environmental Health Risks and Safety Water State Revolving Fund and the C. Paperwork Reduction Act Risks to Children (Task Force). The Task Water Infrastructure Finance and D. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended Force is comprised of 17 Federal Innovation Act loan program for by the Small Business Regulatory departments and offices including the updating and replacing drinking water Fairness Act Department of Health and Human infrastructure. In addition, the Action E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Services (HHS) and the Department of Plan highlights three newly authorized F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) Housing and Urban Development, grant programs under the Water G. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation which co-chaired the development of Infrastructure Improvements for the and Coordination With Indian Tribal the Action Plan with EPA. Nation Act, for which Congress Governments) Through this plan, the EPA H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of appropriated $50 million in FY2018, to Children From Environmental Health committed to reducing lead exposures fund grants to small and disadvantaged and Safety Risks) from multiple sources including: Paint, communities for developing and I. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That ambient air, and soil and dust maintaining infrastructure, for lead Significantly Affect Energy Supply, contamination, especially children who reduction projects, and to support the Distribution, or Use) are among the most vulnerable to the voluntary testing of drinking water in J. National Technology Transfer and effects of lead. To reduce exposure to schools and child care centers. The Advancement Act of 1995 lead in paint, the EPA published new, Action Plan also highlights the K. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions tighter standards for lead in dust on importance of preventing lead exposure To Address Environmental Justice in floors and windowsills to protect from drinking water by working with Minority Populations and Low-Income children from the harmful effects of lead Populations) States, tribes, and local stakeholders to L. Consultations With the Science exposure (84 FR 32632). These revised, share best practices and tools to better Advisory Board and the National strengthened standards will reduce the implement the NPDWR for Lead and Drinking Water Advisory Council amount of lead in dust that causes Copper. For more information about the M. Consultation With Health and Human adverse health effects and that may Federal Lead Action Plan see https:// Services warrant measures to reduce risks. To www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ IX. References address lead in soil, the EPA will 2018-12/documents/fedactionplan_ _ I. General Information continue to remove, remediate, and take lead final.pdf. corrective actions at contaminated sites, Since the implementation of the Lead The United States has made expand the use of Soil Screening, and Copper Rule (LCR), drinking water tremendous progress in lowering Health, Outreach and Partnership exposures have declined significantly, children’s blood lead levels. As a result (SoilSHOP) health education events, resulting in major improvements in of multiple Federal laws and and manage lead contamination at public health. For example, the number regulations, including the 1973 phase- Superfund, a Resource Conservation of the nation’s large drinking water out of lead in automobile gasoline (40 and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective systems that have exceeded the LCR CFR part 80, subpart B), the 1978 Action, and other sites. The EPA will action level of 15 parts per billion has Federal regulation banning lead paint also continue to work with State and decreased by over 90 percent and over for residential and consumer use (16 tribal air agencies to implement the 95 percent of the all water systems have CFR part 1303), the 1991 LCR (40 CFR National Ambient Air Quality Standards not reported an action level exceedance part 141, subpart I), and the 1995 ban on and evaluate the impacts of lead in the last three years (EPA–815–F–19– lead in solder in food cans (21 CFR emissions from aviation fuel. The EPA 007). Despite this progress, there is a 189.240), the median concentration of is also focused on conducting critical compelling need to modernize and lead in the blood of children aged 1 to research and improving public improve the rule by strengthening its 5 years dropped from 15 micrograms per awareness by consolidating and public health protections and clarifying deciliter in 1976–1980 to 0.7 streamlining Federal messaging. its implementation requirements to micrograms per deciliter in 2013–2014, Lead and copper enter drinking water make it more effective and more readily a decrease of 95 percent. mainly from corrosion of lead and enforceable. Also, due to the financial Although childhood blood lead levels copper containing plumbing materials. and practical challenges of wide-spread have been substantially reduced as a Lead was widely used in plumbing replacement of lead pipes around the result of these actions, data evaluated by materials until Congress banned its use country, it is important to use our the National Toxicology Program (NTP), in 1986, and there are an estimated 6.3 nation’s resources wisely, and thus 2012 demonstrates that there is to 9.3 million homes served by lead target actions where they are most sufficient evidence to conclude that service lines (LSLs) in thousands of needed and can provide the most good. there are adverse health effects communities nationwide, in addition to The LCR is a more complicated associated with low-level lead exposure. millions of older buildings with lead drinking water treatment technique Sources of lead include lead-based solder, and brass/bronze fittings and regulation due to the need to control paint, drinking water, and soil faucets across the U.S. To reduce corrosivity of treated drinking water as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61686 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

it travels through often antiquated distribution system. To reduce elevated harm from lead exposure, the EPA is distribution and plumbing systems on levels of lead in certain locations, the proposing that community water the way to the consumer’s tap. States EPA proposes to require water systems systems (CWS) sample drinking water and public water systems require to ‘‘find-and-fix’’ the causes of these outlets at each school and each child expertise and resources to identify the elevated levels (see Section III.K. of this care facility served by the system. The sampling locations and to work with notice). system would be required to provide the customers to collect samples for 2. Strengthening treatment results to the school or child care analysis. Even greater expertise is requirements. The EPA is proposing to facility and to provide information needed for systems and states to identify revise requirements for corrosion about the actions the school or child the optimal corrosion control treatment control treatment (CCT) based on the tap care facility can take to reduce lead in and water quality parameter monitoring sampling results. The EPA’s proposal drinking water. to assure that lead and copper levels are also establishes a new trigger level of 10 Through strengthened treatment reduced to the extent feasible. The mg/L. At this trigger level, systems that procedures, expanded sampling, and current structure of the rule compels currently treat for corrosion would be improved protocols for identifying lead, additional protective actions on the part required to re-optimize their existing the EPA’s proposed revisions will of a water system only after a potential treatment. Systems that do not currently require more water systems to problem has been identified (i.e., the treat for corrosion would be required to progressively take more actions to lead action level is exceeded), which conduct a corrosion control study. reduce lead levels at the tap. may result in periods where the public 3. Replacing Lead Service Lines. The Additionally, by improving is exposed to elevated levels of lead EPA is proposing to require water transparency and communication, the while the system evaluates and systems to replace the water system- proposed rule is expected to increase implements the actions required. owned portion of an LSL when a community awareness and further Water systems cannot unilaterally customer chooses to replace their reduce sources of lead through implement the actions that are needed customer-owned portion of the line. The enhanced LSLR. By taking the collective to reduce levels of lead in drinking EPA is also proposing to require water actions discussed throughout the water. Homeowners must be engaged to systems to initiate full lead service line proposal, the EPA, States, and water assure successful lead service line replacement programs where tap systems will be implementing a replacement because in most sampling shows that lead levels in tap proactive holistic approach to more communities, LSLs are partially owned water exceed the existing action level aggressively manage lead in drinking by the water system and partially owned and the proposed trigger level. The water. by the homeowner. Water systems must proposal requires systems that are above A. What is the EPA proposing? also engage with consumers to the trigger level but at or below the lead encourage actions such as flushing that action level to set an annual goal for The EPA is proposing revisions to the reduce their exposure to lead in conducting replacements and for LCR that strengthen public health drinking water. The ability of water systems that are above the action level protection and improve implementation systems to successfully engage with to annually replace a minimum of three of the regulation in the following areas: consumers to reduce lead exposure can percent of the number of known or Lead tap sampling; CCT; LSLR; pose challenges to achieving the goals of potential LSLs in the inventory at the consumer awareness; and public the LCR. time the action level exceedance occurs. education (PE). This proposal adopts a The EPA has sought input over an The proposal also prevents systems regulatory framework recommended in extended period on ways in which the from avoiding LSLR by ‘‘testing out’’ part by State co-regulators through the Agency could address the challenges to with an LSL sample as is allowed in the Association of State Drinking Water achieving the goals for the LCR. Section current LCR. Administrators (ASDWA) and VIII of this notice describes the 4. Increasing sampling reliability. The incorporates many recommendations engagements the Agency has had with EPA is proposing to prohibit tap provided to the EPA by the National small water systems, state and local sampling instructions that call for pre- Drinking Water Advisory Council officials, the Science Advisory Board stagnation flushing, the cleaning or (NDWAC). NDWAC is a Federal and the National Drinking Water removing of faucet aerators, and a Advisory Committee that provides EPA Advisory Council (NDWAC). The requirement that tap samples be with advice and recommendations Science Advisory Board provided their collected in bottles with a wide-mouth related to the national drinking water recommendations in 2012 (SAB, 2012). configuration. The EPA is also changing program. The Council was established The NDWAC provided extensive the criteria for selecting homes with under the Safe Drinking Water Act of recommendations on potential LCR LSLs when collecting tap samples. For 1974. The EPA is proposing revisions to revisions to the EPA in December 2015 example, the EPA is proposing tap the LCR that would require water (NDWAC, 2015). sample site selection focus on sites with systems to take actions at lower lead tap This notice’s proposal includes a suite LSLs rather than copper pipe with lead water levels than currently required to of actions that approach the problem of solder. reduce lead in drinking water and better lead contamination in drinking water 5. Improving risk communication. The protect public health. The agency is from different perspectives but that EPA is proposing to require systems to proposing to establish a new lead taken together can further reduce lead notify customers of an action level ‘‘trigger level’’ of 10 mg/L in addition to exposure in drinking water. This exceedance within 24 hours. It also the 15 mg/L lead action level in the approach focuses on six key areas: requires systems to conduct regular current LCR. Public health 1. Identifying areas most impacted. To outreach to the homeowners with LSLs. improvements would be achieved by help identify areas most in need of The EPA is also proposing to require requiring more water systems to take a remediation, the EPA is proposing that that the LSL inventory, which would progressive set of actions to reduce lead all water systems complete and include location identifiers, be made levels at the tap. These proposed actions maintain a lead service line (LSL) publicly available. are designed to reduce lead and copper inventory and collect tap samples from 6. Protecting children in schools. exposure by ensuring effective CCT and homes with LSLs if present in the Since children risk the most significant re-optimization of CCT when water

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61687

quality declines; enhanced water quality with lead service lines or lead community water systems (NTNCWSs). parameter WQP) monitoring; containing plumbing materials and Implementation of the proposed establishment of a ‘‘find-and-fix’’ improving the sampling protocol. The revisions would better identify when provision to evaluate and remediate EPA also proposes revisions to the LCR and where lead contamination occurs, elevated lead at a site where the PE and Consumer Confidence Report or has the potential to occur, and individual tap sample exceeds the lead (CCR) requirements to improve require systems to take actions to action level requiring water systems to communication with consumers. In address it more effectively and sooner create an LSL inventory to ensure tap addition, this proposal includes than required under the current rule. requirements for community water sampling pools are targeted to the sites The following table compares the with elevated lead, and making systems (CWSs) to conduct lead in drinking water testing and PE in schools major differences between the current consumers aware of the presence of a and child care facilities. Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and LSL, if applicable, and to facilitate Together, these proposed revisions to proposed Lead and Copper Rule replacement of LSLs. The LCR proposed the framework and specific revisions (LCRR). In general, revisions are expected to improve tap requirements of the current LCR would requirements that are unchanged are not sampling by better targeting higher risk result in greater public health protection listed. Comparison of current LCR and sites for lead contamination, i.e., sites at all sizes CWSs and non-transient non- proposed LCR revisions (LCRR).

Current LCR Proposed LCRR

Action Level (AL) and Trigger Level (TL)

• 90th percentile (P90) level above lead AL of 15 μg/L or copper AL of • 90th percentile (P90) level above lead AL of 15 μg/L or copper AL of 1.3 mg/L requires additional actions. 1.3 mg/L requires more actions than the current rule. • Defines trigger level (TL) of P90 >10 and ≤15 μg/L that triggers addi- tional planning, monitoring, and treatment requirements.

Lead and Copper Tap Monitoring

Sample Site Selection: Sample Site Selection: • Prioritizes collection of samples from sites with sources of lead • Changes priorities for collection of samples with a greater focus in contact with drinking water. on lead service lines. • Highest priority given to sites served by copper pipes with lead • Prioritizes collecting samples from sites served by LSLs. solder installed after 1982 but before the State ban on lead • No distinction in prioritization of copper pipes with lead solder by pipes and/or lead service lines (LSLs). installation date. • Systems must collect 50% of samples from LSLs, if available. • Systems must collect all samples from sites served by LSLs, if available. Collection Procedure: Collection Procedure: • Requires collection of a one liter sample after water has sat • Adds requirement that samples must be collected in wide-mouth stagnant for a minimum of 6 hours. bottles. • Prohibits sampling instructions that include recommendations for aerator cleaning/removal and pre-stagnation flushing prior to sample collection. Monitoring Frequency: Monitoring Frequency: • Samples are analyzed for both lead and copper. • Some samples may be analyzed for lead only when lead moni- • Systems must collect standard number of samples, based on toring is conducted more frequently than copper. population; semi-annually unless they qualify for reduced moni- • Copper follows the same criteria as the current rule. toring. • Lead monitoring schedule is based on P90 level for all systems • Systems can qualify for annual or triennial monitoring at reduced as follows: number of sites. Schedule based on number of consecutive Æ P90 >15 μg/L: Semi-annually at the standard number of years meeting the following criteria: sites. Æ Serves ≤50,000 people and ≤ lead & copper ALs. Æ P90 >10 to 15 μg/L: Annually at the standard number of Æ Serves any population size, meets State-specified optimal sites. water quality parameters (OWQPs), and ≤ lead AL. Æ P90 ≤10 μg/L: • Triennial monitoring also applies to any system with lead and D Annually and triennially at reduced number of sites copper 90th percentile levels ≤0.005 mg/L and ≤0.65 mg/L, re- using same criteria as current rule except copper 90th spectively, for 2 consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. percentile level is not considered. • 9-year monitoring waiver available to systems serving ≤3,300. D Every 9 years based on current rule requirements for a 9-year monitoring waiver.

Corrosion Control Treatment (CCT) and Water Quality Parameters (WQPs)

CCT: CCT: • Systems serving >50,000 people were required to install treat- • Specifies CCT requirements for systems with P90 level >10 to ment by January 1, 1997 with limited exception. ≤15 μg/L: • Systems serving ≤50,000 that exceed lead and/or copper AL are Æ No CCT: Must conduct a CCT study if required by Primacy subject to CCT requirements (e.g., CCT recommendation, study Agency. if required by Primacy Agency, CCT installation). They can dis- Æ With CCT: Must follow the steps for re-optimizing CCT, as continue CCT steps if no longer exceed both ALs for two con- specified in the rule. secutive 6-month monitoring periods. • Systems with P90 level >15 μg/L: • Systems must operate CCT to meet any Primacy Agency-des- Æ No CCT: Must complete CCT installation regardless of their ignated OWQPs that define optimal CCT. subsequent P90 levels. • There is no requirement for systems to re-optimize. Æ With CCT: Must re-optimize CCT.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61688 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Current LCR Proposed LCRR

• Community water systems (CWSs) serving ≤10,000 people and non-transient water systems (NTNCWSs) can select an option other than CCT to address lead. See Small System Flexibility. CCT Options: Includes alkalinity and pH adjustment, calcium hardness CCT Options: Removes calcium hardness as an option and specifies adjustment, and phosphate or silicate-based corrosion inhibitor. any phosphate inhibitor must be orthophosphate. Regulated WQPs: Regulated WQPs: • No CCT: pH, alkalinity, calcium, conductivity, temperature, • Eliminates WQPs related to calcium hardness (i.e., calcium, orthophosphate (if phosphate-based inhibitor is used), silica (if conductivity, and temperature). silica-based inhibitor is used). • With CCT: pH, alkalinity, and based on type of CCT either orthophosphate, silica, or calcium. WQP Monitoring: WQP Monitoring: • Systems serving ≥50,000 people must conduct regular WQP • Systems serving ≥50,000 people must conduct regular WQP monitoring at entry points and within the distribution system. monitoring at entry points and within the distribution system. • Systems serving ≤50,000 people conduct monitoring only in • Systems serving ≤50,000 people must continue WQP monitoring those periods > lead or copper AL. until they no longer > lead and/or copper AL for two consecutive • Contains provisions to sample at reduced number of sites in dis- 6-month monitoring periods. tribution system less frequency for all systems meeting their • To qualify for reduced WQP distribution monitoring, P90 must be OWQPs. ≤10 μg/L and the system must meet its OWQPs. Sanitary Survey Review: Sanitary Survey Review: • Treatment must be reviewed during sanitary surveys; no specific • CCT and WQP data must be reviewed during sanitary surveys requirement to assess CCT or WQPs. against most recent CCT guidance issued by EPA. Find and Fix: Find and Fix: No required follow-up samples or additional actions if an individual If individual tap sample >15 μg/L, systems must: sample exceeds 15 μg/L. • Collect a follow-up sample at each location >15 μg/L. • Conduct WQP monitoring at or near the site >15 μg/L. • Perform needed corrective action.

LSL Inventory and LSLR Plan

Initial LSL Program Activities: Initial LSL Program Activities: • Systems were required to complete a materials evaluation by • All systems must develop an LSL inventory or demonstrate ab- the time of initial sampling. No requirement to update materials sence of LSLs within first 3 years of final rule publication. evaluation. • LSL inventory must be updated annually. • No LSLR plan is required. • All systems with known or possible LSLs must develop an LSLR plan. LSLR: LSLR: • Systems with LSLs with P90 >15 μg/L after CCT installation • Rule specifies replacement programs based on P90 level for must annually replace ≥7% of number of LSLs in their distribu- CWSs serving >10,000 people: tion system when the lead action level is first exceeded. Æ If P90 >15 μg/L: Must fully replace 3% of LSLs per year • Systems must replace the LSL portion they own and offer to re- (mandatory replacement) for 4 consecutive 6-month moni- place the private portion at the owner’s expense. toring periods. • Full LSLR, partial LSLR, and LSLs with lead sample results ≤15 Æ If P90 >10 to 15 μg/L: Implement an LSLR program with re- μg/L (‘‘test-outs’’) count toward the 7% replacement rate. placement goals in consultation with the Primacy Agency for • Systems can discontinue LSLR after 2 consecutive 6-month 2 consecutive 1-year monitoring periods. monitoring periods ≤ lead AL. • Small CWSs and NTNCWSs that select LSLR as their compli- ance option must complete LSLR within 15 years if P90 >15 μg/L See Small System Flexibility. • Annual LSLR rate is based on number of LSLs when the system first exceeds the action level plus the current number of service lines of unknown materials. • Only full LSLR (both customer-owned and system-owned por- tion) count toward mandatory rate or goal-based rate. • All systems must replace their portion of an LSL if notified by consumer of private side replacement within 3 months of the pri- vate replacement. • Following each LSLR, systems must: Æ Provide pitcher filters/cartridges to each customer for 3 months after replacement. Must be provided within 24 hours for full and partial LSLRs. Æ Collect a lead tap sample at locations served by replaced line within 3 to 6 months after replacement. LSL-Related Outreach: LSL-Related Outreach: • When water system plans to replace the portion it owns, it must • Inform consumers annually that they are served by LSL or serv- offer to replace customer-owned portion at owner’s expense. ice line of unknown material. • If system replaces its portion only: • Systems subject to goal-based program must: Æ Provide notification to affected residences within 45 days Æ Conduct targeted outreach that encourages consumers with prior to replacement on possible elevated short-term lead LSLs to participate in the LSLR program. levels and measures to minimize exposure. Æ Conduct an additional outreach activity if they fail to meet Æ Include offer to collect lead tap sample within 72 hours of their goal. replacement. • Systems subject to mandatory LSLR include information on Æ Provide test results within 3 business days after receiving LSLR program in public education (PE) materials that are pro- results. vided in response to P90 > AL.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61689

Current LCR Proposed LCRR

Small System Flexibility

No provisions for systems to elect an alternative treatment approach Allows CWSs serving ≤10,000 people and all NTNCWSs with P90 >10 but sets specific requirements for CCT and LSLR. μg/L to elect their approach to address lead with Primacy Agency approval: • Systems can choose CCT, LSLR, or provision and maintenance of point-of-use devices. • NTNCWSs can also elect to replace all lead-bearing materials.

Public Education and Outreach

• All CWSs must provide education material in the annual Consumer • CWSs must provide updated health effects language and information Confidence Report (CCR). regarding LSLR program in the CCR. • Systems with P90 > AL must provide PE to customers about lead • If P90 > AL: sources, health effects, measures to reduce lead exposure, and ad- Æ Current PE requirements apply. ditional information sources Æ Systems must notify customers of P90 > AL within 24 hours. • Systems must provide lead consumer notice to individuals served at • In addition, CWSs must: tested taps within 30 days of learning results. Æ Improve public access to lead information including LSL loca- tions and respond to requests for LSL information. Æ Deliver notice and educational materials to customers during water-related work that could disturb LSLs. Æ Provide increased information to healthcare providers. Æ Provide lead consumer notice to customers whose individual tap sample is >15 μg/L within 24 hours. • Also see LSL-Related Outreach in LSLR section of table.

Change in Source or Treatment

Systems on a reduced tap monitoring schedule must obtain prior Pri- Systems on any tap monitoring schedule must obtain prior Primacy macy Agency approval before changing their source or treatment. Agency approval before changing their source or treatment.

Source Water Monitoring and Treatment

• Periodic source water monitoring is required for systems with: • Primacy Agencies can waive continued source water monitoring if Æ Source water treatment; or the: Æ P90 > AL and no source water treatment. Æ System has already conducted source water monitoring for a previous P90 > AL; Æ Primacy Agency has determined that source water treatment is not required; and Æ System has not added any new water sources.

Lead in Drinking Water at Schools and Child Care Facilities

• Does not include separate testing and education program for CWSs • CWSs must conduct lead in drinking water testing and PE at 20% of at schools and child care facilities. K–12 schools and licensed child cares in service area every year. • Schools and child cares that are classified as NTNCWSs must sam- • Sample results and PE must be provided to each sampled school/ ple for lead and copper. child care, Primacy Agency and local or State health department. • Excludes facilities built after January 1, 2014.

Primacy Agency Reporting

Primacy Agencies must report information to EPA that includes but is Expands current requirements to include: not limited to: • All P90 values for all system sizes. • All P90 levels for systems serving >3,300 people, and only lev- • The current number of LSLs and service lines of unknown mate- els >15 μg/L for smaller systems. rial for every water system. • Systems that are required to initiate LSLR and the date replace- • OCCT status of all systems including Primacy Agency-specified ment must begin. OWQPs. • Systems for which optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT) has been designated.

B. Does this action apply to me? Entities that could potentially be affected include the following:

Category Examples of potentially affected entities

Public water systems ...... Community water systems (CWSs) (a public water system that (A) serves at least 15 service connec- tions used by year-round residents of the area served by the system; or (B) regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61690 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Category Examples of potentially affected entities

Non-transient, non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) (a public water system that is not a commu- nity water system and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per year). State and tribal agencies ...... Agencies responsible for drinking water regulatory development and enforcement.

This table is not intended to be of lead in blood, there is an increased procedures and requirements described exhaustive, but rather provides a guide risk of health effects in children (e.g., <5 in section 1412 of the SDWA, including for readers regarding entities that could micrograms per deciliter) and adults those related to (1) the use of the best be affected by this action. To determine (e.g., <10 micrograms per deciliter). available, peer-reviewed science and whether your facility or activities could The 2013 Integrated Science supporting studies; (2) presentation of be affected by this action, you should Assessment for Lead (USEPA, 2013) and information on public health effects; carefully examine this proposed rule. the U.S. Department of Health and and (3) a health risk reduction and cost As part of this notice for the proposed Human Services’ National Toxicology analysis of the rule in 1412(b)((3)(A), B), rule, ‘‘State’’ refers to the agency of the Program Monograph on Health Effects of (C) of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300g– State or tribal government which has Low-Level Lead (National Toxicology 1(b)(3)(A)–(C). jurisdiction over public water systems Program, 2012) have both documented Section 1414(c) of the SDWA, as consistent with the definition of ‘‘State’’ the association between lead and amended by the Water Infrastructure in 40 CFR 141.2. During any period adverse cardiovascular effects, renal Improvements for the Nation Act, when a State or tribal government does effects, reproductive effects, requires public water systems to provide not have primary enforcement immunological effects, neurological notice to the public if the water system responsibility pursuant to section 1413 effects, and cancer. The EPA’s exceeds the lead action level. 42 U.S.C. of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Integrated Risk Information System 300g–3(c). The SDWA section 1414(c)(2) the term ‘‘State’’ means the Regional (IRIS) Chemical Assessment Summary provides that the Administrator ‘‘shall, Administrator, U.S. Environmental provides additional health effects by regulation . . . prescribe the manner, Protection Agency. If you have information on lead (USEPA, 2004a). frequency, form, and content for giving questions regarding the applicability of For a more detailed explanation of the notice’’ under section 1414(c). 42 U.S.C. this action to a particular entity, consult health effects associated with lead for 300g–3(c)(2). The SDWA section the person listed in the FOR FURTHER children and adults see Appendix D of 1414(c)(2)(C) specifies additional INFORMATION CONTACT section. the Economic Analysis (reference EA). requirements for those regulations Acute copper exposure causes related to public notification of a lead II. Background gastrointestinal distress. Chronic action level exceedance ‘‘that has the A. Health Effects of Lead and Copper exposure to copper is particularly a potential to have serious adverse effects concern for people with Wilson’s on human health as a result of short- Exposure to lead is known to present disease because they are prone to term exposure,’’ including requirements serious health risks to the brain and copper accumulation in body tissue, for providing notification to the EPA. nervous system of children. Lead which can lead to liver damage, Section 1417(a)(2) of the SDWA exposure causes damage to the brain neurological, and/or psychiatric provides that public water systems and kidneys and can interfere with the symptoms. ‘‘shall identify and provide notice to production of red blood cells that carry persons that may be affected by lead B. Statutory Authority oxygen to all parts of the body. Lead has contamination of their drinking water acute and chronic impacts on the body. The EPA is publishing these proposed where such contamination results from The most robustly studied and most revisions to the LCR under the authority the lead content of the construction susceptible subpopulations are the of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), materials of the public water developing fetus, infants, and young including sections 1412, 1413, 1414, distribution system and/or corrosivity of children. Even low level lead exposure 1417, 1445, and 1450 of the SDWA. 42 the water supply sufficient to cause is of particular concern to children U.S.C. 300f et seq. leaching of lead. 42 U.S.C. 300g–6(a)(2). because their growing bodies absorb Section 1412(b)(7)(A) of the SDWA Section 1445(a) of the SDWA more lead than adults do, and their authorizes the EPA to promulgate a authorizes the Administrator to brains and nervous systems are more treatment technique ‘‘which in the establish monitoring, recordkeeping, sensitive to the damaging effects of lead. Administrator’s judgment, would and reporting regulations, to assist the The EPA estimates that drinking water prevent known or anticipated adverse Administrator in establishing can make up 20 percent or more of a effects on the health of persons to the regulations under the SDWA, person’s total exposure to lead (56 FR extent feasible.’’ 42 U.S.C. 300g– determining compliance with the 26548, June 7, 1991). Infants who 1(b)(7)(A). Section 1412(b)(9) provides SDWA, and in advising the public of the consume mostly mixed formula made that ‘‘[T]he Administrator shall, not less risks of unregulated contaminants. 42 from tap water can, depending on the often than every six years, review and U.S.C. 300j–4(a). In requiring a public level of lead in the system and other revise, as appropriate, each national water system to monitor under section sources of lead in the home, receive 40 primary drinking water regulation 1445(a) of the SDWA, the Administrator percent to 60 percent of their exposure promulgated under this subchapter. Any may take into consideration the water to lead from drinking water used in the revision of a national primary drinking system size and the contaminants likely formula. Scientists have linked lead’s water regulation shall be promulgated in to be found in the system’s drinking effects on the brain with lowered IQ and accordance with this section, except water. 42 U.S.C. 300j–4(a). The SDWA attention disorders in children. During that each revision shall maintain, or section 1445(a)(1)(C) of the SDWA pregnancy, lead exposure may affect provide for greater, protection of the provides that ‘‘every person who is prenatal brain development. Lead is health of persons.’’ 42 U.S.C. 300g– subject to a national primary drinking stored in the bones and it can be 1(b)(9). In promulgating a revised water regulation’’ under the SDWA, released later in life. Even at low levels NPDWR, the EPA follows the applicable section 1412 must provide such

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61691

information as the Administrator may In 2000, the EPA promulgated the on feasibility and not based on impact reasonably require to assist the Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions on public health. The proposed trigger Administrator in establishing or LCRMR, which streamlined level is also not a health based standard. regulations under section 1412. 42 requirements, promoted consistent The EPA is not revising the 1991 U.S.C. 300j–4(a)(1)(C). national implementation, and in many determination that achieving the action Under section 1413(a)(1) of the SDWA cases, reduced burden for water level of 15 mg/L is feasible. The EPA is a State may exercise primary systems. One of the provisions of the proposing the lead trigger level because enforcement responsibility (‘‘primacy’’) LCRMR required States to report the the Agency has determined that for NPDWRs when the EPA has lead 90th percentile to the EPA’s Safe meaningful reductions in drinking water determined that the State has adopted Drinking Water Information System lead exposure could be achieved by regulations that are no less stringent (SDWIS) database for all water systems requiring water systems to take a than the EPA’s. 42 U.S.C. 300g–2(a)(1). serving greater than 3,300 persons. progressive set of certain actions to To obtain primacy for this rule, States States must report the lead 90th reduce lead levels at the tap. The EPA must adopt comparable regulations percentile value for water systems proposes that 10 mg/L is a reasonable within two years of the EPA’s serving 3,300 or fewer persons only if threshold to require water system to promulgation of the final rule, unless the water system exceeds the action undertake actions. The concept of the EPA grants the State a two-year level. The new reporting requirements including additional thresholds to extension. State primacy requires, became effective in 2002. In 2004, the compel actions before an action level among other things, adequate EPA published minor corrections to the exceedance was suggested by the enforcement (including monitoring and LCR to reinstate text that was ASDWA during the federalism inspections) and reporting. The EPA inadvertently dropped from the rule consultation process (USEPA, 2018). must approve or deny State primacy during the previous revision. This regulatory framework is similar to applications within 90 days of In 2004, the EPA undertook a national other national primary drinking water submission to the EPA. 42 U.S.C. 300g– review of the LCR and performed a regulations (NPDWRs), such as the 2(b)(2). In some cases, a State submitting number of activities to help identify Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water revisions to adopt an NPDWR has needed actions to improve Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), which primary enforcement authority for the implementation of the LCR. The EPA requires increasing levels of remedial new regulation while the EPA’s decision collected and analyzed lead action based on the concentration of the on the revision is pending. 42 U.S.C. concentration data and other contaminant. The proposed LCRR sets 300g–2(c). information required by the LCR, the fewest requirements for systems at Section 1450 of the SDWA authorizes carried out review of implementation by or below the TL and the most stringent the Administrator to prescribe such States, held four expert workshops to requirements for systems above the lead regulations as are necessary or further discuss elements of the LCR, and AL. The Agency is requesting comment appropriate to carry out his or her worked to better understand local and on the appropriate level and other functions under the Act. 42 U.S.C. 300j– State efforts to test for lead in school aspects relating to the trigger level in 9. drinking water, including a national Section VII. C. Regulatory History meeting to discuss challenges and In the event of a trigger level needs. The EPA used the information exceedance, the actions water systems The EPA published the LCR on June would be required to take vary based on 7, 1991, to control lead and copper in collected during the national review to identify needed short-term and long- characteristics of the system. For drinking water at the consumer’s tap. example, small CWSs serving The rule established a NPDWR for lead term regulatory revisions to the LCR. In 2007, the EPA promulgated a set of populations of 10,000 or fewer persons and copper consisting of treatment and all sizes of NTNCWS that exceed technique requirements that include short-term regulatory revisions and clarifications to strengthen the lead trigger level, but not the lead CCT, source water treatment, LSLR, and action level, would evaluate the small PE. The rule established an action level implementation of the LCR in the areas of monitoring, treatment, customer system flexibilities described in Section of 0.015 mg/L or 15 mg/L for lead and III.E. of this notice. Under this proposal, 1.3 mg/L or 1,300 mg/L for copper. The awareness, LSLR, and improve compliance with the PE requirements to medium and large CWSs that exceed the action level is a concentration of lead or trigger level, but do not exceed the copper in the water that determines, in ensure drinking water consumers receive meaningful, timely, and useful action level, would be required to some cases, whether a water system implement requirements based on their must install CCT, monitor source water, information needed to help them limit their exposure to lead in drinking water. CCT and LSL status as described below. replace LSLs, and undertake a PE Water systems with CCT in place and Long-term issues, requiring additional program. The action level is exceeded if with no LSLs or service lines of research and input, were identified for the concentration in more than 10 unknown materials would be required a subsequent set of rule revisions. In percent of tap water samples collected to: Re-optimize CCT (see Section this proposed rule, the EPA is during any monitoring period is greater III.B.2); and conduct annual tap addressing those longer-term revisions than the action level (i.e., if the 90th sampling (no reduced monitoring (see to further improve public health percentile level is greater than the Section III.G.2)). action level). If the 90th percentile value protection. Water systems without CCT in place for tap water samples is above the action III. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR and with no LSLs or service lines of level, it is not a violation, but rather Subpart I Control of Lead and Copper unknown materials would be required compels actions, such as WQP to: Conduct a CCT study and obtain monitoring, CCT, source water A. Lead Trigger Level State approval for designated CCT (see monitoring/treatment, PE, and LSLR. The EPA is proposing to establish a Section III.B.2); and conduct annual tap Failure to take these actions results in new lead ‘‘trigger level’’ of 10 mg/L and sampling (no reduced monitoring (see the water system being in violation of retain the 15 mg/L lead action level in Section III.G.2)). the treatment technique or monitoring the current LCR. The EPA established Water systems with CCT in place and and reporting requirements. the lead action level in the 1991 based with LSLs or service lines of unknown

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61692 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

materials would be required to: Re- evaluation of corrosion control cost effectively assure regular review of optimize CCT (see Section III.B.2); treatment effectiveness at each system. the treatment technique. notify customers with LSLs or 1. Corrosion Control Evaluation During 2. Corrosion Control Treatment unknowns (see Section III.F.1); Sanitary Surveys Requirements Based on Lead 90th implement goal based LSLR program Percentile (see Section III.D.3); and conduct annual The EPA is proposing changes to the tap sampling (no reduced monitoring current sanitary survey to include The EPA is proposing revisions to the (see Section III.G.2)). requirements for states to include an LCR provisions by requiring the Water systems without CCT in place evaluation of CCT as part of the survey. installation of CCT or optimization of and with LSLs or service lines of States are required to regularly perform CCT based on the lead 90th percentile unknown materials would be required sanitary surveys of public water systems level. The current rule provisions for to: Conduct a CCT study and obtain in accordance with the Interim CCT are based primarily on the water State approval for designated CCT (see Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule system size, and only require small and Section III.B.2. of this notice) notify (§ 141.723) and the Ground Water Rule medium-sized water systems (serving customers with an LSL or unknowns (§ 141.401). The requirements for the 50,000 or fewer people) to meet CCT (see Section III.F.1); implement goal sanitary survey may include an requirements if they exceed the lead or based LSLR program (see Section III.D.3. evaluation of the drinking water source, copper action level. Before installing of this notice); and conduct annual tap operation and maintenance of water CCT, water systems must make an sampling (no reduced monitoring (see system equipment, and compliance with optimized CCT recommendation to the Section III.G.2 of this notice)). local and national drinking water state or conduct a CCT study, if required to do so. However, these water systems B. Corrosion Control Treatment standards. There are eight elements addressed during a sanitary survey. can discontinue CCT steps if their 90th Corrosion in water systems is defined These elements include: Source; percentile levels are at or below the lead as the electrochemical interaction treatment; distribution system; finished and copper action levels for two between a metal surface such as pipe water storage; pumps, pump facilities consecutive 6-month monitoring wall or solder and water. During this and controls; monitoring, reporting, data periods. The CCT steps are only interaction, metal is oxidized and verification; system management and commenced after a subsequent lead transferred to the water. Metal release is operation; and operator compliance action level exceedance. Under the a function of the reactions that occur current rule, once a water system has with State requirements. These sanitary between the metal ions released due to optimized CCT, there are no surveys do not currently contain corrosion, and the physical, chemical, requirements for water systems to adjust requirements specific to the LCR. and biological characteristics of the or re-evaluate CCT, even after an action water and the metal surface (USEPA, EPA believes that the sanitary survey level exceedance or a failure to meet 2016c). Corrosion control treatment is a fitting opportunity for states to optimal water quality parameters involves changing water quality review the system’s implementation of (OWQPs), unless directed to do so by characteristics including alkalinity, pH, OCCT and to assure there are not the State. Under the current LCR, States and dissolved inorganic carbon or deficiencies that could interfere with may, but are not required to, modify the addition of a corrosion inhibitor such as the capability of the drinking water designated CCT on its own initiative or orthophosphate to reduce the rate of system to consistently and reliably in response to a request by a water metal release into the water. deliver an adequate quality and quantity system or other interested party, when Under the current LCR, all water of safe drinking water to the consumer. it concludes that a change is necessary systems serving more than 50,000 The NDWAC (NDWAC, 2015) and to ensure the system continues to people were required to install ASDWA (USEPA, 2018) recommended a optimize corrosion control treatment. corrosion control treatment (CCT) soon periodic evaluation of CCT as a part of The EPA is proposing to mandate after the LCR went into effect, unless the sanitary survey. additional CCT requirements based on they were deemed to have optimized States would be required to review the water system’s lead 90th percentile corrosion control. Water systems serving CCT and to assess WQPs during sanitary level and CCT status. All water systems fewer than 50,000 people are not surveys for water systems that have with CCT that have a lead trigger level required to install CCT under the installed CCT. The review must exceedance (>10 mg/L but ≤15 mg/L) or current rule unless the water system consider any updated EPA guidance on a lead action level exceedance (≥15 mg/ exceeds the lead or copper action level. CCT during the sanitary survey. L) will be required to re-optimize their Water systems serving 50,000 or fewer Reviewing updated EPA CCT guidance CCT. Water systems would be required people that exceed the action level and is consistent with the National Drinking to make a re-optimization have not yet installed CCT must begin Water Advisory Council’s (NDWAC, recommendation and receive state working with their State to monitor 2015) recommendations to reevaluate approval following the procedures water quality parameters (WQPs) and CCT and WQP based upon updated EPA described in proposed § 141.82(a). The install and maintain CCT. Those guidance and as best practices continue state may require the water system to systems may stop the process of to evolve as new information and conduct a CCT study. identifying and installing CCT if they science emerges. This proposed revision This proposal would require water meet both the lead and copper action will promote regular review of CCT and systems without CCT that exceed the levels during each of two consecutive 6- WQPs by states and will enhance lead trigger level (10 mg/L) to conduct a month monitoring periods. Given the consistency and efficacy by allowing CCT study and make a CCT critical role of CCT in reducing lead in states to consider new information and recommendation in accordance with drinking water and protecting the health CCT guidance, as appropriate, during proposed revisions in § 141.82(a). The of all water system consumers, the EPA sanitary surveys. By combining the CCT recommendation would be is proposing several revisions to the review of the CCT with the existing implemented if the water system LCR to reflect current understanding of sanitary survey requirement of the exceeds the lead action level in the efficacy of various corrosion control Public Water System Supervision subsequent tap sampling. Water systems treatments and to assure robust program, states and water systems can without CCT that have previously

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61693

conducted a CCT study and made CCT cannot exclude a treatment option from action level (15 mg/L), that has recommendations would not be the study based upon potential effects previously not exceeded the lead trigger required to prepare a new CCT study if on other water quality treatment level and does not have CCT installed, they exceed the trigger level again processes. Systems that are conducting would be required to conduct a CCT unless the state determines that a new coupon screening studies and/or pipe study, make a treatment study is required due to changed loop/rig studies should identify recommendation, and obtain State circumstances, such as addition of a potential constraints, such as the impact approval for the treatment new water source or changes in of CCT options or treatment chemicals recommendation. The EPA proposes treatment or if revised CCT guidance may have on other water quality that systems be required to complete has been issued by the EPA since the treatment processes. Those impacts these steps even if the system meets the study was conducted. The state may should be noted and considered as part lead action level in two subsequent, also determine that a new CCT study is of the CCT study design. For example, consecutive 6-month monitoring needed due to other significant water systems conducting a corrosion periods over the course of this process. information becoming available. control study would be required to Water systems that meet the action level The EPA is proposing changes to the consider pH and alkalinity adjustment for two consecutive 6-month monitoring CCT options that water systems must but must also consider how adjustment periods before installing the State- consider and the methods by which of pH could affect compliance with approved treatment would be required water systems would evaluate those other NPDWRs. Increased pH may result to install that CCT upon any subsequent options. As described later in this in increased formation of total action level exceedance. The EPA section, the EPA is proposing to remove trihalomethanes and result in an proposes to retain the current LCR calcium carbonate stabilization as a CCT exceedance of the maximum provision that allows a State to waive option. The EPA is also proposing to contaminant level for those the requirement for a CCT study. This require water systems to evaluate two contaminants. Conversely, decreases in proposal includes flexibilities for small additional options for orthophosphate- pH may result in increased formation of systems related to CCT (see section III.E. based corrosion control. The current haloacetic acids and result in an of this notice). requirement for evaluating exceedance of the maximum 3. Calcium Carbonate Stabilization orthophosphate-based corrosion contaminant level for those inhibitor specifies that systems must contaminants. Rather than rule out pH The EPA is proposing to remove calcium carbonate stabilization as a evaluate maintaining an ‘‘effective and alkalinity adjustment as a CCT potential CCT technique and thus residual concentration in all test tap strategy because of simultaneous calcium as a regulated WQP. The EPA samples.’’ The EPA has determined, compliance concerns, systems should is proposing to eliminate the option of based upon experience in implementing determine an upper bound pH, where calcium carbonate stabilization as a CCT these requirements, that systems may the increase in pH would create because literature indicates that calcium not be evaluating a full range of increased trihalomethanes and carbonate does not form a film on lead orthophosphate residual concentrations incorporate that into the corrosion and copper pipes to a level that makes to achieve optimal corrosion control. control study design. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to add it effective as a CCT option (AwwaRF two new treatment options for Similarly, the use of orthophosphate and DVGW—Technologiezentrum evaluation as a part of corrosion control for corrosion control can increase the Wasser, 1996; Schock and Lytle, 2011; studies: Maintaining a 1 mg/L phosphorus loading to wastewater Hill and Cantor, 2011). The EPA orthophosphate residual concentration treatment facilities. Increased proposes the removal of WQP and maintaining a 3 mg/L phosphorus loading may be a concern monitoring related to calcium hardness orthophosphate residual concentration. for wastewater systems with in the current rule, which includes The EPA is also proposing changes to phosphorus discharge limits or for monitoring for calcium, conductivity, the methodologies by which systems systems that discharge into water bodies and water temperature. Under this evaluate CCT options. The EPA is where phosphorus is a limiting nutrient. proposal, water systems would also not proposing to clarify that metal coupon However, the EPA is proposing that be required to analyze effects of calcium tests can only be used as a screen to water systems conducting corrosion hardness adjustments during their CCT reduce the number of options that are control studies would not be able to rule evaluations. All other CCT options, evaluated using pipe rig/loops. Metal out orthophosphate simply based on the including alkalinity and pH adjustment coupon tests would no longer be able to increase in loading to wastewater and the addition of a phosphate- or be used as the basis for determining the treatment facilities. In designing the silicate-based corrosion inhibitor, will optimal corrosion control treatment CCT studies, water systems would be maintained from the current rule. (OCCT). The EPA is proposing this evaluate the orthophosphate treatment The best available science has identified change based upon experience with options in the coupon screening and/or these as the most effective treatment implementing the rule and the concern pipe loop/rig studies. When selecting options at this time (USEPA, 2003; that metal coupons are not the optimal CCT, States and water Wilczak et al., 2010; Schock and Lytle, representative of the existing condition systems would consider phosphorus 2011). These changes are being of the lead service lines (LSLs) or leaded removal treatment that may be needed proposed to assure the efficacy of CCT, plumbing materials that are present in by the receiving wastewater treatment to the extent feasible, based upon best the distribution system and which have system to meet any phosphorus available peer-reviewed science. scales that have formed as a result of discharge limits or otherwise prevent being exposed to the drinking water impacts to water quality. The EPA has C. Lead Service Line Inventory over a number of years (Ministry of examined the potential costs of The EPA is proposing revisions to the Ontario, 2009). additional phosphorus usage on current lead service line inventory The EPA is also clarifying cases when wastewater treatment systems as requirements of the LCR because the systems choose to conduct coupon described in section VI.C.9 of this Agency believes that better information studies to screen potential options and/ notice. The EPA is proposing that a regarding the number and locations of or pipe rig/loop studies; these systems water system that exceeds the lead lead service lines is critical to a water

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61694 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

system’s ability to inform the public goals, such as prioritizing LSLR at Other organizations have recognized about the potential risks of lead in schools, childcare facilities, and homes the benefits of LSL inventories and drinking water and to assure reductions with children. For example, the city of expressed support for a requirement that in drinking water lead exposure. Galesburg, IL prioritizes LSLR at homes water systems create a LSL inventory. Numerous studies have evaluated the of low- to moderate-income with The Association of Drinking Water contribution of lead in drinking water children under the age of six (Galesburg, Administrators (ASDWA) published a from different sources (e.g., service 2016). white paper titled ‘‘Developing Lead lines, faucets, meters). A study In addition, even those systems that Service Line Inventories Presented by published by American Water Works have made efforts to identify their LSLs the Association of State Drinking Water Association (AWWA) Water Research do not always make the information Administrators’’ with recommendations Foundation (2008) ‘‘Contributions of publicly available. Informed customers for developing LSL inventories and Service Line and Plumbing Fixtures to are better able to take actions to limit examples of States that already have Lead and Copper Rule Compliance exposure to lead in drinking water and implemented mandatory and voluntary Issues’’ (Sandvig et al., 2008) estimates make decisions regarding replacement LSL inventory programs (Association of that 50 percent–75 percent of lead in of their portion of an LSL. For water State Drinking Water Administrators, drinking water comes from LSLs, while systems publicly available information 2019). The Government Accountability the remainder comes from leaded is ‘‘. . . important for successful, Office (GAO) recommended that EPA solder, brass/bronze fittings, galvanized proactive outreach to customers who are ‘‘require states to report available piping, faucets, and water meters. Given most likely to have a LSL’’ (NDWAC, information about lead pipes to EPA’s that LSLs are the greatest contributor of 2015). Making the LSL inventories SDWIS/Fed (or a future redesign such as lead in drinking water, identifying the publicly available, including the total SDWIS Prime)’’, in its revision of the locations and, where necessary, number of LSLs in the distribution LCR (GAO–18–620, 2018). The National removing this source of lead from system and their general locations, Drinking Water Advisory Council drinking water, is a critical component would increase water system (NDWAC) recommended that water of this proposed rule. transparency so customers can better systems create and update LSL understand the prevalence of lead inventories and ‘‘establish a clear Under the current regulations, water sources in drinking water. mechanism for customers to access systems are required to identify Incomplete or non-existent LSL information on LSL locations (at a construction materials of their drinking inventories also lead to uncertainty in minimum)’’ (NDWAC, 2015). water distribution system including lead developing a national estimate, which The EPA is proposing that all water and galvanized piping and to conduct a could range from 6.3 million (Cornwell systems create an inventory of all water materials evaluation to locate the et. al., 2016) to 9.3 million (USEPA, system-owned and customer-owned requisite number of sampling sites, and 1991) LSLs in place. Information about LSLs in its distribution system. The to seek to collect information on service the numbers of LSLs in public water inventory could be submitted in one of line materials, where possible, during systems is critical to supporting various a variety of formats, for example a list, normal operation such as reading water actions focused on reducing exposure to table, or map with a corresponding LSL meters or performing maintenance lead in drinking water. For example, the status (i.e., LSL, non-LSL, unknown) activities. In practice, many water EPA is targeting funding and financing with a location identifier of the LSL systems have only identified service programs such as the Water (e.g., street, intersection, landmark). The line materials to fulfill the tap sampling Infrastructure Improvements for the EPA is not proposing that addresses be tiering requirement and have not done Nation Act (United States, 2016) grant used in making the LSL inventory a full accounting of service line programs, the Drinking Water State publicly available however, the Agency materials throughout their entire Revolving Fund (DWSRF), and the is requesting comment on this issue in distribution system. This has led to Water Infrastructure Finance and Section VII. A water system would not uncertainty regarding local and national Innovation Act (WIFIA) program to be precluded by the proposed estimates of locations and numbers of reduce lead exposure through regulation, from choosing to include LSL. This uncertainty creates infrastructure projects that include full specific addresses served by LSLs in compliance challenges for water LSLR. Water systems that have prepared their inventory. An example of this is systems that exceed the lead action level an LSL inventory will be better able to DC Water’s LSL map (DC Water, 2016). after installing CCT because water demonstrate their priority for Large systems, serving greater than systems are forced to concurrently infrastructure financing assistance. In 100,000 persons, would be required to determine the total number of LSLs in America’s Water Infrastructure Act post the inventory to a publicly- the distribution system while replacing (United States, 2018), Congress accessible site on the internet to seven percent of their LSLs, all within recognized the importance of increasing facilitate easier access for their one year. Without an LSL inventory, the understanding about the extent of customers. This is consistent with water systems also face challenges LSLs in the nation by mandating the requirements for community water communicating the risk of lead in EPA include an assessment of costs to systems related to their annual drinking water to the public at large as replace all LSLs, including the Consumer Confidence Report (40 CFR well as to individual customers, who customer-owned portion of the LSL to 141.155(f)). All other systems (i.e. those may seek information about their own the extent practicable, in the Drinking serving 100,000 persons or fewer), service line so they can take measures Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and would simply be required to make the to protect themselves and their family. Assessment (DWINSA). Moreover, an inventory available to the public (e.g., Lack of an LSL inventory also results in LSL inventory will lead to increased available for review at the water a lost opportunity to improve the cost awareness of consumers regarding system’s headquarters). efficiency of LSLR by conducting whether they are served by an LSL, Under this proposal, a water system replacements in tandem with main which could improve public health would submit an initial inventory to replacement activities or in protection if affected consumers take their Primacy Agency by three years neighborhoods where LSLs are most action to reduce their exposure to lead after the final rule publication date. To prevalent, or in accordance to policy in drinking water. create the initial LSL inventory water

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61695

systems would review plumbing codes, format would still be required to make lines of unknown material to be permits, and records in the files of the the inventory available to the public. designated as such. The inventory must building department(s) that indicate the The EPA is proposing the initial also identify lead materials present in plumbing materials that are installed inventory be completed by the rule ‘‘piping, storage structure, pumps, and within publicly and privately-owned compliance date, three years after controls used to deliver water to the structures. In addition, inspections and promulgation, so that other proposed public, including service lines’’ (State of records of the distribution system that rule requirements, such as tap sample Michigan, 2017), the scope of which indicate the material composition of the site selection, PE delivery, and LSLR could cover goosenecks and several service connections that connect a requirements, can be implemented on other sources of lead. By January 1, structure to the distribution system the final rule compliance date. 2025, water systems must submit a would be utilized. Because water The EPA has determined it is feasible complete inventory, along with material systems may not have complete records for water systems to prepare LSL verification methodology, including any to enable them to identify the material inventories because the current instances of customer denial to access for every service line, the EPA is regulations required water systems to private property to inspect the proposing that systems identify the identify these construction materials in customer-owned service line. The service lines of unknown material and their distribution system to identify tap inventory must be updated every five update the inventory on an annual basis sampling sites, and to collect years (State of Michigan, 2017). Other to reflect LSLRs that have occurred, or information on service line materials States with LSL inventory requirements verifications of service lines of where possible in the course of normal include Wisconsin and California. Since unknown material through the course of operation, such as reading water meters 2004, Wisconsin has required annual normal operations or targeted or performing maintenance activities. In reporting of the number of service lines inventorying efforts. In addition to addition, any water system that was of each material (grouped by pipe updating the inventory on an annual required to begin LSLR under the diameter) owned by the water system. In basis, EPA recommends, but does not current rule would also have been 2018, the requirement was changed to require, that water systems update the required to identify the initial number include the customer-owned portion of inventory as new information becomes of LSLs in its distribution system at the the service line (Association of State available. Improving the inventory over time the replacement program begins Drinking Water Administrators, 2019). time in tandem with other infrastructure pursuant to § 141.84(b)(1). However, the California water systems were required work will minimize the cost of Agency requests comment in Section VII to inventory known LSLs and areas that inventory completion, since projects of this notice on the proposed may contain LSLs in their distribution like main replacement require inventory. systems (State of California, 2016). ASDWA’s white paper lists several excavation of the street and exposure of As recommended by the Government examples of states that have mandatory service lines underneath. The water Accountability Office (GAO–18–620, or voluntary LSL inventory programs, system could choose to speed inventory 2018), the EPA has identified several and notes that even voluntary LSL development by devoting resources to techniques that can be used to identify inventory programs have had response determine service line materials lead and galvanized service lines. The rates that cover over 90% of service independent of other water system current rule lists several sources of lines (Association of State Drinking work. The EPA recommends, but does information that may indicate or Water Administrators, 2019). Many confirm the presence of an LSL, not require, that the material of non- states have already begun requiring including plumbing codes; permits and LSLs be identified, such as plastic or water systems to create and maintain records; inspections and records of copper. While not required, water LSL inventories. In particular, Illinois, distribution system materials; existing systems could benefit from recording Ohio, and Michigan have such water quality information to indicate the material of all service lines to requirements and are estimated to rank locations that are most likely to have improve its accounting of water system first, second, and third, respectively, of higher lead levels; and relevant legal assets and help plan for capital States with the highest number of LSLs authorities (i.e., contracts and local improvement activities. in the nation (Cornwell et. al., 2016). ordinances). Under this proposal, the These proposed requirements are Illinois CWSs were required to create EPA expects water systems to create consistent with the ASDWA white their LSL inventory in one year and their initial inventory using these paper on LSL inventories. ASDWA report a count of all known water available information sources and to recommends that a ‘‘one-time, system-owned and customer-owned update LSL inventories with preliminary inventory report [be] LSLs. Water systems in Illinois are information on service line materials followed by a comprehensive inventory required by the State of Illinois to discovered in the course of normal report a few years later’’. ‘‘The update their inventory annually until it operation, such as maintaining water preliminary report would be completed is complete (State of Illinois, 2017). meters. in three years, and the water system Ohio CWSs and NTNCWSs with LSLs Under this proposal, a State could would update its inventory each year to had six months to map their LSLs and establish additional inventory work towards a comprehensive are required to update it every five development methods, such as allowing inventory by verifying service lines of years. If a water system in Ohio certifies consumers to self-identify and report unknown material.’’ ASDWA also it has no LSLs, it is not required to their service line material, using recommends that reports should be create a map (State of Ohio, 2016). sequential tap sampling to identify made publicly available through a user- Michigan’s updated LCR promulgated in LSLs, or using other techniques such as friendly, online portal, with the option June 2018 requires water systems to physical inspection or scratch tests, to download all inventory reports in a create an inventory of all materials in hydrovacing, or trenching (ANSI C810– single file. The EPA is proposing this their distribution system by January 1, 17 Replacement and Flushing of Lead requirement while allowing additional 2020, based on existing information. Service Lines, 2017). flexibilities to smaller systems who The inventory includes both the water The EPA is proposing that water wish to submit the inventory in paper system-owned and customer-owned systems designate any service line format. Water systems using a paper portions of the LSL and requires service whose material cannot be confirmed by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61696 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

the rule compliance date as unknown. in their Tier 1 tap sampling pool. The control treatment (OCCT) to replace The EPA believes that water systems proposed tap sample tiering LSLs after exceeding the lead action need accurate information about the requirements designate sites served by level. Although the water system must number and locations of lead service an LSL as Tier 1 to assure prioritization meet an annual LSLR rate of seven lines in order to effectively implement of sites that are the most likely to yield percent, the current rule allows for actions to reduce drinking water lead elevated lead levels in drinking water, water systems to meet the requirement exposure. The Agency also recognizes therefore the EPA is proposing to without conducting any full LSLRs that many systems do not have complete exclude service lines of unknown because a water system can count an records and that excavating test pits can material from Tier 1 classification to LSL as replaced if the service line is be expensive and may disturb lines, prevent the dilution of the Tier 1 sample ‘‘tested out’’ or partially replaced. LSLs resulting in lead release. The Agency pool with potential non-LSL sites. are ‘‘tested out’’ when sampling shows believes that treating unknown lines as ASDWA’s white paper on LSL lead concentrations at or below 15 mg/ lead will provide an incentive for water inventories summarizes how service L throughout the entire profile of the systems to collect information on the lines of unknown material are treated in service line. Additionally, many composition of service lines through inventories around the country. Illinois, communities around the country split their normal maintenance activities California, and Michigan allow water ownership of the service line between such as meter calibration, because doing systems to designate service lines as the water system and the customer, so would reduce the burden associated ‘‘unknown’’ in their inventories. In which can often result in a partial LSLR with other aspects of the rule, such as California, water systems must include being conducted when the customer LSLR and notification to LSL customers. service lines of unknown material in does not agree to have his or her portion If a service line of unknown material is their LSLR plan ‘‘to encourage water removed. ‘‘Test outs’’ and partial LSLR determined to be non-lead, it would systems to investigate their unknown both count as replacements under the reduce the number of LSLs required to lines.’’ (Association of State Drinking current rule, but neither are as effective be replaced each year should the water Water Administrators, 2019). Michigan at reducing lead in drinking water as system exceed the action level. Fewer water systems can include service lines full LSLR. service lines of unknown material of unknown material in their initial Additionally, the current rule does would also result in reduced burden inventory due January 1, 2020, however not require the water system to plan for associated with delivery of customer by January 1, 2025, they must have its LSLR program before it is required to LSL notification and fewer goal-based or verified all service line materials, with conduct mandatory LSLR. Water mandatory LSLR should the water the option to document any instances of systems must work out the technical, system exceed the lead trigger level or customer denial to access private financial, customer coordination, and action level, if the unknowns are property to inspect the customer-owned other logistics of starting a LSLR identified as non-lead. If any service service line (State of Michigan, 2017). program in the same period they must lines originally inventoried as non-lead The EPA requests comment in Section begin replacement of LSLs. This are later discovered to be LSLs, these VII of this notice on the appropriate approach can create challenges for the service lines would be included for treatment of unknown lines in an water system because planning for LSLR establishing replacement rates and for inventory. takes time, which jeopardizes the conducting outreach to customers with Galvanized service lines can system’s ability to meet the seven contribute to lead in drinking water due percent replacement rate. It could also LSLs. This requirement follows the to lead in the zinc coating, or absorption render LSLR more expensive if the recommendation provided to the EPA of lead particles in corrosion scales if water system has not evaluated and by the NDWAC, to grant water systems they are or have ever been downstream optimized the operational and financial the flexibility to create an inventory that of an LSL (McFadden et. al., 2011; HDR, aspects of LSLR. allows for the uncertainty of service line 2009). The proposed rule would define materials that cannot be verified by 1. Lead Service Line Replacement Plan galvanized service lines that are records or other means within three currently or were formerly downstream The EPA is proposing that all water years, while at the same time ensuring of an LSL, as an LSL. Therefore, these systems with LSLs or service lines of that consumers potentially served by an lines would be listed in the LSL unknown material, and regardless of LSL are provided adequate protections. inventory, counted in the replacement their 90th percentile lead level, must For example, water systems would rate calculation, and included in the prepare an LSLR plan. Under this provide targeted public education to notifications delivered to consumers of proposal, a water system would submit consumers served by a service line of LSLs. Michigan’s updated LCR takes a the plan by three years after the final unknown material, informing them that similar approach, requiring replacement rule publication date. Developing an their service line may be an LSL and of galvanized service lines ‘‘if the LSLR plan while creating an LSL advising them about actions they can service line is or was downstream of inventory provides efficiencies in the take to reduce their exposure to lead in lead piping’’ (State of Michigan, 2017). planning process and will prepare water drinking water. Without this public The proposed tap sample tiering systems to quickly commence a goal- education, consumers drinking water requirements would not allow these based, or mandatory full LSLR program delivered by a service line of unknown galvanized service lines to be should they exceed the lead trigger or material may not have any awareness of considered LSLs for purposes of action level, or to coordinate a the potential risk of lead exposure from collecting tap samples to assure replacement with an emergency repair their drinking water or how to reduce prioritization of sites that are the most or a customer initiating a replacement of their risk. likely to yield elevated lead levels in their line. Under this proposal, while water drinking water, such as those made of Under this proposal, the plan would systems would assume unknown service one hundred percent lead. include procedures to conduct full lines are LSLs for purposes of LSLR and to alert and inform consumers establishing replacement rates and for D. Lead Service Line Replacement before a full or partial lead service line conducting outreach to customers with The current rule requires water replacement. It must also include a lead LSLs, they would not include these sites systems with optimized corrosion service line replacement goal rate,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61697

developed in coordination with the disturbances caused by other utilities, count towards goal-based or mandatory State, should the water system exceed the EPA encourages water systems to LSLR rates. the lead trigger level. To address short inform other utilities of the potential for 2. Partial Lead Service Line term increases in lead levels following LSL disturbance to cause elevated lead Replacement LSLR, the plan must include a pitcher levels in drinking water and attempt to filter tracking and maintenance system coordinate with them on development The EPA sought an evaluation by the and flushing procedures for the service and implementation of measures to Science Advisory Board (SAB) of line and premise plumbing inside the reduce disturbances and mitigate current scientific data to assess the home. Water system organizations, such impacts. effectiveness of partial LSLRs in as AWWA, have developed guidance The replacement of a meter, reducing water lead levels. The SAB and procedures for LSLR and flushing gooseneck, pigtail, or connector entails determined that the quality and quantity that a water system could use or disconnecting and reconnecting the of data was inadequate to fully evaluate reference in its LSLR plan. The plan LSL, it is expected to be a more the effectiveness of partial LSLR in must also include a funding strategy for significant disturbance of the LSL than reducing drinking water lead conducting lead service line when the water service is temporarily concentrations. However, the SAB replacements. shut off. Therefore, the EPA is concluded that partial LSLRs have not In the plan’s funding strategy, the proposing additional risk mitigation been shown to reliably reduce drinking water system would identify how it will measures for these disturbances. Under water lead levels and may even increase lead exposure in the short-term of days pay for the replacement of the water this proposal the water system would be to months, and potentially even longer. system-owned portion of the LSL, such required to provide flushing The NDWAC recommended requiring as through its capital improvement fund instructions, as well as deliver the full LSLR except during emergency or the use of a low-interest rate loan consumer a pitcher filter certified to repairs or infrastructure improvement from the DWSRF. Although water remove lead along with three months of projects when a customer is unable or systems are not required to pay for replacement cartridges for risk unwilling to replace their portion of the replacement of customer owned lead mitigation. service lines, the EPA encourages water LSL (NDWAC, 2015). The EPA is proposing that regardless systems to develop programs to Based upon the SAB’s and the of their 90th percentile lead level, water financially assist these customers in NDWAC’s recommendations, the EPA is systems must replace lead goosenecks, replacing their lead service lines. The proposing to eliminate current EPA has identified several types of pigtails, and connectors owned by the requirements for water systems to only assistance, such as loans and grants water system as they are encountered in replace the portion of the LSL that is from the federal government or funded the course of planned or emergency owned by the water system, if any, in by rate revenue, as well as private infrastructure work, such as main situations where customers do not funding partnerships (Strategies for replacement. This proposed choose to replace the portion of the line Achieving Full LSLR, docket EPA–HQ– requirement was recommended by the that is owned by the customer. OW–2017–0300). National Drinking Water Advisory Typically, if a water system owns a The LSLR plan would include a Council (NDWAC, 2015). Water systems portion of the service line, it is the procedure for customers to flush service that replace lead goosenecks, pigtails portion that connects the water main lines and premise plumbing of and connectors would be required under the street to the customer-owned particulate lead. Flushing reduces within 24 hours to notify consumers of portion of the service line, which often particulate lead that may have been the replacement and provide flushing begins at the curb-box or water meter. released into drinking water after LSL instructions and a pitcher filter and The proposed changes to the LSLR disturbance or replacement. For replacement cartridges to last for three requirements would remove the purposes of the flushing requirements in months. Water systems would be compliance incentive to conduct partial the proposed rule, the EPA considers a required to collect a follow up tap LSLR that is inherent in the current service line disturbance as planned sample after three months but no later rule. The EPA recognizes that certain work or an emergency repair that than six months after the gooseneck, activities, such as emergency repairs requires water service to the consumer pigtails, or connector is replaced. In (i.e., a water main break that must be shut off. Water shutoffs can disturb many cases, routine infrastructure work quickly be repaired) or planned lead pipes due to hydraulic scouring as involves the excavation of the water infrastructure improvements (i.e., a the water is turned back on, and if shut main under the street and exposure of water main replacement program) may off for an extended period of time, can the goosenecks, which then undergo still need to proceed regardless of cause the lead scales on the pipe reconnection to the new main. The EPA customer participation and may result interior to dry and flake off. Under this expects that mandatory replacement of in unavoidable pipe disturbances and at proposed rule, these disturbances would these connectors as they are times, partial LSLR. For example, a require consumer flushing instructions encountered would provide a beneficial water system replacing a water main as to be delivered to the consumer before and lower burden opportunity for the part of its capital improvement program their water is turned back on. Although water system to remove a lead source may encounter LSLs on both the water other types of pipe disturbances may from its distribution system. The water system- and customer-owned portions occur, such as vibration from the work system is encouraged but not required to of the service line. If a single customer of other utilities (for example, gas and engage with the customer to coordinate served by an LSL does not accept the electric utilities), the water system may replacement of a customer-owned lead water system’s offer to replace the not always be aware of the other gooseneck, pigtail, or connector; customer-owned portion (the water utilities’ activities. Defining pipe however, the water system would not be system is not required to bear the cost disturbance based on when water required to bear the cost of replacement of replacement), the water system may service is temporarily shut off ensures of the customer-owned materials under proceed to conduct a partial LSLR at the water system is aware of the this proposal. Replacement of a lead that location in order to complete the disturbance and can execute the gooseneck, pigtail, or connector main replacement project. In another proposed flushing requirement. For regardless of ownership would not scenario, a water system-owned portion

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61698 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

of an LSL could fail, requiring systems to replace their portion of a lead percentile concentrations that are emergency replacement. In this case, the service line within 45 days of approaching the action level. This water system would be allowed to notification of the customer-initiated provision is designed to require water replace just the water system-owned replacement, however the Agency systems with higher lead levels to take portion should the customer refuse or is requests comment in Section VII of this steps to reduce lead exposure and unable to have his or her portion notices on whether a longer or shorter upgrade their infrastructure. replaced. time frame is appropriate. In cases There is widespread support at all Whenever a water system conducts where the water system learns that a levels for upgrading American’s water partial LSLR, it would be required to customer has replaced the customer- infrastructure, including lead service notify the affected consumers and owned portion of LSL and the line replacement. President Trump’s follow the risk mitigation procedures in replacement has occurred more than 2020 budget proposes significant their LSLR plan to ensure that three months in the past, the water investment in infrastructure, directing customers are promptly alerted and system is not required to complete the $200 billion for priorities such as water informed of the actions they can take to lead service line replacement. infrastructure (The White House, reduce their exposure to lead following After a LSLR, the EPA proposes that 2019a). Lead service line replacement the partial LSLR, when concentrations water systems deliver flushing represents an opportunity to replace of lead in drinking water are expected instructions to the customer, provide a water infrastructure which can be over to be the highest. These proposed risk pitcher filter certified to remove lead one hundred years old, constructed with mitigation steps required after partial with replacement cartridges to last three material specifications not lawful for LSLR include customer notification, months (the expected timeframe for lead use in new plumbing products today, delivering flushing guidance to remove levels to decrease following a lead which can create risk of lead exposure particulate lead, providing a pitcher service line replacement), and collect a to Americans. EPA Administrator filter certified to remove lead in follow-up tap sample after three Andrew Wheeler signaled the Agency accordance with applicable standards months, but no later than six months support of water infrastructure projects established by the American National after the LSLR. and their ability to create jobs, noting Standards Institute, as well as The EPA is proposing that any water that since 2017 the EPA water replacement cartridges to last no less system that becomes aware that a infrastructure loans have totaled over $2 than three months, and taking a tap customer has already replaced his or her billion and will create 6,000 jobs (The sample after three months, but no more portion of the LSL in the last three White House, 2019b). In a policy than six months after the partial LSLR. months be required to provide a filter to statement, the American Water Works Tap sample results would be provided the home within 24 hours to mitigate Association encouraged communities to to the consumer within 30 days, unless the elevated lead levels associated with ‘‘develop a lead reduction strategy that the tap sample exceeds the lead action customer-initiated partial LSLR. includes identifying and removing all level, in which case the EPA proposes Additionally, the water system would lead service lines over time’’ and notifying the customer within 24 hours. have 45 days after learning of the supported the NDWAC’s The same mitigation steps would also be customer-owned LSLR to replace its recommendations for the ‘‘complete required if a water system undertook a portion of the LSL. If a water system is removal of lead service lines while full lead service line replacement (see conducting goal-based or mandatory ensuring optimal corrosion control section III.D.3 of this notice). LSLR in the period which these measures’’ (AWWA, 2017). The EPA is The EPA is proposing that all water replacements occur, the water system also aware of many communities and systems with LSLs, regardless of their would count these replacements water systems across the country that 90th percentile level, must replace the towards its goal or mandatory are choosing to conduct LSLR water system-owned portion of the LSL replacement rate. If the water system is proactively. The proposed LCR when a customer replaces their portion notified of the customer-initiated incorporates actions that water systems of the LSL. Water systems would have replacement more than three months can take to encourage full LSLR to include information about this after the replacement occurred, it would irrespective of the lead action level, requirement in their annual notification not be required to replace its portion or helping to spur removal of lead sources to LSL customers. In those cases where provide a pitcher filter and replacement rather than waiting to act only after a customer notifies the system in cartridges because the elevated lead consumers have already been exposed advance of replacing the customer levels associated with partial LSLR to greater levels of lead. portion of an LSL, the EPA is proposing would be expected to have subdued. The flexibility of the goal based LSLR that the water system make a good faith provision allows water systems with 3. Lead Service Line Replacement After effort to coordinate replacement with higher lead levels make manageable a Lead Trigger Level Exceedance the customer to minimize disturbances progress in reducing lead exposure and that may result in particulate lead The EPA is proposing that, in upgrading their infrastructure. The State release and to prevent a partially addition to any requirements relating to could take multiple factors into account replaced LSL from being left in place. CCT under 141.82(d) or 141.81(e) when setting the goal rate, such as the The water system would also have 45 discussed above, CWSs serving more number of LSLs in the distribution days from learning of the customer’s than 10,000 persons that exceed the system, planned infrastructure replacement or intention to replace his trigger level for lead (10 mg/L) but do not improvement programs, as well as the or her-owned portion of the LSL to exceed the action level for lead (15 mg/ financial circumstances of the water replace the portion owned by the water L) would be required to implement a system and its customers. The EPA system. Given that water systems full LSLR program with an annual believes that as communities conduct routinely perform construction replacement goal rate approved by the projects to replace aging infrastructure, involving installation and replacement State, as stated in its LSLR plan. The they can replace lead service lines as of water mains and service lines, and goal rate would be established to require part of these projects. This will reduce that the logistics of LSLR have been actions that will promote the costs and minimize the disruption to established in its LSLR plan, the EPA elimination of a significant source of their customers. Madison, WI stated in believes that it is feasible for water lead in those water systems with 90th its Federalism letter to the EPA that it

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61699

‘‘achieved cost-saving efficiencies et. al., 2013). Due to concerns that the rate. Verifying that a service line of through effective planning that practices of both ‘‘test-outs’’ and partial unknown material is non-lead would, concentrated capital improvement LSLR contribute to lead exposure, the however, reduce the total number of projects in the lead service area. Lead EPA is proposing to eliminate these replacements required per year by service replacement costs never practices. While the current rule adjusting the initial number of LSLs in exceeded 20% of our annual capital requires seven percent LSLR after a lead the distribution system. If verifying a budget. In addition, the compressed ALE, the EPA is aware that compliance service line of unknown material as schedule and coordination with local is not necessarily achieved by non-lead was counted as a LSLR, the plumbing contractors led to reduced conducting full LSLR. A Black and water system could effectively remove mobilization costs.’’ The EPA expects Veach survey of water systems found less than three percent of its actual that systems that exceed the trigger level that LSLR was comprised of 72 percent number of LSLs per year. It could also will consider integrating lead service partial replacements (USEPA, 2004b). incentivize water systems against line replacements into their planned The EPA best professional judgement creating a thorough LSL inventory infrastructure replacement activities. used in the proposed rule’s economic upfront, because should they exceed the The EPA is proposing that a water analysis assumes that due to the cost- lead action level, they could achieve system may discontinue its goal-based savings of test-outs over LSLR, that 25 compliance with the less costly service LSLR program after two consecutive percent of CWSs serving more than line verification as opposed to full annual monitoring periods at or below 10,000 people would take an LSL LSLR. For these reasons, the proposed the lead trigger level, which equates to sample before replacing the LSL, and rule would not count verifying service two years where the lead 90th percentile that 80 percent of LSLs would meet the lines of unknown material as non-lead is consistently at or below the trigger test-out criteria. Given these as a LSLR. The proposed rule allows level. The EPA is also proposing that a assumptions, the proposed rule flexibility for water systems to include water system that does not meet its requirement of three percent full service lines of unknown materials in annual LSLR goal must conduct replacement would likely result in a their inventory and verify them at their proposed outreach activities as greater number of full LSLR in own pace, while avoiding described in 141.85(g). (See Section comparison to the current rule’s seven disincentivizing or discouraging full III.F.2. of this notice). The proposed rule percent replacement. Similar to the LSLR. also provides the EPA authority to current rule, the State would be The EPA is aware of several full LSLR determine a different goal-based required to set a shorter LSLR schedule, programs throughout the nation that replacement rate, if appropriate. taking into account the number of LSLs have been largely successful (EDF, 2019), sometimes achieving a significant 4. Lead Service Line Replacement After in the system, where such a shorter number of full LSLR at replacement a Lead Action Level Exceedance replacement schedule is feasible. For rates well above three percent. Even The EPA is proposing that CWSs example, if the water system has a very low number of LSLs compared to its when LSLR is coupled with the pace of serving more than 10,000 persons that a water system’s capital improvement exceed the lead action level would be total number of service lines, the State would determine it is feasible for the work, communities are conducting required to conduct mandatory full LSLR rates between 1 and 17 percent LSLR at a minimum rate of three water system to replace greater than three percent of full LSLs per year and annually (USEPA, 2019a).The State of percent annually. Small CWSs serving Michigan’s revised LCR requires all require the water system to do so. 10,000 persons or fewer people as well water systems to fully remove LSLs as Non-Transient, Non-Community The mandatory LSLR rate would be proactively at the rate of five percent, Water Systems (NTNCWSs) of all sizes applied to the number of inventoried and at the rate of seven percent when have compliance alternatives, outlined LSLs when the water system first the lead action level is exceeded (State in Section C below. The mandatory exceeds the action level, plus the of Michigan, 2017). replacement rate would be applied to number of service lines of unknown Under this proposal, a water system the number of inventoried LSLs at the material. Should the water system that has exceeded the action level may time the action level is first exceeded subsequently exceed the lead action cease its mandatory LSLR program after plus the number of service lines of level again, the water system would four consecutive six-month monitoring unknown material. continue to use the original number of periods below the lead action level. This The EPA is proposing to reduce the LSLs and unknowns, used following the equates to two years of six-month mandatory minimum LSLR rate from first exceedance of the lead action level, monitoring with 90th percentile values seven percent to three percent, but to for the LSLR rate calculation. In other consistently at or below the lead action allow only full LSLRs to count towards words, the water system would not level, which provides the water system the replacement rate. This differs from revise the LSLR rate using the number assurance that distribution system the current rule, which allows for ‘‘test- of LSLs at the time of the subsequent chemistry has stabilized, especially if outs’’ and partial LSLR to count as lead action level exceedance. The CCT was installed or re-optimized after ‘‘replaced.’’ Partial LSLR removes only minimum mandatory three percent the exceedance. The water system a portion of the LSL, usually the water LSLR rate is intended to eliminate LSLs would be in violation of the LCR system-owned portion and may, in the within approximately 33 years of treatment technique if it fails to meet short-term, increase lead concentrations exceeding the action level. If the water the annual three percent full at the tap (USEPA, 2011). Test-outs system updated the LSLR rate based on replacement rate unless the water allow an individual LSL to remain in its current number of LSLs whenever it system obtains documented refusals place but be counted as ‘‘replaced’’ if exceeded the lead action level, the from all customers served by an LSL to the lead concentration in all service line replacement timeframe would reset to participate in the replacement program. samples from that line are less than or an additional 33 years each time, This mechanism is intended to be used equal to 15 mg/L. Studies have shown significantly delaying LSLR. Service towards the end of a LSLR program, that LSLs which have been ‘‘tested-out’’ lines of unknown material discovered to where a small number of customers may contribute to lead release in be non-lead would not be considered remain who do not consent to have the drinking water at a later date (Del Toral replaced nor contribute to the LSLR customer-owned portion of the LSL

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61700 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

replaced. The EPA is proposing this E. Compliance Alternatives for a Lead of replacement of all lead bearing provision to allow for situations where Action Level Exceedance for Small plumbing fixtures at every tap where customers’ decisions are outside of the Community Water Systems and Non- water could be used for human system’s control but is not meant as a Transient, Non-Community Water consumption. The NTNCWS must have substitute for the water system making Systems control of all plumbing materials to a meaningful effort to engage with Under the current LCR, small and select this option. customers to meet the three percent full medium water systems (i.e., systems Under this proposal, small CWSs and replacement rate. serving 50,000 or fewer people) are not any NTNCWS that exceeds the lead trigger level but do not exceed the lead Although this proposal lowers the required to implement CCT unless the water system exceeds the lead action and copper action levels would need to required LSLR rate from seven percent evaluate the compliance alternatives level. The EPA has determined that to three percent, the elimination of and make a recommendation to the greater flexibility is needed for small ‘‘test-outs’’ and partial LSLRs and the State within six months on which Community Water Systems (CWSs) and requirement for full LSLR will result in compliance alternative the water system all Non-Transient, Non-Community greater reductions in exposure to lead in would implement if the water system Water Systems (NTNCWSs) because drinking water. The EPA estimates that exceeds the lead action level. The State they tend to have more limited the proposed mandatory three percent would need to approve the technical, financial, and managerial and the goal-based LSLR requirements recommendation within six months of capacity to implement complex of the rule would result in an submittal. In the event these water treatment techniques. Many small incremental increase of 205,452 to systems exceed the lead action level, public water systems face challenges in they must implement the State- 261,701 full LSLRs over a 35-year reliably providing safe drinking water to period compared to the current rule (see approved compliance option. their customers and consistently Small CWSs and NTNCWSs that Appendix C, Exhibit C.1 of the meeting the requirements of the SDWA Economic Analysis for the Lead and select and are approved for and the National Primary Drinking implementation of optimized CCT and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019)). Water Regulations (NPDWRs). These The EPA is also requesting comment in subsequently exceed the lead action challenges include, but are not limited level would be required to implement Section VII of this notice on an to: (1) Lack of adequate revenue or the State-approved option for CCT in alternative sampling technique for access to financing; (2) aging accordance with proposed requirements sampling locations with lead service infrastructure; (3) retirement of in § 141.81(e). Small CWSs and lines. As indicated in section VI.F.2 of experienced system operators and the NTNCWSs that select and are approved this notice, this alternative would inability to recruit new operators to for the POU option and subsequently increase the numbers of systems that replace them; (4) managers and exceed the lead action level, would be would be required to take actions operators who lack the requisite required to implement a POU program including LSLR. The EPA has estimated financial, technical or managerial skills; on a schedule specified by the State, but that other proposed rule provisions may (5) lack of planning for infrastructure not-to-exceed three months. Small water also influence LSLR. For example, upgrades or the ability to respond to and systems that select and are approved for consumers will learn from their water recover from natural disasters (e.g., LSLR and subsequently exceed the lead system if they are served by an LSL, floods or tornadoes); and (6) lack of action level would be required to about the risks of lead in drinking water, understanding of existing or new replace all LSLs on a schedule specified and about the actions they can take to regulatory requirements and treatment by the State, not-to-exceed 15 years. reduce lead in drinking water and technologies. As a result, some small Any small CWSs and any NTNCWS remove their LSL. Some of these systems may experience frequent or that exceeds the lead action level but customers are expected to voluntarily long-term compliance challenges in not the copper action level, had not initiate LSLR, regardless of the water reliably providing safe water to their previously exceeded the trigger level, system’s 90th percentile lead level. customers while others may be in would need to evaluate the compliance These provisions are expected to result compliance now but lack the technical alternatives and make a in approximately 214,000 to 350,000 capacity to maintain compliance (OIG, recommendation to the State within six LSLRs over the next 35 years. The EPA 2006). months. The State must approve the The EPA is proposing three has not evaluated to what extent these system’s recommendations within six compliance alternatives for a lead action anticipated voluntary LSLRs may be months; these water systems would then level exceedance to allow increased implement the State-approved additional to the LSLRs undertaken in flexibility for small CWS that serve systems with 3% or goal-based LSLR compliance option on a schedule 10,000 or fewer people and four specified by the State. requirements. The EPA also estimates compliance alternatives for NTNCWS of that the availability of DWSRF program any size. The proposed rule would 1. Lead Service Line Replacement loans and subsidies to fund customer- allow these water systems to choose The EPA is proposing that NTNCWSs side LSLRs is expected to result in an among options, which would allow and small CWSs with LSLs that exceed estimated 149,200 full LSLRs over 35 them to select the most financially and the lead action level of 15 mg/L may years with approximately 91% of the technologically viable strategy that is choose to fully replace all of their LSLs funds used for proactive LSLR as effective in reducing lead in drinking until none remain. Those that choose opposed to mandatory LSLR that is water. The EPA is proposing the this compliance alternative would need required after exceeding the lead action following compliance alternatives for to ensure they have the authority or level (USEPA, 2019d). As the proposed small CWSs: (1) Full LSLR, (2) consent to remove the customer-owned requirements in this section require the installation and maintenance of OCCT, portion of every LSL in its distribution water system to complete any or (3) installation and maintenance of system. If the water system’s 90th consumer-initiated LSLR, these point-of-use (POU) devices. The EPA is percentile drops below the lead action replacements are expected to result in proposing the above three flexibilities level, the water system must continue to full replacements. for NTNCWS and an additional option replace LSLs until none remain. This

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61701

option is projected to be a practical drinking or cooking to ensure all LSL or a service line of unknown choice for small systems that have few building users can easily access filtered material is intended to raise awareness LSLs that could be removed within a water. The water system would be of people in a household that may have few years, thus potentially avoiding the responsible for maintenance of the higher lead exposures so that consumers need to add a CCT process that would device, including changing filter may take actions to reduce exposure to need to be continually operated and cartridges and resolving operational lead and participate in LSLR programs. maintained. Rather than split resources issues experienced by the customer. The EPA is proposing to revise the between installing CCT and conducting Small CWSs that serve relatively few mandatory health effects language LSLR, this proposal allows resources to households, or NTNCWSs that are required for public education materials be focused on LSLR to accelerate responsible for the facility’s plumbing, as follows. completion of the program and may find this to be the most effective Exposure to lead can cause serious permanently remove a significant and viable compliance alternative (see health effects in all age groups. Infants potential source of lead in drinking section VI.C.4 of this notice). Small and children who drink water water. Water systems would have to CWSs would need to ensure water containing lead could have decreases in replace LSLs on a schedule approved by system personnel have access to the IQ and attention span and increases in the State not to exceed 15 years. The homes of the residents to install and learning and behavior problems. Lead EPA has determined in its analysis that maintain the POU devices, including exposure among women who are water systems with a small number of changing the filters. pregnant increases prenatal risks. Lead LSLs may find that removing relatively exposure among women who later 4. Replacement of Lead Bearing few LSLs is more cost effective than become pregnant has similar risks if Plumbing Materials installing and maintaining optimized lead stored in the mother’s bones is CCT indefinitely, and logistically less The EPA is proposing to provide an released during pregnancy. Recent burdensome than installing and additional compliance alternative for science suggests that adults who drink maintaining POU devices (see section NTNCWS. Under this proposal, a water containing lead have increased VI.C.4 of this notice). NTNCWS that has control over all risks of heart disease, high blood plumbing in its buildings may choose to pressure, kidney or nervous system 2. Corrosion Control Treatment replace all lead bearing plumbing in problems. The EPA is proposing to allow response to a lead action level The EPA is also proposing NTNCWSs and small CWSs to install exceedance. Research has shown that enhancements to improve consumer and maintain optimized CCT as a corrosion of lead bearing premise awareness and collaboration efforts with compliance alternative after exceeding plumbing has the potential to leach community organizations to the lead action level. The EPA has higher levels of lead in drinking water communicate lead risks. Proposed determined in its analysis that some (Elfland et. al., 2010). Lead from enhancements include a requirement for water systems may choose this premise plumbing contributes on systems to update public education alternative as the most effective and average 20–35 percent of lead in materials with revised mandatory health viable strategy for reducing lead in drinking water where an LSL is present effects language and for systems with drinking water (e.g., small water (AwwaRF, 2008), and could potentially lead service lines to include information systems with many LSLs to replace or represent an even greater percentage about lead service line replacement a large number of households that where no LSL is present. The EPA programs and opportunities available to would make installation and proposes that the replacement of all lead customers for replacement. In addition, maintenance of POU devices logistically bearing plumbing occur on a schedule the EPA is proposing to modify challenging) (see section VI.C.4 of this set by the State which must not exceed requirements to provide customers with notice). The EPA is proposing to require one year. The EPA is proposing this their tap sample results within 24 hours water systems, including small water compliance alternative only apply to if the sample is greater than the action systems, that have already installed CCT NTNCWS, because it is highly unlikely level of 15 mg/L, while maintaining the and subsequently exceed the lead action that a small CWS has access to every current rule requirement to provide tap level to re-optimize CCT. residence and building it serves or that sample results within 30 days for the CWS has the authority to inspect samples less than or equal to the action 3. Point-of-Use Devices and require replacement of all lead- level. The EPA is proposing these The EPA is proposing to allow bearing plumbing materials in these additional actions while retaining the NTNCWSs and small CWSs to install locations. current rule requirements for public and maintain POU devices certified to education following a lead action level F. Public Education remove lead as a compliance alternative exceedance. to a lead action level exceedance in lieu Under the current LCR, water systems of CCT and LSLR. The EPA proposes to that exceed the lead action level must 1. Notification for Customers With a require small CWSs to provide a initiate a public education program Lead Service Line minimum of one POU device per within 60 days of the end of the The EPA is proposing to require water household, regardless of whether that monitoring period in which the action systems to conduct an LSL inventory household is served by an LSL, to level exceedance occurred. The purpose and provide public access to the ensure the residents can access filtered of public education is to inform inventory information (see section water from at least one tap. Since consumers that the water system has III.C.1 of this notice). The EPA is system-wide CCT is not being provided exceeded the action level, provide proposing a new requirement for water under this option, even homes without information about the health effects of systems with LSLs to provide LSLs would need to be provided with a lead, the sources of lead in drinking notification to households served by an POU device to address lead leaching water, actions consumers can take to LSL and with unknown service line from old lead solder or brass plumbing reduce exposure, and explain why there material, to include information on: The fittings and fixtures. The EPA proposes are elevated levels of lead and actions health effects and sources of lead in to require NTNCWSs to provide a POU the water system is taking. Targeted drinking water (including LSLs), how to device for every tap intended for public education for customers with an have water tested for lead, actions

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61702 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

customers can take to reduce exposure 2. Outreach Activities After Failing To 3. Notification of Tap Sample Results to lead, and information about the Meet a Lead Service Line Replacement and Other Outreach opportunities for LSLR, including the Goal The EPA proposes for any individual water system’s requirement to replace The EPA is proposing to require tap sample that exceeds the lead action its portion of an LSL when notified by CWSs serving more than 10,000 persons level of 15 mg/L, the water system would a customer that they intend to replace that fail to meet their annual LSLR goal notify consumers at the site within 24 the customer-owned portion of the LSL. to conduct public outreach activities. hours of learning of the lead tap The EPA is proposing that a water Failure to meet the LSLR goal would not sampling result. This is in addition to system provide this notification to be a violation, however, failure to the current LCR requirement to provide existing customers served by an LSL conduct public outreach activities a notice of the individual tap sample and service lines of unknown material would result in a treatment technique results from lead testing to persons within 30 days of completing its LSL violation. To increase customer served at the sampling site, which must inventory and for new customers that awareness of the potential higher be sent within 30 days of receiving initiate new water service from a home exposure to lead from a LSLR and results. For tap samples that do not or building with an LSL or a service line advance customer interest in exceed the lead action level, the 30-day of unknown material at the time service participating in the goal based LSLR notice will remain in effect. Under this (i.e., billing) is initiated. This proposal program, the EPA proposes that water proposal, water systems that have systems conduct annual public outreach would require CWSs to send a individual tap samples greater than 15 activities until the water system meets notification on an annual basis to mg/L would also be required to its replacement goal. Water systems can customers until the LSL is replaced or implement the ‘‘find-and-fix’’ stop their goal LSLR program when tap the unknown service line is determined provisions as described in section III.K. sampling shows that the 90th percentile of this notice. not be an LSL. This notification must of lead is at or below the trigger level In addition, the EPA is proposing that include a section describing programs for two consecutive monitoring periods. community water systems conduct that provide innovative financing To enhance community engagement and annual outreach to State and local solutions for customers seeking to allow water system flexibility as health agencies to explain the sources of replace their portion of a lead service suggested by the NDWAC, the EPA is lead in drinking water, discuss health line. Small systems may wish to refer to proposing to provide options to meet effects of lead, and explore collaborative a national information source, such as this requirement, so water systems can efforts. This annual outreach would one provided by EPA; large systems may conduct effective community help to ensure that caregivers and health wish to tailor such information to their engagement. A water system that does providers hear and respond circumstances. This section must also not meet its LSLR goal rate would select appropriately to information about lead include a clear explanation of how the one of the proposed outreach activities in drinking water and for water utilities water system defines ownerships of lead that would be most appropriate for that to participate in joint communication service lines, who has financial community. Outreach activities include efforts, led by state health departments, responsibility for the replacement, and one or more of the following activities: state lead poisoning prevention the legal basis for that determination. (1) A social media campaign (e.g., face agencies, and/or state drinking water Additionally, the EPA proposes that book, twitter), (2) outreach to primacy agencies (NDWAC, 2015). CWSs provide notification to LSL and organizations representing plumbers and contractors to discuss identification G. Monitoring Requirements for Lead unknowns service line customers and Copper in Tap Water Sampling informing them of actions consumers of LSLs during home repair, (3) certified can take to reduce their exposure mail to LSL customers inviting them to Unlike most contaminants that are including replacing their lead service participate in the LSLR program, (4) found in sources of drinking water, lead conduct a town hall meeting or and copper enter drinking water as it line when they exceed the lead trigger participate in a community event to moves through the distribution system level of 10 mg/L but do not exceed the provide information on the LSLR and comes into contact with leaded lead action level of 15 mg/L. The EPA program, (5) direct contact (by phone or materials, such as lead service lines, believes that these proposed notification in person) to customers to discuss LSLR leaded solder, brass/bronze fittings, requirements have value for both program and opportunities for LSLR, or galvanized piping, faucets, and water occupants of rental properties as well as (6) obtain written refusal from all LSL meters. Therefore, measurements of lead homeowners. Information regarding the customers to participate in the LSLR and copper are taken at the consumers existence of an LSL will provide program. Water systems would be tap. Tap sampling is a fundamental part important information for renters on required to complete at least one of the LCR designed to target sites potential lead exposure in their home activity in the year following failure to expected to have the highest lead levels and could prompt a communication meet the replacement goal. If the water and is used to assess the effectiveness of with their landlord regarding lead system continues to fail to meet the corrosion control treatment and/or service line replacement. Occupants of annual replacement goal in the source water treatment in the water rental properties will also benefit from following year, the EPA is proposing system. This is done through targeted the information on other actions they that the number of efforts be increased site selection (i.e., sampling locations can take to reduce lead exposure in to two per year to promote participation with lead service lines) and the use of drinking water. The CWS must provide in the LSLR program. The NDWAC a tap sample collection protocol. the same information noted above and recommended this approach to enhance All CWSs and NTNCWSs must collect include an invitation to participate in engagement with homeowners and lead and copper tap samples. The water the LSLR program and repeat the notice promote their participation in LSLR system may choose to have staff collect annually until it is at or below the lead programs. Water systems would provide the samples if feasible, or have residents trigger level. written certification to the State that collect the samples. Due to the required they have conducted the required six hour stagnation period prior to outreach activities under this proposal. sample collection, it is often less

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61703

disruptive for the customer to collect to the State and is used to determine establish the priority of sites selected for the tap sample themselves. The whether the system must comply with tap sampling, with tier 1 being the frequency of monitoring and number of other requirements of the rule, such as highest priority, or highest potential for samples to be collected and analyzed is corrosion control treatment, public elevated lead and tier 3 being the lowest based primarily on how many people education and LSLR. priority. The EPA is proposing to revise the water system serves and previous This proposal describes several the tiering criteria for selection of tap tap water monitoring results. If residents revisions to the current LCR to improve sampling sites to better target locations are collecting tap samples, the water tap sampling requirements in the areas most likely to have higher levels of lead system must recruit volunteers at the of site selection tiering criteria, sample in drinking water. sites that are most likely to have collection, and frequency provisions based on the lead 90th percentile level. The EPA is proposing that Tier 1 elevated lead based on the tiering sampling sites for CWSs consist of criteria described in the section below. The current LCR requires water systems to obtain samples from consumer’s taps single-family structures (SFS) that are To the extent feasible, water systems and use these samples to calculate their served by an LSL. When multiple-family should use the same tap sample sites 90th percentile value. The EPA is residences (MFRs) comprise at least 20 each monitoring period. If a resident proposing revisions to tap sampling percent of the structures served by a decides to discontinue participation in procedures to increase the likelihood of water system, the water system may tap sampling, the water system must capturing elevated lead levels by include these types of structures in its select a similarly ‘‘tiered’’ site. Due to revising tap sample site selection sampling pool as Tier 1 sampling sites, potential non response from resident criteria, i.e., tiering, and ensuring tap as provided in the current LCR. The volunteers, the EPA recommends sample protocols contain accurate EPA is proposing that Tier 2 sampling including more sampling sites in the instructions that will capture elevated sites for CWSs are buildings, including pool of targeted sampling sites than the lead levels at the tap. In addition, to MFRs that are served by an LSL. The minimum number of tap samples improve transparency and raise EPA also proposes that Tier 3 sampling required be identified. Under the consumer awareness, the EPA proposes sites for CWSs consist of single SFSs proposed rule, water systems would be to require water systems to make the that contain copper pipes with lead required to provide resident volunteers results of all tap samples collected in solder installed before the effective date must be provided with a wide-mouth accordance with 141.86(b) publicly of the applicable State’s lead ban. The collection bottle each time and a tap available within 60 days of the end of EPA is proposing that NTNCWS Tier 1 sample collection protocol, including the monitoring period. sampling sites consist of buildings that instructions on how the water system are served by an LSL and the remaining will pick up samples for laboratory 1. Tiering of Tap Sample Collection tap samples be taken at buildings with analysis, which must be done within Sites copper pipe and lead solder installed two weeks after the tap sample is The LCR requires water systems to before the effective date of the drawn. The water system would then be select sites for tap sampling based on applicable State’s lead ban (Tier 3 sites). required to calculate a 90th percentile certain characteristics (i.e., single family The EPA is not modifying the definition separately for lead and copper at the home, multi-family residence) and of a ‘‘representative site’’ but is referring end of each monitoring period. This material of the service line (i.e., lead, to it as a ‘‘Tier 4’’ site. The revised 90th percentile value would be reported copper pipes with lead solder). Tiers tiering structure is outlined below.

EXHIBIT 1—REVISED LEAD AND COPPER SITE SELECTION CRITERIA

Tier CWSs NTNCWSs

Tier 1 ...... Collect samples from SFSs served by LSLs. Tier 1 samples Collect samples from building. can be collected from MFRs if they represent at least 20 percent of structures served by the water system. Tier 2 ...... Collect samples from buildings and MFRs served by LSLs .... N/A. Tier 3 ...... Collect samples from SFSs with copper pipes with lead sol- Collect samples from buildings with copper pipe and lead der installed before the effective date of the State’s lead solder installed before the effective date of the State’s lead ban. ban. Tier 4 ...... Representative sample where the plumbing is similar to that Representative sample where the plumbing is similar to that used at other sites served. used at other sites served. Acronyms: CWS = community water system; LSL = lead service line; MFR = multi-family residence; N/A = not applicable; NTNCWS = non- transient non-community water system; SFS = single family structure.

The 1991 LCR made a clear with lead solder installed before 1983 banned in all jurisdictions, and distinction between the copper pipes were expected to have lower lead levels. considering lead solder’s ability to leach with lead solder installed after 1982, but The EPA is basing its current proposal lead is reduced by age (USEPA, 1990), before the effective date of applicable to revise the tiering criteria for lead lead levels in samples collected from state lead ban and designated these sites solder on the increased understanding sites containing copper pipe with lead as Tier 1. However, copper pipe with of corrosion mechanisms and sources of solder installed between 1983 and 1988 lead solder installed before 1983 are lead, in particular, lead from solder, as no longer present as significant a source designated as Tier 3 sites. In the 1991 a result of the studies conducted since of lead as assumed in 1991. Based on LCR, the EPA based this distinction on the 1991 rulemaking (for example, De the most recent science, the EPA is studies in which lead leaching from Rosa and Williams, 1992; Edwards and proposing the above revisions to the tap solder was found to decrease with age Triantafyllidou, 2007; Nguyen et al., sample site selection tiering criteria to (USEPA, 1990; Oliphant, 1982) and, as 2010). Additionally, given that it has assure prioritization of sites that are a result, samples from copper pipes been over 30 years since lead solder was

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61704 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

currently the most likely to yield number of sites required for the 90th system would be required to commence elevated lead levels in drinking water. percentile calculation. This provision the appropriate tap sampling schedule. would ensure that additional tap The proposed criteria for using 2. Number of Tap Samples and samples collected above the minimum grandfathered data would ensure that Frequency of Sampling required, at sites that are less likely to historical data are used only if they are The EPA is proposing additional detect lead at similar levels as LSL sites, from samples with the highest potential requirements for LSL water systems to cannot be used to ‘‘dilute’’ the lead 90th lead concentrations. enable prioritization of LSL sites in tap percentile level. Studies demonstrate No changes are being proposed to the sampling. All water systems with LSLs that when present, LSLs represents the copper sampling requirements in the or potential LSLs must re-evaluate their largest source of lead in tap water current LCR. However, due to proposed lead sampling sites based on their LSL (Sandvig et al., 2008). Requiring use of increased tap sampling requirements for inventory, prepared in accordance with only the highest lead levels from non- lead, each tap sample collected may not this proposal. These water systems LSL sites for the 90th percentile be required to be analyzed for both lead would also be required to update their calculation would increase the and copper. This is a result of the lead inventory annually and ensure tap likelihood that sites with other major and copper tap sampling schedules sampling sites are served by an LSL. sources of lead, such as lead-bearing diverging for some water systems. Under the current LCR, water systems brass or bronze fixtures and galvanized Under the current rule, any water with LSLs must collect at least half of service lines formerly downstream of an system that exceeds either the lead or their tap samples from sites with known LSL, are captured in the calculation. copper action level (15 mg/L or 1.3 mg/ LSLs. However, in this proposal, water Using non-LSL sites as part of the 90th L, respectively), would conduct tap systems with LSLs must collect all tap percentile calculation is proposed to be monitoring every six months for both samples from sites with known LSLs if utilized solely by water systems with lead and copper. Once a water system possible, increasing the likelihood of fewer LSL tap sample sites than the measures 90th percentile tap detecting elevated lead levels in the number required under § 141.86(c). The concentrations at or below the lead and water system. The EPA is proposing that EPA proposes that tap samples collected copper action levels for two consecutive water systems use the most up-to-date that are not used in the lead 90th rounds of monitoring, the water system information to select their tap sampling percentile calculation must still be may reduce to annual monitoring for sites and prioritize sites with a higher reported to the State. lead and copper. Water systems that likelihood of elevated lead. Under this meet the lead and copper action levels The EPA is proposing to permit the for three consecutive rounds of annual proposal, water systems with an use of grandfathered data to meet initial adequate number of LSL sites to meet monitoring may reduce to triennial lead monitoring requirements if the data sampling at a reduced number of sites. the required minimum number of tap are from sites that meet the proposed sampling sites outlined in exhibit 2 As discussed above, the EPA is tiering requirements. Water systems that proposing to establish a lead trigger below, must calculate their lead 90th collect lead tap samples after the percentile using only tap samples from level of 10 mg/L that would affect the tap publication date of the final rule, but sampling frequency. Under this LSL sites (100 percent LSLs), as before the rule compliance date (three opposed to the current rule which proposal, water systems that exceed the years after final rule publication), in lead trigger level of 10 mg/L but do not allows water systems to use samples accordance with the proposed revised from at least half LSL sites. exceed the copper and lead action levels tap sample site selection criteria, may and that are conducting tap sampling on use these data to satisfy the initial EXHIBIT 2—MINIMUM NUMBER OF a triennial basis, would be required to monitoring requirement. Initial tap begin annual tap sampling at the LEAD AND COPPER TAP SAMPLES BY sampling establishes the water system’s standard number of sites for lead but WATER SYSTEM SIZE, 40 CFR sampling schedule and the number of may remain on triennial sampling for 141.86(c) tap samples it is required to collect. The copper at the reduced number of sites. EPA is proposing to permit Water systems that meet the lead trigger System size Number of Number of grandfathered data for an LSL water (number of people sites sites level for three consecutive years of (standard (reduced system only if the data are from sites annual monitoring and have also met served) monitoring) monitoring) that meet the proposed tiering the copper action level, may reduce >100,000 ...... 100 50 requirements (i.e., all samples collected their lead and copper tap sampling to a 10,001 to 100,000 ... 60 30 from LSL sites, if available). Any water triennial basis at the reduced number of 3,301 to 10,000 ...... 40 20 system that is conducting tap 501 to 3,300 ...... 20 10 sites. Water systems that exceed the lead 101 to 500 ...... 10 5 monitoring every six months and trigger level and are on annual <=100 ...... 5 5 intends to use these data for purposes of monitoring would not be eligible for grandfathering, must use the higher lead triennial monitoring for lead at a The EPA is proposing that if a water 90th percentile level to establish the reduced number of sites until the lead system does not have an adequate monitoring frequency and number of tap 90th percentile result is at or below the number of LSL sites to meet the samples. The EPA is proposing that lead trigger level for three consecutive minimum number of tap samples to water systems that do not have years. calculate the 90th percentile level, qualifying grandfathered data must use In this proposal, changes to reduced outlined in § 141.86(c), it may collect the lead 90th percentile results from the monitoring are contingent upon several the remainder of the samples from non- first tap sampling period after the factors, including but not limited to: LSL sites after all the LSL tap sampling compliance date of the final rule. Results of lead and copper tap sampling, sites are utilized. If the water system Following the establishment of the the size of the water system (i.e., small conducts tap sampling at non-LSL sites initial sampling schedule and number of water system flexibilities), and beyond what is required under tap samples (based on either maintaining water quality parameters § 141.86(c), the water system must grandfathered data or data collected (WQPs) if CCT is installed. The include only the tap samples with the during the first tap sampling period schedule for tap sampling may be highest lead concentrations to meet the after the rule compliance date), the affected when these factors change.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61705

Opportunities for reduction in tap may mask potential higher lead is to target sites and collect tap samples sampling frequency and number of sites exposure that may be representative of in a manner the is likely to capture the are more stringent under this proposal exposure in households that do not highest lead levels. The EPA is also compared to the current rule. A water regularly flush taps before use. proposing that all water systems submit system must not exceed the trigger level Therefore, EPA is proposing to prohibit their sampling protocol to the State for of 10 mg/L to move into a triennial pre-stagnation flushing in tap sampling approval prior to the compliance date. monitoring schedule at the reduced protocols. In addition, the EPA is also requesting number of tap sample sites for lead. The The EPA is also aware that some tap comment on alternative changes to the proposed revisions to tap sampling sampling protocols contain a sampling technique for sampling frequency and locations are meant to recommendation to remove or clean the locations with lead service lines in ensure more frequent tap sampling is faucet aerator prior to sampling. The section VII of this notice. occurring at the most representative taps used for monitoring likely contain H. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring sites to identify elevated lead levels. an aerator as part of the faucet assembly, and particulate matter, including lead, Under the current LCR, water systems 3. Sample Collection Methods may accumulate within these aerators. that have CCT must monitor water The EPA is proposing several changes Thus, removing and/or cleaning these quality parameters (WQPs) to ensure to the tap sampling protocol, consistent aerators prior to or during sample effective CCT. WQP samples must be with the Agency’s February 2016 collection could mask the contribution collected at taps every six months and memorandum (USEPA, 2016d). Under of particulate lead. It is advisable to at entry points to the distribution the current LCR, a one-liter sample is regularly remove and clean faucet system every six months prior to CCT collected from the tap after the water aerators to avoid particulate matter installation and every two weeks has stood motionless in the plumbing build-up. However, if customers only thereafter. system for at least six hours (i.e., remove and clean the aerators prior to 1. Calcium Carbonate Stabilization stagnation). This is a called a first-draw or during sample collection, the sample sample. Water systems provide results will not be representative of The EPA is proposing several residents with a protocol for carrying household use, given residents are not revisions to the WQP monitoring out tap sampling in accordance with the cleaning or removing their aerators requirements of the current rule. LCR, if the water system itself is not before every use. The EPA proposes to Because the EPA is proposing to collecting the tap samples. The EPA is prohibit the recommendation to remove eliminate calcium carbonate aware that some water systems have and/or clean the faucet aerator prior to stabilization as a potential option for provided sampling procedures to or during the collection of lead and CCT (see section III.B.3. of this notice), residents that included copper tap samples. the WQPs associated directly with this recommendations that may Based on current information, the CCT option will also be removed. These inadvertently reduce the lead levels EPA endorses best practices to optimize include all parameters related to detected, including a recommendation the tap sampling protocol, so that calcium hardness (calcium, to run water from the tap, called sample results represent the highest conductivity, and water temperature). flushing, prior to initiating the required lead levels occurring at high risk The remaining WQP monitoring minimum 6-hour stagnation time. This locations. The EPA is proposing to requirements from the current rule will practice is referred to as pre-stagnation require tap samples be collected in be maintained. This change is due to flushing. With pre-stagnation flushing, wide-mouth bottles. Wide-mouth bottles recent evidence demonstrating that the water from the tap is run until water are advantageous for lead and copper calcium carbonate stabilization is from the LSL is flushed out, then the tap samples because they allow for a ineffective at preventing corrosion in water is turned off for at least six hours higher water flow rate compared to a lead and copper pipes (see section prior to sample collection. Based on narrow-necked bottle. Collection of tap III.B.3.). The EPA is proposing to historical data and more recent studies samples using a wide-mouth bottle is remove the three WQPs related to (e.g., Katner, et al. 2018; Del Toral et al., more characteristic of faucet water flow calcium hardness (calcium, 2013), it is evident that pre-stagnation when filling a glass of water, therefore, conductivity, and water temperature) flushing may reduce measured lead water systems will be responsible for because the EPA is proposing to no levels at the tap compared to when it is providing those conducting sampling longer allow calcium carbonate not practiced. Flushing, or running taps, with wide-mouth, one-liter sample stabilization as a potential CCT option. has long been understood to decrease bottles. In the current rule, after the water water lead levels overall, and thus has In summary, the EPA is proposing to system selects their CCT choice, the been a recommendation by Federal, prohibit the inclusion of pre-stagnation State designates OWQPs and the water State and local authorities as a way to flushing in all tap sampling protocols, system must maintain these levels in the reduce lead exposure prior to water use, thereby preventing the systematic ranges determined by the State. In this especially in residences of higher risk running of water from taps or faucets proposal, the EPA is prioritizing the (e.g., houses containing LSLs). In prior to beginning the minimum 6-hour most effective CCT options and the addition, flushing removes water that stagnation time needed for sample associated WQPs. Thus, the less may be in contact with LSLs for collection. The EPA also proposes the effective CCT option currently available, extended periods of time, which is prohibition of cleaning or removing of calcium carbonate stabilization, is when lead typically leaches into the faucet aerator in the tap sampling proposed to be eliminated, together with drinking water (USEPA, 2016). As a protocol, and a requirement that tap the associated WQPs. general matter, the EPA recommends samples be collected in bottles with a consumers flush taps as a regular public wide-mouth configuration. The 2. Find-and-Fix Water Quality health protective practice to reduce inclusion of a pre-stagnation flushing Parameter Monitoring household exposure to lead in drinking step, cleaning or removal of the faucet The EPA is proposing that additional water. However, in the case of collecting aerator, and/or using a narrow-necked WQP monitoring samples be collected samples to determine water system bottle for collection, is inconsistent with by water systems that have CCT and that compliance with the LCR, this practice the purpose of lead tap sampling, which have any individual tap sample(s) with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61706 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

lead results exceeding 15 mg/L. The the current rule with the added the water system is still required to additional WQP monitoring is a part of requirement to do so no less frequently conduct source water monitoring proposed revisions described under than once every two weeks. Water following the State decision. The EPA is ‘‘find-and-fix’’ (see section III.K. of this systems with CCT need to continue bi- proposing to discontinue additional notice) and would require water systems weekly monitoring to ensure their source water monitoring requirements if to collect follow-up lead tap samples at treatment techniques are optimal for (a) a water system has conducted source every sampling site that has an reducing lead and copper corrosion. water monitoring for prior lead and/or individual lead sample greater than 15 The EPA is also proposing revisions copper action level exceedance, (b) the mg/L. This is proposed to be completed to the prerequisites that are required for State has determined that source water within 30 days of obtaining results of water systems to reduce the number of treatment is not required, and (c) a the individual sample greater than 15 sites sampled and the frequency of WQP water system has not added any new mg/L. The EPA is also proposing a WQP sampling. In order to reduce the number water source(s). sample be collected at a location on the of sites used in water quality parameter The EPA is proposing these changes same size water main located within a monitoring, the current rule requires the to eliminate monitoring requirements half mile of the residence with the lead water system to maintain the range of that are not necessary to protect public result greater than 15 mg/L. This WQP water quality parameters for two 6- health. Lead and copper are rarely monitoring is proposed to be completed month monitoring periods. The EPA is found in the source water in significant within five days of receiving results of proposing that water systems would quantities (USEPA, 1988b), thus, where the individual lead sample greater than also need to meet the lead 90th the State has decided that source water 15 mg/L. Water systems with existing percentile trigger level for those two 6- treatment is not needed, the EPA is distribution system WQP monitoring month monitoring periods to be eligible proposing to allow the State to waive sites that meet the main size/proximity for a reduction in the number of sites for source water monitoring for any requirements can conduct the sampling WQP sampling. In order for the water subsequent action level exceedance at that location. system to reduce the frequency of under the conditions listed above and to The EPA is proposing that any water monitoring for water quality parameters, eliminate the regular monitoring system which adds sites for the under the current rule, the water system currently required for source water lead purposes of WQP monitoring specified must maintain the range of WQP values and copper. in this paragraph includes those for three consecutive years to reduce to J. Public Education and Sampling at additional sites in future WQP annual monitoring. Under the proposal, Schools and Child Care Facilities monitoring. The follow-up WQP the water system would need to also samples will aid in determining meet the lead 90th percentile trigger The EPA is proposing to require all whether OWQPs set by the State are level for those three consecutive years CWSs to conduct targeted sampling and being met by the water system. If any of in order to be eligible for yearly public education at schools and child the WQPs are off-target, such as pH or monitoring. Under the current rule, if care facilities that they serve. Currently indicators of CCT, then the water system the water system meets the WQP the EPA does not require public water may be able to determine how large the requirements determined by the State systems to conduct sampling in schools problem is, and if it includes the whole and the lead 90th percentile trigger level and child care facilities because the water system, a specific area, or the sole for three additional annual monitoring Agency established the voluntary 3T’s residence with the lead action level periods, it may reduce its WQP program—Training, Testing and Taking exceedance. The additional WQP monitoring frequency to once every Action (3Ts) that was designed to assist sample taken will aid in the three years. The EPA is proposing that states, schools, and child care facilities determination of the potential cause of for every phase of potential reduced with conducting their own testing elevated levels of lead so that WQP monitoring, the water system program, conducting outreach, and appropriate actions can be carried out. would also be required to meet the lead taking action to address elevated levels 90th percentile trigger level in addition of lead. The EPA is proposing these 3. Review of Water Quality Parameters to the current requirements. This would requirements because the Agency sees During Sanitary Surveys ensure that the required WQP an opportunity for water systems to The EPA is proposing that both CCT monitoring sites and frequency continue assist schools and child care facilities and WQPs be assessed during sanitary when water systems have a high lead with sampling and testing for lead. surveys for water systems with CCT. 90th percentile level. For a water system Large buildings such as schools can The EPA proposes that States conduct a on reduced monitoring, the use of have a higher potential for elevated lead periodic review of WQP results and tap grandfathered data may be used if levels because, even when served by a sampling results to ensure the water collected in accordance with the water system with well operated OCCT, system is maintaining the optimal CCT proposed revisions and its 90th may have longer periods of stagnation and to assess if there should be percentile in either grandfathered data due to complex premise plumbing modifications to the CCT to further or initial tap sampling is at or below the systems and inconsistent water use reduce lead and copper levels in tap trigger level. patterns. In such situations, there may samples. not be technical improvements that can I. Source Water Monitoring be made to the OCCT, but risk can be 4. Additional Water Quality Parameter The current rule requires water mitigated through public education and Requirements systems to conduct source water voluntary actions such as replacement In addition to the updates for WQP monitoring following an action level of premise plumbing. Water systems requirements previously specified, the exceedance. Based on the results of the have developed the technical capacity EPA is proposing several supplementary source water monitoring, the State must to do this work in operating their system changes to the current rule. First, water decide whether it is necessary for the and complying with current drinking systems with CCT would continue water system to install source water water standards. collecting one sample for each treatment to reduce lead and/or copper In addition, the EPA is proposing to applicable WQP at each entry point in tap levels. Regardless of whether a State expand the LCR sampling and education the distribution system as required in decides that treatment is needed or not, requirements because students and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61707

young children spend a large portion of system. The list would contain both where the school or child care facility their day in schools and child care customers and other users to ensure is located. facilities. Lead in drinking water can be inclusion of non-billed users. The CWS CWS sampling in schools and child a significant contributor to overall would then use that list to communicate care facilities would be part of a targeted exposure to lead, particularly for infants with the schools and child care facilities public education effort to educate CWS whose diet consists of liquids made about the health risks of lead and the customers about risks from lead in with water, such as baby food, juice, or specifics of the sampling program. premise plumbing and the actions formula. Young children and infants are Prior to conducting sampling, the customers can take to address sources of particularly vulnerable to lead because CWS would send information to the lead in their plumbing. Individual the physical and behavioral effects of school and child care facilities to notify outlets, such as water fountains, can lead occur at lower exposure levels in them of their plans to perform sampling leach lead even when a water system children than in adults. In children, low and to provide them with the 3Ts for has optimized corrosion control and/or levels of exposure have been linked to Reducing Lead in Drinking Water has lead levels at or below the action damage to the central and peripheral Toolkit (EPA 815–B–18–007), or a level in its tap sampling. School and nervous system, learning disabilities, subsequent guidance issued by the EPA. child care facility sampling contributes shorter stature, impaired hearing, and A CWS’s distribution of the 3Ts to increased public awareness of the impaired formation and function of document would initiate or contribute potential for elevated levels of lead in blood cells. to active communication with child care premise plumbing independent of a Children spend on average over six facilities and schools, who are critical water system’s 90th percentile value. hours per day at school (USDA National customers that serve a vulnerable The CWS would not be required Center for Education Statistics), with population. The information in the 3Ts under this proposed rule for taking any many spending more time at on-site document provides tools for the facility remedial action at the school or child before- or after-school care or activities. to consider using, including expanded care facility following the sampling and Across the country, about 100,000 sampling, stakeholder communication, notification requirements of this schools participate in the national and remediation options. proposal. The managers of these school lunch program, serving daily Under the proposal, a CWS would facilities have the established lines of lunch to 30 million students. Ninety then be required to collect samples from communication with the occupants of thousand schools serve breakfast to 14.6 five drinking water outlets at each these buildings (and their parents or million students every day (USDA). The school and two drinking water outlets at guardians) and have control over the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, each child care facility served by the plumbing materials that may need to be which authorizes funding and sets CWS. The CWS would be expected to addressed. The school or child care policy for USDA’s child nutrition complete sampling at all schools and facility would be able to use the 3T’s programs, requires schools participating child care facilities in its distribution guidance and make decisions about in federally funded meal programs to system every five years. The samples communication of the sampling results make water available during meal would be first draw after at least 8 hours to the parents and occupants of the periods at no cost to students (section but not more than 18 hours stagnation facility and as well as any follow-up 202 of HHFKA (42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(2)(A)). of the building and be 250 ml in remedial actions. The Act also mandates that child care volume. The EPA is proposing this Some State and local agencies have facilities provide free drinking water sampling protocol to be consistent with drinking water testing requirements for throughout the day (section 221 of recommended sampling protocols under lead in schools and child care facilities. HHFKA (42 U.S.C. 1766(u)(2)). The EPA the EPA’s 3Ts for Reducing Lead in In this proposal, the EPA is including an is proposing a new requirement for all Drinking Water Toolkit (EPA815–B–18– opportunity for a State or primacy CWSs to provide public education on 007). These sampling protocols enable agency to waive school and child care lead in drinking water and sample for school and child care facility officials to facility sampling for individual CWSs to lead at schools and child care facilities identify the outlets that may be sources avoid duplication of effort. If a State has within its distribution system every five of lead (e.g., the fixture, interior in place a program that requires CWSs years. The intent of the requirement is plumbing). The smaller sample size is to sample at all schools and child care to inform and educate targeted CWS more representative of the amount of facilities, or a program requiring schools customers and users about risks from water consumed per serving. The results and child care facilities to collect lead in premise plumbing at schools and of the samples would not be used as samples themselves, that is at least as childcare facilities. part of the CWS’s calculation of the 90th stringent as the proposed LCR The EPA is proposing new public percentile value in § 141.80(c)(4) requirements, the State may use that education requirements for all CWSs because these samples are being program in lieu of the proposed that provide water to schools and child collected in a manner to inform whether requirement. If a State or other program care facilities. The CWS would be action is needed at a specific school or is limited to a subset of schools and required to provide information about child care facility and whether child care facilities as defined in this the health risks and sources of lead in corrosion control is effective system- proposal, then the State may consider drinking water, collect samples for lead wide. The CWS would be required to the requirement for individual CWSs at schools and child care facilities provide each school and child care whose customers or users are already within its distribution system, and share facility with the results of the samples included in the State or other program that data with the facilities and health taken in that facility. The CWS would as being met. For example, if a State has departments to raise awareness and be required to provide the sampling a required program for testing lead in increase knowledge about the risks and results as soon as practicable but no less drinking water in public schools but not likelihood of the presence of lead in than 30 days after receipt of the results. in other types of schools or in child care drinking water. Prior to conducting The CWS would also be required to facilities, then a CWS serving only sampling in schools (discussed in provide the results for all samples public schools can receive a waiver. If further detail in this section), the CWS collected in schools and child care that CWS serves public and non-public would compile a list of schools and facilities to the drinking water primacy schools, then the CWS would be child care facilities served by the water agency and local health department required to notify and conduct testing at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61708 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

the non-public schools and child care results to consumers within 30 days of address every exceedance. Water facilities and could receive a partial receiving the result (consistent with the systems shall note the cause of the waiver to acknowledge that the CWS is current rule), unless that follow-up elevated lead level if known in their not responsible for notifying and testing sample also exceeds 15 mg/L, in which recommendation to the State. public schools. With a partial waiver, case, the EPA proposes the water system Mitigation strategies could include a the CWS would be required to test at must notify the consumer within 24 water system-wide adjustment to CCT, schools or child care facilities that are hours of learning of the result. Water flushing portions of the distribution not otherwise covered by a program that systems should anticipate the system, or other strategies to improve requires testing and is at least as requirement that customers must be water quality management to reduce stringent as this proposal. notified within 24-hours of results for lead levels. Under this proposal, water In section VII of this notice, the EPA many of the ‘‘find-and-fix’’ follow-up systems would be required to is requesting comment on an alternative samples. Any water system that is recommend a solution to the State for to the proposed requirements for public unable to regain access to the same site approval within six months of the end education and sampling at schools and to collect a follow-up tap sample may of the monitoring period in which the child care facilities described in this decide to sample at another site within site(s) first exceeded 15 mg/L and the section. close proximity of the original site and State would have six months to approve K. Find-and-Fix with similar structural characteristics. the recommendation. If the water As described in section III.H of this system does not have CCT and The EPA is proposing an additional notice, the EPA is proposing that water recommends installation of it, the requirement to the current LCR, known systems with CCT that have an system would be required to follow the as ‘‘find-and-fix’’ when an individual individual tap sample that exceeds the proposed schedule in § 141.81(e). A tap sample exceeds 15 mg/L. Under the lead action level, would be required to current rule, up to 10 percent of lead tap water system with CCT that collect an additional WQP sample recommends re-optimization of CCT samples used to calculate the 90th within five days of obtaining the lead percentile may exceed the lead action would be required to follow the steps in tap sample result. For a CWS, this WQP accordance with § 141.81(d). level. However, if the water system’s sample must be collected from a site in A water system may identify a fix that 90th percentile does not exceed the lead the same water pressure zone, on the is out of its control. For example, if the action level, the only action required by same size or smaller water main within source of lead in drinking water was an a water system is to provide the tap 0.5 miles of the residence with the tap sample results to the consumer within sample exceeding the lead action level. old faucet owned by the customer, and 30 days of receiving the result. A ‘‘find- Water systems with an existing WQP the customer did not wish to replace the and-fix’’ approach requires water site that meets these criteria would be faucet, the water system would provide systems to perform additional actions able to sample at that location. Since documentation to the State under this (as described in this section); when an WQP sites are more accessible sites and proposal. All other fixes recommended individual tap sample exceeds 15 mg/L, do not require coordination with by a water system would be water systems are required to identify customers, this sample can be collected implemented on a schedule specified by and remediate the source of the elevated in a shorter timeframe. It is also the State. lead at the tap sample site. Also, as part important to try to sample close to when L. Reporting and Recordkeeping of the proposed public education the lead tap sample with the high requirements (described in section III.F results was collected so that the water The EPA is proposing changes to of this notice), water systems would be quality will more closely match the water system reporting requirements in required to provide notification to conditions at the site that exceeded 15 conjunction with corresponding affected consumers within 24 hours. mg/L. The follow-up tap sample changes to the regulatory requirements This proposed change will improve collected for lead can help the water being proposed by the EPA in this consumer awareness and provide system determine the potential source of rulemaking. These changes in reporting information necessary to take actions to lead contamination (e.g., premise requirements will help inform State limit exposure to lead in drinking water. plumbing, LSL) and the WQP sample decision-making and improve Under this proposal, the ‘‘find-and- required for water systems with CCT implementation and oversight. fix’’ approach would require the water will help determine if CCT is optimized, 1. Reporting Requirements for Tap systems to collect a follow-up sample if additional WQP sites are needed, and/ Sampling for Lead and Copper and for for each tap sample site that exceeded or WQPs set by the State are being met. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring 15 mg/L. The follow-up tap sample must Such steps will help identify the source be collected within 30 days of receiving of the elevated lead to initiate In addition to the proposed tap the tap sample result. These follow-up appropriate mitigation. Where the water sample revisions, as described in samples may use different sample system is unable to identify and/or section III.G.3 of this notice, a water volumes or different sample collection mitigate the risk, it must submit a system would also be required to submit procedures to assess the source of justification to the State. for State approval its tap sampling elevated lead levels based on the Under this proposal, the water system protocol that is provided to residents or characteristics of the site. The results of would be required to determine if other individuals who are conducting the ‘‘find-and-fix’’ follow-up samples problems with the CCT are leading to the tap sampling, to ensure that the would be submitted to the State but elevated levels of lead in the tap sampling protocol does not include pre- would not be included in the 90th samples and then implement a stagnation flushing, instructions to percentile calculation. If the water mitigation strategy if necessary. In clean or remove the aerator, or use system is unable to collect a follow-up addition to the follow-up tap sample narrow-mouth sample collection bottles. sample at a site, the water system would and the WQP sampling, the water Under this proposal, water systems have to provide documentation to the system can review distribution system would also need to provide annual State for why it was unable to collect a operations or other factors to determine certification to the State that the follow-up sample. The water system the cause of elevated lead level. CCT approved sampling protocol has not must provide the follow-up tap sample adjustment may not be necessary to been modified.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61709

Additionally, calcium results would • If a CWS does not serve any school would allow the State to track water no longer be subject to reporting or licensed child care facilities, the systems’ progress with corrosion control requirements because under the water system would have to annually treatment, complete lead service line proposed rule, calcium would no longer certify to the State that it made a good replacement, use of point-of-use (POU) be a CCT option or regulated WQP. faith effort to identify schools and child devices, and replacement of leaded care facilities in accordance with 2. Lead Service Line Inventory and premise plumbing. proposed requirements in § 141.92 and Replacement Reporting Requirements confirm that no schools or child care 6. What are the State reporting The EPA is proposing to incorporate facilities are served by the water system. requirements? new reporting requirements in The good faith effort could include In addition to the reporting conjunction with the proposed revisions reviewing customer records and requirements in the current rule, the to the LSLR requirements in § 141.84. requesting lists of schools and child care EPA is proposing that the State report Under this proposal, by the rule’s facilities from the State or other several additional data elements to the compliance date, the water system licensing agency. EPA. The State would be required to would have to submit an inventory of • Certification would be sent to the report the OCCT status of all water LSLs and service lines of unknown State by July 1 of each year for the systems, including the parameters that material to the State and would have to previous calendar year’s activity. define the optimization (for example, annually thereafter submit an updated 5. What are the State record keeping orthophosphate residual or target pH inventory that reflects LSLs replaced requirements? and alkalinity values). While 90th and service lines of unknown material percentile lead levels at or below the that have been evaluated in the The EPA is proposing to require the lead action level are not currently distribution system. State to retain all record keeping required to be reported by States for requirements from the current LCR as small water systems, the EPA is 3. Lead Trigger Level Notification well as to add new requirements related Requirements proposing that all water systems to corrosion control treatment (CCT) and regardless of size and or lead levels The EPA proposes that any water lead service line inventory (LSL) and report their lead 90th percentile value. system that has LSLs with 90th replacement. The EPA proposes to The EPA has found that many States percentile tap sampling data that exceed require the State to maintain a record of already voluntarily report 90th the lead trigger level would annually all public water systems LSL percentile lead values for all systems to certify to the State that it conducted inventories, as well as annual updates to the Safe Drinking Water Information notification in accordance with their inventories as LSLs are verified System (SDWIS). The EPA also proposes proposed LSL customer notification and replaced over time. This that States report the current number of provisions. The notification would information is necessary for the State to LSLs at every water system. National ensure that these consumers were calculate goal and mandatory LSLR information about the numbers of LSLs properly alerted about the trigger level rates, as well as verify correct tap in public water systems will support the exceedance, potential risks of lead in sample site selection tiering. The EPA and other Federal agencies in proposal would also require the State to drinking water, and informed about the targeting programs to reduce lead maintain records on changes to source water system’s goal-based LSLR exposure, such as the Water water or treatment, as these changes program. Infrastructure Improvements for the could affect the optimized corrosion Nation Act (United States, 2016) and 4. Reporting Requirements for School control treatment approved by the State. America’s Water Infrastructure Act and Child Care Public Education and The State would also be required to (AWIA, 2018). Sampling maintain records regarding ‘‘find-and- The EPA is proposing to incorporate fix,’’ specifically where a problem was IV. Other Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR the following reporting requirements: identified, and the action taken to Part 141 • A CWS would have to certify that address it. States would review and it has completed the notification and maintain these records to ensure A. Consumer Confidence Report sampling requirements (proposed in compliance with find-and-fix In 1996, Congress amended the Safe section III.J. of this notice) at a requirements, to evaluate if appropriate Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Among minimum of 20 percent of schools and actions were taken by the water system, other things, this amendment added a child care facilities served by the water and if additional follow up is necessary provision requiring that all community system. The certification would include by the water system. When no remedial water systems deliver to their customers the number of schools and child care action was taken, the State would need a brief water quality report annually facilities served by the water system, the to keep a record of the decision for no called a Consumer Confidence Report number of schools and child care action. For example, if the source of (CCR). CCRs summarize information facilities sampled in the calendar year, lead in drinking water was an old faucet water systems collect to comply with and the number of schools and child owned by the customer, and the regulations. The CCR includes care facilities that have refused customer did not wish to replace the information on source water, the levels sampling. faucet, the State would maintain a of any detected contaminants, • A CWS would have to certify that record of that decision by the customer compliance with drinking water rules individual sampling results were shared as justification for no remedial action (including monitoring requirements), with the respective school and child taken to address a high lead sample and some educational language, care facility, and that all results were result. Finally, under this proposal, the including a mandatory health effects shared with local or State health State would be required to maintain statement regarding lead. departments. The proposed certification records of the compliance alternative As recommended by the NDWAC (see would include information identifying the State has approved for the non- section VIII.L.2 of this notice), the EPA the number of attempts to gain entry for transient non-community water system consulted with risk communication sampling that were declined by a (NTNCWS) and small community water experts to revise the mandatory health customer. systems (CWSs). This information effects language in the Consumer

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61710 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Confidence Report (CCR). To improve lead action level under section 141.80(c) decreases in IQ and attention span and clarity, the EPA is proposing to require of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations increases in learning and behavior problems. Community Water Systems (CWSs) to (or a prescribed level of lead that the Lead exposure among women who are pregnant increases prenatal risks. Lead include a revised mandatory health Administrator establishes for public exposure among women who later become effects statement that would inform education or notification in a successor pregnant has similar risks if lead stored in consumers that lead is harmful for all regulation promulgated pursuant to the mother’s bones is released during age groups and to include a mandatory section 1412 of the SDWA).’’ The Act pregnancy. Recent science suggests that statement about lead service lines also provided that notice of violations or adults who drink water containing lead have (LSLs) (e.g., their presence and how to exceedances ‘‘with potential to have increased risk of heart disease, high blood replace them) for water systems with serious adverse effects on human,’’ pressure, kidney or nervous system LSLs. The proposed mandatory which are types of violations and problems. statement is below. exceedances currently categorized as C. Definitions Exposure to lead can cause serious health ‘‘Tier 1’’ under the current public effects in all age groups. Infants and children notification rules (see Table 2 to The EPA is proposing new and who drink water containing lead could have § 141.201), must ‘‘be distributed as soon revised definitions to clarify new and decreases in IQ and attention span and as practicable, but not later than 24 updated terminology in this proposed increases in learning and behavior problems. hours, after the public water system rule in § 141.2. Definitions for ‘‘aerator,’’ Lead exposure among women who are learns of the violation or exceedance.’’ ‘‘pre-stagnation flushing,’’ ‘‘wide-mouth pregnant increases prenatal risks. Lead The WIIN Act also requires that such bottle,’’ ‘‘tap sampling protocol,’’ exposure among women who later become notifications ‘‘be provided to the ‘‘monitoring period,’’ and ‘‘sampling pregnant has similar risks if lead stored in period’’ are added to correspond with the mother’s bones is released during Administrator and the head of the State agency that has primary enforcement proposed rule changes regarding tap pregnancy. Recent science suggests that sampling methodology and the adults who drink water containing lead have responsibility under section 1413 of the increased risks of heart disease, high blood SDWA, as applicable, as soon as monitoring period. In addition, the pressure, kidney or nervous system problems. practicable, but not later than 24 hours population size criterion have changed after the public water system learns of for the definitions of small and medium- To increase transparency and improve size water systems to reflect the 1996 public access to information, the EPA is the violation or exceedance.’’ The EPA is proposing to incorporate these changes to SDWA for small-system also proposing to require CWS to report flexibility. the range of lead tap sample results in requirements for CWSs and non- transient non-community water systems Definitions have been added to ensure addition to the currently required 90th readers understand the criteria that (NTNCWSs) with a lead action level percentile and the number of samples identify a ‘‘child care facility,’’ and a exceedance as part of proposed that are greater than the lead action ‘‘school,’’ related to additional sampling revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule level for each monitoring period. requirements for CWSs. In addition, (LCR). Specifically, the proposed rule Reporting the range of tap sample lead new definitions for ‘‘trigger level,’’ incorporates the amendments to section levels would allow consumers to ‘‘find-and-fix,’’ and ‘‘consumer’’ have 1414 of the SDWA in the 40 CFR 141 understand how high tap sample levels also been added because ‘‘trigger level’’ subpart Q-Public Notification of were at individual sites. and ‘‘find-and-fix’’ are new Drinking Water Violations (and as requirements for this proposal, while B. Public Notification necessary into any provisions cross- ‘‘consumer’’ refers to a defined group The Public Notification Rule (PN) is referenced therein) and adds impacted by the rule proposal. Further, part of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The exceedances of the lead action level in this proposal, terms related to lead rule ensures that consumers will know under § 141.80(c) to the list of Tier 1 service lines, such as ‘‘galvanized if there is a problem with their drinking violations subject to the new 24-hour service line,’’ ‘‘gooseneck, pigtail, or water. These notices alert consumers if notice requirements discussed above. connector,’’ ‘‘potholing,’’ there is risk to public health. They also The EPA proposes to categorize lead ‘‘hydrovacing,’’ and ‘‘trenching’’ have notify customers: If the water does not action level exceedances as Tier 1 based been defined as these are processes or meet drinking water standards; if the on the conclusion that such objects associated with the lead service water system fails to test its water; if the exceedances ‘‘have the potential to have line replacement requirements of the system has been granted a variance (use serious adverse health effects on human rule proposal. Also, to ensure of less costly technology); or if the health as a result of short-term appropriate implementation of this rule system has been granted an exemption exposure’’. Since exposure to lead can definitions for ‘‘pitcher filter’’ and (more time to comply with a new result in serious health effects, the EPA ‘‘point of use (POU) device’’ are regulation). In 2000, the Environmental is proposing a lead AL exceedance proposed because they relate to Protection Agency (EPA) revised the result in Tier 1 public notification compliance alternatives for small existing Public Notification Rule. The because the Agency cannot define the community water systems and non- revisions matched the form, manner, subset of lead AL exceedances that transient non-community water systems and timing of the notices to the relative could result in serious adverse health in this proposal. Finally, analytical risk to human health. The revised rule effects due to short-term exposure, definitions for a ‘‘method detection makes notification easier and more therefore the EPA proposes that a lead limit’’ (MDL) and a ‘‘practical effective for both water systems and AL exceedance would require Tier 1, 24 quantitation level’’ (PQL)’’ have been their customers. hour notification. In addition, the EPA provided to better explain analytical In 2016, section 2106 of the Water proposes to update the mandatory methods in the current and proposed Infrastructure Improvements for the health effects statement as follows to be rule. Nation Act (WIIN Act) amended section consistent with the proposed CCR 1414 of the Safe Drinking Water Act revisions: V. Rule Implementation and Enforcement (SDWA) to, among other things, require Exposure to lead can cause serious health water systems to provide ‘‘Notice that effects in all age groups. Infants and children The NDWAC recommended that the the public water system exceeded the who drink water containing lead could have EPA create an on-line portal for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61711

guidance, templates and other tools to plan for the provision of safe drinking Under this proposal, the State would support implementation of the final water under emergency situations. also need to demonstrate how it will LCRR by water systems and States. The 40 CFR part 142 sets out the specific verify compliance with ‘‘find-and-fix’’ EPA provides all applicable guidance program implementation requirements requirements. For example, the State and tools on CCT, PE, and other aspects for States to obtain primacy for the would need to determine the of the rule on the Agency website at Public Water Supply Supervision acceptability of the water system’s https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/water- Program, as authorized under section corrective actions and timeliness of the system-implementation-resources to 1413 of the SDWA. To continue to corrective action implementation. support implementation of the current implement the LCR, States would be Finally, the State would need to LCR and will continue to rely on the required to adopt revisions at least as describe the approach it would take in website to implement any revisions stringent as the proposed provisions in reviewing any change in source water or finalized as a result of this proposed 40 CFR Subpart I—Control of Lead and treatment at a water system. Such a rule. The Lead Action Plan has an Copper; §§ 141.153 and 141.154; change could impact the optimized objective to ‘‘[c]reate an online portal to §§ 141.201 and 202; Appendix A to corrosion control treatment as well as enhance, consolidate and streamline Subpart O ([Consumer Confidence have an impact on other national federal-wide communication to the Report] Regulated contaminants); primary drinking water regulations. public. Links will direct the public to Appendix A to Subpart Q (NPDWR VI. Economic Analysis the EPA and other Federal Agencies Violations and Other Situations This section summarizes the specific information. The EPA would Requiring Public Notice; and Appendix Economic Analysis (EA) supporting utilize this mechanism to promote B to Subpart Q (Standard Health Effects document (USEPA, 2019a) for the broader access to the EPA website for Language for Public Notification). Under proposed Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) new and revised guidance and tools to § 142.12(b), all primacy agencies would revisions, which is written in support the LCRR. be required to submit a revised program compliance with section to the EPA for approval within two The EPA is proposing requirements 1412(b)(3)(C)(ii) of the 1996 years of promulgation of any final LCR that would improve oversight and Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water revisions, or States may be able to enforcement of the LCRR. For example, Act (SDWA). This section of the Act request an extension of up to two years the GAO in its report ‘‘Drinking Water: states that when proposing a national Additional Data and Statistical Analysis in certain circumstances. primary drinking water regulation May Enhance EPA’s Oversight of the B. What are the special primacy (NPDWR) that includes a treatment Lead and Copper Rule’’, recommended requirements? technique, the Administrator shall the EPA should require states to report publish and seek public comment on an available information about lead pipes The EPA is proposing to retain the analysis of the health risk reduction to the EPA’s SDWIS (or a future existing special primacy requirements benefits and costs likely to be redesign) database and should require as well as to establish additional experienced as the result of compliance states to report all 90th percentile requirements. Regarding LSL with the treatment technique and sample results for small water systems inventories, States would be required to alternative treatment techniques that are (GAO–17–424, 2017). provide a description of acceptable being considered, taking into account, methods for verifying service line as appropriate, the factors required A. What are the requirements for material under this proposal. primacy? under section 1412(b)(3)(C)(i). Clause (i) Verification methods could include lists the analytical elements required in This section describes the regulations consultation of existing records or the a Health Risk Reduction and Cost and other procedures and policies that physical examination of the service line. Analysis (HRRCA) which is applicable States must adopt, or have in place, to The State would also be required to to a NPDWR that includes a maximum implement the proposed Lead and submit the criteria it would use for contaminant level. The prescribed Copper Rule (LCR), while continuing to determining a water system’s goal-based HRRCA elements include: (1) meet all other conditions of primacy in rate for the system’s LSLR, which a Quantifiable and non-quantifiable 40 CFR part 142. Section 1413 of the water system must implement after a health risk reduction benefits; (2) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) lead trigger level exceedance. The State quantifiable and non-quantifiable health establishes requirements that primacy would be required to describe how it risk reduction benefits from reductions entities (States or Indian Tribes) must would determine a feasible goal-based in co-occurring contaminants; (3) meet to maintain primary enforcement rate, which would reduce lead quantifiable and non-quantifiable costs responsibility (primacy) for its public exposure. States could consider several that are likely to occur solely as a result water systems. These include: (1) relevant factors, including but not of compliance; (4) incremental costs and Adopting drinking water regulations limited to the percentage of LSLs as well benefits of rule options; (5) effects of the that are no less stringent than Federal as the financial circumstances of the contaminant on the general population national primary drinking water water system and its customers. and sensitive subpopulations including regulations (NPDWRs) in effect under The EPA also proposes special infants, children, pregnant women, the sections 1412(a) and 1412(b) of the Act, primacy requirements regarding testing elderly, and individuals with a history (2) adopting and implementing adequate at schools for lead in drinking water. of serious illness; (6) any increased procedures for enforcement, (3) keeping The EPA is aware of several States that health risks that may occur as a result records and making reports available on have instituted their own lead in of compliance, including risks activities that the EPA requires by drinking water testing programs in associated with co-occurring regulation, (4) issuing variances and schools. If the State has an existing contaminants; and (7) other relevant exemptions (if allowed by the State) testing program at schools and child factors such as uncertainties in the under conditions no less stringent than care facilities, the State would be analysis and factors with respect to the allowed by SDWA sections 1415 and required to demonstrate that their degree and nature of the risk. 1416, and (5) adopting and being program is at least as stringent as the Costs discussed in this section are capable of implementing an adequate testing program proposed by the EPA. presented as annualized present values

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61712 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

in 2016 dollars, which is consistent public from exposure to lead and copper These water systems can be publicly or with the timeframe for the EPA’s water in drinking water at the tap. The EPA privately owned. In the economic system characteristic data used in the quantifies and monetizes some of this analysis modeling performed in support analysis. The EPA estimated the year or health risk reduction from lead of this proposal, the EPA began with the years in which all costs occur over a 35- exposure by estimating the decrease in 50,067 CWSs and 17,589 NTNCWS in year time period. Thirty-five years was lead exposure resulting to children from the Safe Drinking Water Information selected to capture costs associated with 0 to 7 years of age from the installation System Fed Data Warehouse (SDWIS/ rule implementation as well as water and re-optimization of corrosion control Fed) as its foundational data set. treatment (CCT), LSLRs, and the systems installing and operating The EPA used a variety of data corrosion control treatment and implementation of point-of-use (POU) filter devices. sources to develop the drinking water implementing lead service line industry characterization for the replacement (LSLR) programs. The EPA A. Affected Entities and Major Data regulatory analysis. Exhibit 6–1 lists the then determined the present value of Sources Used To Characterize the major data sources, describes the data these costs using discount rates of 3 and Sample Universe used from each source, and explains 7 percent. The entities potentially affected by how it was used in the EA. Additional Benefits, in terms of health risk the proposed LCR revisions are public detailed descriptions of these data reduction for the proposed LCR water systems (PWSs) that are classified sources and how they were used in the revisions are characterized by the as either community water systems characterization of baseline industry activities performed by water systems, (CWSs) or non-transient non- conditions can be found in Chapter 4 of which are expected to reduce risk to the community water systems (NTNCWSs). the EA.

EXHIBIT 6–1—DATA SOURCES USED TO DEVELOP THE BASELINE INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION

Data source Baseline data derived from the source

SDWIS/Fed third quarter 2016 ‘‘frozen’’ • Public water system inventory, including population served, number of service connections, dataset 1. source water type, and water system type. Also used to identify water systems that are schools and child care facilities. • Status of CCT, including identification of water systems with CCT and the proportion of water systems serving ≤50,000 people that installed CCT in response to the current LCR. • Analysis of lead 90th percentile concentrations to identify water systems at or below the TL of 10 μg/L, above the TL, and above the AL of 15 μg/L at the start of the proposed rule im- plementation by water system size, water system type, source water type, and CCT status.2 • The proportion of water systems that are on various reduced monitoring schedules for lead and copper tap and WQP monitoring. • The frequency of source and treatment changes and those source changes that can result in additional source water monitoring. • Length of time that water systems replace LSLs if required under the current LCR. 2006 CWSS ...... • Number of distribution system entry points per system. • PWS labor rates. Geometries and Characteristics of Public Water • Design and average daily flow per water system. Systems (USEPA, 2000). 1988 AWWA Lead Information Survey ...... • LSL inventory, including the number of water systems with LSLs, and the average number of LSLs per water system, as reported in the 1991 LCR RIA (Weston and EES, 1990). 2011 and 2013 AWWA Surveys of Lead Serv- • LSL inventory, including the number of water systems with LSLs and the average number of ice Line Occurrence (as summarized in LSLs per water system. Cornwell et al., 2016). Six-Year Review 3 of Drinking Water Standards • Individual lead tap sampling results used to estimate percent of samples above 15 μg/L. • Baseline distribution of pH for various CCT conditions. • Baseline orthophosphate dose for CCT. Acronyms: AL = action level; AWWA = American Water Works Association; CCT = corrosion control treatment; CWSS = Community Water System Survey; LCR = Lead and Copper Rule; LSL = lead service line; RIA = regulatory impact assessment; SDWIS/Fed: Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version; TL = trigger level; WQP = water quality parameter; USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agen- cy. Note: 1 Contains information reported through June 30, 2016. 2 As detailed in Chapter 3 of the Economic Analysis for the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019a), a system’s lead 90th percentile level is a key factor in determining a system’s requirements under the current rule and proposed LCR.

B. Overview of the Cost-Benefit Model unit costs). PWSs have a great deal of of representative ‘‘model PWSs’’ by inherent variability across the water combining the PWS-specific data Under the regulatory provisions of the system characteristics that dictate both available in SDWIS/Fed with data on proposed rule, PWSs will face different compliance activities and cost. baseline and compliance characteristics compliance scenarios depending on the available at the PWS category level. In size, the type of water system, the Because of this variability, to some cases, the categorical data are presence of LSLs, and existing corrosion accurately estimate the national level simple point estimates. In this case, controls. In addition, PWSs will also compliance costs (and benefits) of the face different unit costs based on water proposed LCR revisions, as well as every model PWS in a category is system size, type, and number of entry describe how compliance costs are assigned the same value. In other cases, points (e.g., labor rates and CCT capital, expected to vary across types of PWSs, where more robust data representing and operations and maintenance (O&M) the cost-benefits model creates a sample system variability are available the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61713

category-level data includes a descriptions of these five uncertain LSLs, service populations, and average distribution of potential values. In the variables and the derivation of their annual flow rates for each entry point to case of distributional information, the values under the low and high cost the distribution system. The EPA model assigns each model PWS a value scenarios can be found in Chapter 5, gathered this information from publicly sampled from the distribution, in order Section 5.2.3.2 of the EA (USEPA, available data such as SDWIS/Fed to characterize the variability in this 2019a). With the exception of the five facility-level data, Consumer input across PWSs. The model follows uncertain variables which define the Confidence Reports, and water system each model PWS in the sample through difference between the low and high websites. In addition, the American each year of analysis—determining how cost scenarios the remaining baseline Water Works Association (AWWA) the PWS will comply with each water system and compliance provided additional data from member requirement of the proposed rule, characteristics are assigned to model water systems to fill in gaps. When estimating the yearly compliance cost, PWSs, as described above, and remain facility-specific data was available, the and tracking the impact of the constant across the scenarios. This EPA used it to estimate compliance compliance actions on drinking water allows the EPA to define the uncertainty costs for the very large water systems. If lead concentrations. It also tracks how characterized in the cost range provided data was not available, the EPA assigned other events, such as changing a water by the low and high scenarios and baseline characteristics using the same source or treatment affect the water maintains consistency between the process as previously described. See system’s compliance requirements for estimation of costs for the current and Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3.2.6 of the EA the next year. proposed rules (e.g., percentage of lead for a summary of the data the EPA The model’s detailed output provides tap water samples that will be collected on these very large systems results for 36 PWS categories, or strata. invalidated). Chapters 4 and 5 of the EA (USEPA, 2019a). Each PWS reporting category is defined describe in greater detail the baseline The cost model estimates the by the water system type (CWS and and major cost driving data elements, incremental cost of the proposed LCR NTNCWS), primary source water their derivation, and the inherent revisions over a 35-year period. In (ground and surface), and size category sources of uncertainty in the developed accordance with the EPA’s policy, and (there are nine). This proposal presents data elements. Section 5.2 and 5.3 of the based on guidance from the Office of summarized national cost and benefit EA discuss how each data element is Management and Budget (OMB), when totals by regulatory categories. The used in the estimation of costs and calculating social costs and benefits, the detailed output across the 36 PWS provides examples and references to EPA discounted future costs (and categories can be found in Appendix C how these data were developed. benefits) under two alternative social of the EA. Because PWS baseline characteristics discount rates, 3 percent and 7 percent. In constructing the initial model PWS are being assigned from distributional When evaluating the economic sample for the cost-benefit analysis, the source data to capture the variability impacts on PWSs and households, the EPA began with the 50,067 CWSs and across PWS characteristics, the EPA EPA uses the estimated PWS cost of 17,589 NTNCWS in SDWIS/Fed. Also, needed to ensure that its sample size capital to discount future costs, as this from SDWIS/Fed, the EPA knows each was large enough that the results of the best represents the actual costs of water system’s type (CWS or NTNCWS); cost-benefit model were stable for each compliance that water systems would primary water source (surface water or of the 36 PWS categories. To insure incur over time. The EPA used data groundwater); population served; CCT stability in modeled results, the EPA from the 2006 Community Water status (yes/no); ownership (public or oversampled the SDWIS/Fed inventory System Survey (CWSS) to estimate the private); and number of connections. to increase the number of water systems PWS cost of capital. The EPA calculated The available LCR data limited the in each PWS category. For every PWS the overall weighted average cost of EPA’s ability to quantify uncertainty in category, the EPA set the target capital (across all funding sources and the cost-benefit model. During the minimum number of model PWSs to loan periods) for each size/ownership development of the model, it became 5,000. To calculate the total estimated category, weighted by the percentage of clear that not only were many of the costs for each PWS category, the model funding from each source. The cost of inputs uncertain, but for many LCR weights the estimated per water system capital for each CWS size category and specific inputs, the EPA only has costs so that when summed the total ownership type is shown in Exhibit 5– limited midpoint, high, and low cost is appropriate for the actual number 14 of the EA. Since similar cost of estimates available and does not have of water systems known to be in the capital information is not available for information on the relative likelihood of category. NTNCWS, the EPA used the CWS cost the available estimates. This includes The exception to the assignment of of capital when calculating the major drivers of the cost of compliance water system characteristics discussed annualized cost per NTNCWS. Total including: The baseline number of above are the 21 very large water estimated cost of capital may be greater systems with LSLs and the percent of systems serving more than one million than actual costs water systems bear connections in those system that are people. Because of the small number of when complying with future regulatory LSLs; the number of PWSs that will water systems in this size category, the revisions because financing support for exceed the AL and/or TL under the uniqueness of their system lead reduction efforts may be available proposed revised tap sampling characteristics, and the potential large from State and local governments, EPA requirements; the cost of LSL cost for these systems to comply with programs (e.g., the Drinking Water State replacement; the cost of CCT; and the the proposed regulatory requirements, Revolving Fund (DWSRF), the WIFIA effectiveness of CCT in PWSs with using the methods described above to Program, and the Water Infrastructure LSLs. Therefore, the EPA estimated assign system attributes could result in Improvements for the Nation Act of proposed LCRR compliance costs under substantial error in the estimation of the 2016 (WIIN Act) grant programs), and low and high bracketing scenarios. national costs. Therefore, the EPA other federal agencies (e.g., HUD’s These low and high cost scenarios are attempted to collect information on very Community Development Block Grants). defined by the assignment of low and large water systems’ CCT practices and The availability of funds from high values for the set of uncertain cost chemical doses, pH measurements and government sources, while potentially drivers listed above. Detailed pH adjustment practices, number of reducing the cost to individual PWSs,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61714 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

does not reduce the social cost of capital See Chapters 4 and 5 of the EA for number of proposed rule compliance to society. See Chapters 4 and 5 of the additional information. actions are triggered. With the EA for a discussion of uncertainties in Because the tap sampling implementation of CCT, LSLR, and the cost estimates. requirements under the proposed LCR ‘‘find-and-fix’’ corrections, 90th The EPA projects that rule revisions call for 100% of lead tap percentile tap sample values are implementation activities will begin samples to be taken from sites with expected to decrease. The model allows immediately after rule promulgation. LSLs, for water systems with LSLs, the for future increases in 90th percentile These activities will include one-time likelihood that a PWS would have a values as a result of changes in source PWS and State costs for staff to read the lead 90th percentile greater than the TL water and treatment. The likelihood of rule, become familiar with its or AL is higher under the proposed rule these events occuring have been derived provisions, and develop training compared to under the current LCR. The from SDWIS/Fed data (see Chapter 4 of materials and train employees on the EPA used information from Slabaugh et the EA). When a change in source or new rule. States will also incur burden al. (2015) to develop two adjustment treatment occurs in a modeled year, a hours associated with adopting the rule factors, the lower being applied to the new 90th percentile value is assigned to into State requirements, updating their low cost scenario LSL system 90th the water system. This value may be LCR program policies and practices, and percentile values and the greater factor higher or lower than the current value modifying data record keeping systems. being used to adjust the high cost thus potentially triggering new PWSs will incur costs to comply with scenario 90th percentile values for LSL corrective actions. In the model, if a the lead service line materials inventory systems. The EPA then reassigned the water system already has ‘‘optimized’’ requirements and develop an initial lead LSL system to the three 90th percentile CCT in place, it is assumed that no service line replacement plan in years value groups, those without a TL or AL additional action is needed and that the one through three of the analysis. The exceedance, those with a TL but not an current treatment is adequate, therefore EPA expects that water systems will AL exceedance, and those with an AL the 90th percentile will not change. begin complying with all other exceedance. A detailed discussion of the proposed rule requirements three years development of the 90th percentile C. Cost Analysis after promulgation, or in year four of the value group placement, the adjustment This section summarizes the cost analysis. made for the LSL water systems given elements and estimates total cost of Some requirements of the proposed the proposed tap sampling compliance for the existing LCR, the rule must be implemented by water requirements, and the percentages of proposed LCR revisions and the systems regardless of their water quality systems assigned to the 90th percentile incremental cost of the proposed rule, and tap sampling results (e.g., CWS value groups under both the current and under both the low and high cost school and child care facilities sampling proposed LCRR for the low and high scenarios, by the major regulatory programs), however, most of the major cost scenarios are found in Chapter 5, components and discounted at 3 and 7 cost drivers are a function of a water section 5.2.4.2.2 of the EA. percent. These components include systems 90th percentile lead tap sample Once water systems are assigned to sampling costs, CCT costs, LSL value. The 90th percentile value, and if the groupings based on their CCT and inventory and replacement costs, POU it exceeds the lead trigger level or action LSL status, individual 90th percentile costs, public education and outreach level, dictates: The tap water sampling lead tap sample values are assigned costs, and implementation and and water quality parameter (WQP) from the distribution of 90th percentile administrative costs for water systems monitoring schedules, the installation/ values within each grouping. and States. This section also quantifies re-optimization of CCT, ‘‘find-and-fix’’ Several proposed regulatory the potential increase in phosphates that adjustments (triggered by single lead tap compliance activities are assumed to not would result from the increased use of sample exceedances of the 15 mg/L affect a water system’s 90th percentile corrosion inhibitors under the proposed action level, which has an increasing value. These include, for example, rule, the resulting cost for treating to likelihood in the model as 90th developing an inventory of LSLs, CWS remove the additional phosphates at percentile tap sample results increase) sampling at schools and child care downstream waste water treatment to corrosion control treatment, the facilities, and public education. In the plants that may be constrained by installation of point-of-use filters at model, the only compliance activities nutrient discharge limits, and discusses water systems selecting this treatment that will change a water system’s 90th the ecological impacts that may result option as part of the small water system percentile lead tap sample are: from increased phosphorus loads to flexibilities of the proposed rule, the Installation of CCT; re-optimization of surface waters. goal-based or mandatory removal of lead existing CCT; removal of LSLs; and a 1. Sampling Costs service lines and water system and State water system-wide ‘‘find-and-fix’’ administrative costs. Because of activity (assumed to be a system-wide The proposed LCR revisions affect uncertainty in the estimation of the 90th increase in pH). In addition to these most of the LCR’s sampling percentile values the Agency developed proposed rule compliance activities, requirements, including: Lead tap low and high estimates for this cost changing a water source or treatment sample monitoring, lead WQP driving variable. The EPA used both the technology can also result in a change monitoring, copper WQP monitoring, minimum and maximum 90th in a water system’s 90th percentile tap and source water monitoring. The percentile tap sample values from sample value. proposed rule also includes new SDWIS/Fed over the period from 2007 Because a water system’s 90th requirements for CWS to sample at to 2015, to assign a percentage of PWSs percentile value is so important to schools and child care facilities within by size, and CCT and LSL status to each determining regulatory requirements their distribution systems. Only the of three groups, those at the trigger level and cost under the proposed rule, the copper tap sampling requirements of the (TL) or below, those above the lead cost model, under both the low and high current rule are not impacted by the trigger but at or below the action level cost scenarios, tracks each water proposed regulatory changes and (AL), and those above the lead action system’s 90th percentile value over each therefore do not appear in the level. These assignments represent the annual time step in the model. Based on summarized sampling costs. Additional status of systems under the current rule. the initial 90th percentile values, a lead WQP monitoring and lead tap

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61715

sampling that is specifically required by percentile value, the presence of CCT, preparing and distributing an initial the current rule and proposed revisions and past sampling results. letter explaining the sampling program after the installation or re-optimization The proposed rule will require source and the 3Ts Toolkit, (2) coordinating of corrosion control treatment is water monitoring the first time a PWS with the school or child care facility to accounted for in the CCT costs and not has an action level exceedance. This determine the sampling schedule and in the WQP monitoring or tap sampling monitoring will not be required again the logistics of collecting the samples, costs. unless the water system has a change in (3) conducting a walkthrough at the Lead tap sampling site selection source water. school or child care facility before the tiering requirements have been Sampling at schools and child care start of sampling, (4) sample collection strengthened under the proposed rule, facilities represents totally new from the school or child care facility, (5) increasing the cost to water systems requirements for CWSs under the with lead service lines for the proposed LCR revisions. Unlike the sample analysis, and (6) providing development of a tap sampling pool that other sampling requirements of the sampling results to the school or child consists of all LSL sites. The other cost proposed rule, school and child care care facility, the State, and the local or components of lead tap sampling facility sampling is not affected by a State health department. remain unchanged and generally water system’s 90th percentile lead tap Exhibit 6–2 and 6–3 show the include sample collection, analysis, and sample value. The proposed rule national annualized sampling costs for reporting cost. The frequency of requires that all schools and child care both the low and high estimate required lead tap sampling will also facilities must be sampled every five scenarios, under the current LCR, the increase based on lead tap sample 90th years (schools and child care facilities proposed LCRR, and the incremental percentile values. may refuse the sampling, but the water cost, discounted at 3 and 7 percent, Both the lead and copper WQP system must document this refusal to respectively. Additional information on monitoring cost totals represent the State). This program’s costs are the estimation of sampling cost can be collection and lab analysis cost of reported with sampling cost, but they found in the Chapter 5, section 5.3.1 of samples both at entry points and taps also represent public education costs the EA. An alternative option to the within the distribution system, as well and requirements of the proposed LCRR. as PWS reporting costs. The schedules The costs of complying with the school and child care facility sampling for conducting these activities at proposed rule include water systems: (1) program can be found in section VI.F of modeled water systems are dependent Identifying schools and child care this notice and in Chapter 9 of the EA on a water system’s projected lead 90th facilities in their service area and (USEPA, 2019a). EXHIBIT 6.2—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED SAMPLING COSTS AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE [2016$]

Low cost estimate High cost estimate Current Proposed Current Proposed LCR LCRR Incremental LCR LCRR Incremental

Lead Tap Sampling Monitoring ...... $33,803,000 $37,672,000 $3,869,000 $33,780,000 $42,944,000 $9,164,000 Lead Water Quality Parameters Monitoring ...... 7,396,000 7,536,000 140,000 8,823,000 9,274,000 451,000 Copper Water Quality Parameters Monitoring ...... 163,000 179,000 16,000 158,000 178,000 20,000 Source Water Monitoring ...... 15,000 4,321 ¥10,679 47,000 17,000 ¥30,000 School Sampling ...... 0 28,540,000 28,540,000 0 28,540,000 28,540,000

Total Annual Sampling Costs ...... 41,376,000 73,931,000 32,555,000 42,809,000 80,955,000 38,146,000

Lead Tap Sampling Monitoring ...... 32,736,000 36,959,000 4,223,000 32,718,000 43,977,000 11,259,000 Lead Water Quality Parameters Monitoring ...... 7,156,000 7,242,000 86,000 9,106,000 9,583,000 477,000 Copper Water Quality Parameters Monitoring ...... 156,000 170,000 14,000 151,000 170,000 19,000 Lead Water Quality Parameters Monitoring ...... 7,156,000 7,242,000 86,000 9,106,000 9,583,000 477,000 Lead Tap Sampling Monitoring ...... 32,736,000 36,959,000 4,223,000 32,718,000 43,977,000 11,259,000 Source Water Monitoring ...... 17,000 5,496 ¥11,504 64,000 25,000 ¥39,000 School Sampling ...... 0 27,520,000 27,520,000 0 27,520,000 27,520,000

Total Annual Sampling Costs ...... 40,064,000 71,897,000 31,833,000 42,039,000 81,276,000 39,237,000

2. Corrosion Control Treatment Costs NTNCWSs may also elect to conduct systems will obtain the finished water LSLR or implement POU filters as part characteristics of 3.2 mg/L of Under the proposed LCRR, drinking of the regulatory flexibilities proposed orthophosphate and pH at or above 7.2 water systems may be required to install in the LCRR. See section III.E of this (for water systems with starting pH CCT, re-optimize their existing CCT, or notice for additional information on the values less than 8.2). For those water perform a ‘‘find-and-fix’’ adjustment to compliance alternatives available to their CCT based on their current level of systems assigned higher initial pH small CWSs and NTNCWSs, and section CCT in place, if their lead tap sample values in the model, between 8.2 and 90th percentile exceeds the trigger level VI.C.4 for a discussion of the modeling 9.2, the EPA assumed the CCT or action level, and/or individual lead and a summary of the number of optimization would require adjusting tap samples exceed 15 mg/L. In the cost systems selecting each alternative pH to meet or exceed 9.2 (no model, a 90th percentile lead tap sample compliance option. orthophosphate addition would be exceedance can be triggered by a change The capital and operations and needed). The distributions of water in water system source water or maintenance (O&M) costs for water system starting values for treatment technology. Small CWSs systems installing or optimizing CCT are orthophosphate and pH, used in the cost serving 10,000 or fewer people and all based on the assumption that water model, are both drawn from SDWIS and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61716 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Six-Year Review ICR data (see Chapter fix’’ is triggered again after an tap sampling, WQP monitoring at entry 4, section 4.3.6 of the EA). adjustment at a single EP, a water points and at taps in the distribution All capital cost equations are a system is assumed to adjust all EPs to system, report the results of the initial function of design flow, and all O&M the new target pHs of 7.5 or 9.4, post CCT change findings to the State, costs are a function of average daily depending on the current treatment in and review WQP data with the State on flow. Since CCT is conducted at the place. an ongoing basis as part of the water water system’s entry points (EPs), the Using O&M cost functions estimated system’s sanitary surveys. cost model calculates the design flow for the ‘‘find-and-fix’’, see Appendix A and average daily flow of each EP. The of the EA, the cost model first calculates Water systems with individual lead cost model uses two different sets of the total annual O&M cost for treating to tap samples over 15 mg/L must: Collect unit cost functions representing the low the ‘‘find-and-fix’’ standards previously and analyze a follow-up tap sample and high capital cost scenarios listed as if no CCT was installed, then from the location that exceeded the 15 developed in the engineering Work subtracts the PWS’s current CCT annual mg/L value, coordinate with the State on Breakdown Structure models for CCT O&M cost from the new ‘‘find-and-fix’’ the location for a follow-up WQP (Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3.2.5 and annual O&M cost, to derive the share of sample in proximity to the location that Appendix A, Section 1 of the EA). Using the PWS’s annual CCT O&M costs exceeded 15 mg/L, collect and analyze these bracketing capital cost values is attributable to ‘‘find-and-fix’’ actions. the WQP sample, and review with the designed to characterize uncertainty in The model also calculates the capital State the collected data to determine the cost model estimates and when cost to retrofit the CCT water system for ‘‘find-and-fix’’ CCT required changes. combined with O&M costs and EP flow additional pH adjustment under both Exhibits 6–4 and 6–5 show the range values, are used to calculate the low and the low and high cost model scenarios. of estimated national costs for CCT high CCT cost estimates per model If a water system is triggered into a under the current LCR, the proposed PWS. Note that optimization O&M costs second round of ‘‘find-and-fix’’ CCT LCR revisions, and the incremental cost, are obtained through an incremental adjustment, the 7.5 or 9.4 pH discounted at 3 and 7 percent, cost assessment. The cost model requirements will be applied to all entry respectively. Note that a range of CCT calculated the O&M existing cost and points. Individual entry point costs are capital costs are used in this assessment subtracts them from the optimized O&M summed to obtain total water system but the total range in Exhibits 6–4 and cost to obtain the incremental re- costs under the low and high model 6–5 is impacted by all five of the optimization costs. runs. In the cost model, water systems are In addition to the capital and O&M uncertain variables which enter the assumed to always install and optimize cost of CCT installation, re- model as low and high estimates. See their CCT, to the standards described optimization, or ‘‘find-and-fix,’’ water Section VI.B of this notice and Chapter above, before making any adjustment to systems will also face several ancillary 5, Section 5.2.3.2 of the EA, for CCT as a result of being triggered into costs associated with changes in CCT additional information on the variables the ‘‘find-and-fix’’ requirements of the status. Before the installation or re- that define the low and high cost proposed rule. If a water system is optimization of CCT at a water system, scenarios. The CCT Operation and required to implement ‘‘find-and-fix,’’ a CCT study would need to be Maintenance (Existing) category in these one of two things are assumed to occur conducted or revised and the water exhibits are the EPA’s estimate of the at a single-entry point: A water system system would consult with the State on ongoing cost of operating corrosion that has orthophosphate dosing and the the proposed changes to CCT (these control at PWS where CCT was in place pH target of 7.2 or greater will increase costs also apply to water systems at the beginning of the period of pH to 7.5, or a water system that undergoing source water or treatment analysis. Additional information on the previously optimized to a pH value of changes). After the change in CCT, a estimation of CCT costs can be found in 9.2 will increase pH to 9.4. If ‘‘find-and- water system would conduct follow-up Chapter 5, section 5.3.2 of the EA. EXHIBIT 6–4—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED CORROSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY COSTS AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE [2016$]

Low cost estimate High cost estimate Current Proposed Current Proposed LCR LCRR Incremental LCR LCRR Incremental

CCT Installation ...... $13,364,000 $6,847,000 $¥6,517,000 $38,857,000 $16,566,000 $¥22,291,000 CCT Installation Ancillary Activities ...... 1,360,000 1,440,000 80,000 1,506,000 1,986,000 480,000 CCT Optimization ...... 5,106 11,287,000 11,281,894 163,000 44,199,000 44,036,000 CCT Operations and Maintenance (Existing) ...... 313,830,000 313,830,000 0 314,091,000 314,091,000 0 CCT Optimization Ancillary Activities ...... 10,000 327,000 317,000 132,000 722,000 590,000 Find and Fix Installation ...... 0 12,912,000 12,912,000 0 47,837,000 47,837,000 Find and Fix Ancillary Activities ...... 0 5,234,000 5,234,000 0 6,465,000 6,465,000

Total Annual Corrosion Control Technology Costs ...... 328,569,000 351,877,000 23,308,000 354,750,000 431,866,000 77,116,000

EXHIBIT 6–5—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED CORROSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY COSTS AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE [2016$]

Low cost estimate High cost estimate Current Proposed Current Proposed LCR LCRR Incremental LCR LCRR Incremental

CCT Installation ...... $11,687,000 $5,938,000 $¥5,749,000 $37,547,000 $15,739,000 $¥21,808,000 CCT Installation Ancillary Activities ...... 1,312,000 1,405,000 93,000 1,496,000 2,155,000 659,000 CCT Optimization ...... 8,474 9,515,000 9,506,526 268,000 44,128,000 43,860,000

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61717

EXHIBIT 6–5—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED CORROSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY COSTS AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE—Continued [2016$]

Low cost estimate High cost estimate Current Proposed Current Proposed LCR LCRR Incremental LCR LCRR Incremental

CCT Operations and Maintenance (Existing) ...... 299,344,000 299,344,000 0 299,593,000 299,593,000 0 CCT Optimization Ancillary Activities ...... 13,000 328,000 315,000 172,000 846,000 674,000 Find and Fix Installation ...... 0 10,655,000 10,655,000 0 45,834,000 45,834,000 Find and Fix Ancillary Activities ...... 0 5,123,000 5,123,000 0 6,672,000 6,672,000

Total Annual Corrosion Control Technology Costs ...... 312,364,000 332,309,000 19,945,000 339,077,000 414,967,000 75,890,000

3. Lead Service Line Inventory and scenarios, the model estimates the cost through a water system and State Replacement Costs for implementing LSLR, CCT, and POU determination process. Ancillary costs for each water system that meets the incurred by these water systems The proposed LCR revisions require small water system flexibility criteria include: The development and delivery all water systems to create an LSL and maintains only the cost associated of outreach materials to known and materials inventory during the first with the least costly option for each potential LSL households and three years after rule promulgation or system. See section VI.C.4 of this notice submitting annual reports to the State demonstrate to the State that the water for a discussion of the modeling and a on program activities. For water systems system does not have LSLs. Because summary of the number of systems that do not meet the annual ‘‘goal- many water systems have already selecting each alternative compliance based’’ replacement rate, the proposed complied with State inventory option. rule requires that additional outreach to requirements (e.g., Ohio, see http:// The EPA collected LSLR unit cost lead service line customers be codes.ohio.gov/orc/6109.121) that are at information primarily from four conducted. The additional outreach least as stringent as those required surveys. Given the small number of conducted is determined in conjunction under the proposed LCRR, the EPA observations collected and lack of with the State and is progressive, adjusted the probability of conducting systematic sampling techniques utilized increasing with additional missed an inventory downward to reflect the in the surveys the resultant estimates of annual goals. State requirements. Water system replacement costs based on these data Under this proposal, water systems inventory costs also reflect the were highly uncertain. Therefore, the with 90th percentile tap sample data development, by all water systems with EPA develop low- and high-end LSLR that exceed 15 mg/L (action level) are LSLs, of an initial LSLR plan. The plan cost values that are used in the cost required to fully replace 3 percent of would include procedures to conduct model to provide a low/high cost range their LSLs per year for as long as the full lead service line replacement, a to inform the understanding of water system remains above the action strategy for informing customers before uncertainty (Note four other factors used level for any portion of a monitoring a full or partial lead service line to produce the low and high cost year. These water systems must also replacement, a lead service line estimates also influence the LSLR total submit to the State an annual report on replacement goal rate in the event of a cost estimates). See Chapter 5, section program activities. lead trigger level exceedance, a pitcher 5.2.3.2.4 and Appendix A, Section 3 for In order to estimate the share of the filter tracking and maintenance system, more information on the development of LSLR cost that is paid by customers, the a procedure for customers to flush the LSLR unit cost range. EPA made the conservative assumption service lines and premise plumbing of LSLR cost includes not only the that customers under the ‘‘goal-based’’ particulate lead, and a funding strategy physical replacement of the service line plan always pay for the part of the LSL for conducting lead service line but also prior notification of LSLRs as belonging to them both when a full LSL replacements. part of water system maintenance is replaced and when the customer side Depending on a water system’s 90th operations; contacting customers and is being replaced after a water system percentile lead tap sample value, it may site visits to confirm service line had completed a partial LSLR in the be required to initiate a LSLR program. material and site conditions before past. Customers do not pay for pig tail/ Small CWSs, serving 10,000 or fewer replacement; providing customers with gooseneck replacements in the model. people, and NTNCWSs have flexibility flushing procedures following a Under mandatory replacement the EPA in the selection of a compliance option replacement; delivering pitcher filters assumes that the system pays for all if the trigger or action levels are and cartridges concurrent with the replacements both full and partial. exceeded. These water systems may LSLR, and maintenance for three Exhibits 6–6 and 6–7 show the select to implement CCT or POU months; collecting and analyzing a tap estimated annualized national cost for devices and not receive LSLR costs in sample three to six months after the both the low and high cost scenarios, the model. See section III.E of this replacement of a LSL; and informing the discounted at 3 and 7 percent, notice for additional information on the customer of the results. respectively, of water systems compliance alternatives available to Under the proposed rule, water developing the LSL inventory, water small CWSs and NTNCWSs. The cost systems with a 90th percentile lead tap systems conducting the goal-based and model under both the low and high sample value greater than 10 mg/L and mandatory LSLR programs, and scenarios applies the estimated LSLR less than or equal to 15 mg/L are household removal costs for the costs to those CWS serving 10,000 or considered to have a trigger level customer-owned portion of the LSL fewer people and any NTNCWSs for exceedance. These water systems are under the current LCR, the proposed which the LSLR option is determined to required to develop and implement a LCRR, and the incremental cost. The be the least cost compliance alternative. ‘‘goal-based’’ LSLR program where the EPA did not estimate costs to CWSs for Under both the low and high cost annual replacement goal is set locally replacing the water system-owned

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61718 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

portion of an LSL in response to program. The EPA expects that a small costs can be found in Chapter 5, section receiving notification that a customer- number of these types of replacements 5.3.3 of the EA. owned portion of an LSL was replaced would happen annually. Detailed outside of a water system replacement information on the estimation of LSLR EXHIBIT 6–6—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED LEAD SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENT COSTS AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE [2016$]

Low cost estimate High cost estimate Current Proposed Current Proposed LCR LCRR Incremental LCR LCRR Incremental

Lead Service Line Inventory ...... $0 $5,068,000 $5,068,000 $0 $8,075,000 $8,075,000 System Lead Service Line Replacement ...... 579,000 8,235,000 7,656,000 22,399,000 68,264,000 45,865,000 Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary Activities ...... 59,000 3,206,000 3,147,000 715,000 4,879,000 4,164,000 Activities Triggered by Not Meeting Voluntary Target ...... 0 4,149,000 4,149,000 0 16,138,000 16,138,000

Total Annual PWS Lead Service Replacement Costs ...... 638,000 20,658,000 20,020,000 23,113,000 97,357,000 74,244,000

Household Lead Service Line Replacement ...... 234,000 5,478,000 5,244,000 9,063,000 20,003,000 10,940,000

Total Annual Lead Service Replacement Costs ...... 872,000 26,137,000 25,265,000 32,176,000 117,359,000 85,183,000

EXHIBIT 6–7—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED LEAD SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENT COSTS AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE [2016$]

Low cost estimate High cost estimate Current Proposed Current Proposed LCR LCRR Incremental LCR LCRR Incremental

Lead Service Line Inventory ...... $0 $5,633,000 $5,633,000 $0 $8,617,000 $8,617,000 System Lead Service Line Replacement ...... 520,000 8,197,000 7,677,000 30,793,000 86,480,000 55,687,000 Lead Service Line Replacement Ancillary Activities ...... 53,000 4,314,000 4,261,000 983,000 6,726,000 5,743,000 Activities Triggered by Not Meeting Voluntary Target ...... 0 4,191,000 4,191,000 0 20,447,000 20,447,000

Total Annual PWS Lead Service Replacement Costs ...... 573,000 22,335,000 21,762,000 31,776,000 122,270,000 90,494,000

Household Lead Service Line Replacement ...... 210,000 5,290,000 5,080,000 12,459,000 22,501,000 10,042,000

Total Annual Lead Service Replacement Costs ...... 783,000 27,625,000 26,842,000 44,234,000 144,771,000 100,537,000

4. Point-of-Use Costs compliance alternative is computed system compliance choices (see Chapter across each representative model PWS 5 section 5.2 of the EA for additional Under the proposed rule in the cost model based on its assigned information on uncertain variable value requirements, small CWSs, serving characteristics including: the number of assignment). Therefore, as the model 10,000 or fewer people, and NTNCWS lead service lines, cost of LSLR, the output shows, the choice of compliance with a 90th percentile lead value above presence of corrosion control, the cost technology is different across the low the action level of 15 mg/L may choose and effectiveness of CCT, the starting and high cost scenarios. between LSLR, CCT installation, or POU WQPs, the number of entry points, the Exhibits 6–8 and 6–9 show the total device installation and maintenance. unit cost of POU, and the number of number of CWS serving 10,000 or fewer See section III.E of this notice for households. For a larger discussion on people and NTNCWSs, the total number additional information on the the assignment of system characteristics, of systems by type and population size compliance alternatives available to see section VI.B of this notice and that would select one of the small small CWSs and NTNCWSs. In addition Chapter 5 of the EA. These system compliance options, the number to the cost to provide and maintain POU characteristics are the primary drivers in of NTNCWSs selecting each compliance devices, water systems selecting the determining the costs once a water alternative in the model, and the POU compliance option face additional system has been triggered into CCT number of CWSs by population size ancillary costs in the form of: (1) POU installation or re-optimization, lead selecting each compliance alternative in implementation planning for service line replacement, or POU the model, under both the low and high installation, maintenance, and provision and maintenance. The model cost scenarios. In general, the exhibits monitoring of the devices, (2) educating estimates the net present value for show across both the low and high customers on the proper use of the POU implementing each compliance scenarios that the majority of water device, (3) sampling POU devises to alternative and selects the least cost systems would select re-optimizing insure the device is working correctly, alternative to retain in the summarized under the small system compliance and (4) coordination and obtaining proposed rule costs. options. If a system has CCT in place, approvals from the State. The EPA is estimating low and high the incremental costs of re-optimization The cost model applies these POU cost scenarios, to characterize are low compared to all other costs to those CWS serving 10,000 or uncertainty in the cost model results. alternatives. The POU device fewer people and any NTNCWSs for These scenarios are functions of implementation seems to be the least which the POU option is estimated to be assigning different low and high input cost alternative when the number of the least cost compliance alternative. values to a number of the variables that households in the system is low as The determination of the least cost affect the relative cost of the small demonstrated by the decrease in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61719

selection of the POU option as CWS lower numbers of LSLs per system and cost and high cost scenarios. The population size increases in the model. lower cost of replacement under this installation of CCT becomes more cost The pattern seen in the selection of scenarios. While CCT installation cost is effective as system population size LSLR between the low and high cost also lower under the low cost scenario increases, but in the larger system size scenarios demonstrates that the choice the difference in cost between the high categories you can also see the effect of of compliance by small systems is and low scenarios is relatively small the relative cost of LSLR in the low cost driven by relative costs. Under the low compared to the reduction in cost for scenario. cost scenario far greater numbers of LSLR between the scenarios. POU cost systems select LSLR given the assumed remains unchanged between the low

EXHIBIT 6–8—NTNCWS AND SMALL SYSTEM COUNTS IMPACTED UNDER FLEXIBILITY OPTION—LOW COST SCENARIO [Over 35 year period of analysis]

NTNCWS CWS

≤ 101– 501– 1,001– 3,301– All Systems 100 500 1,000 3,300 10,000

Total PWS Count in System Size Category ...... 17,589 12,046 15,307 5,396 8,035 4,974 Total PWS Count of Systems with LSLR, POU, or CCT activity .... 1,453 1,521 2,498 1,148 1,544 2,037 Number of PWSs with Lead Service Line Removals ...... 34 474 975 541 608 1,535 Number of PWSs that Install CCT ...... 15 25 438 189 288 80 Number of PWSs that Re-optimize CCT ...... 287 398 851 410 649 423 Number of PWSs that Install POU ...... 1,117 625 234 8 0 0

EXHIBIT 6–9—NTNCWS AND SMALL SYSTEM COUNTS IMPACTED UNDER FLEXIBILITY OPTION—HIGH COST SCENARIO [Over 35 year period of analysis]

NTNCWS CWS

≤ 101– 501– 1,001– 3,301– All Systems 100 500 1,000 3,300 10,000

Total PWS Count in System Size Category ...... 17,589 12,046 15,307 5,396 8,035 4,974 Total PWS Count of Systems with LSLR, POU, or CCT activity .... 2,354 1,938 2,782 1,677 3,274 1,314 Number of PWSs with Lead Service Line Removals ...... 94 139 118 476 1,246 86 Number of PWSs that Install CCT ...... 14 10 491 327 477 195 Number of PWSs that Re-optimize CCT ...... 347 368 1,319 813 1,540 1,032 Number of PWSs that Install POU ...... 1,900 1,422 855 61 10 1

The estimated national annualized 90th percentile level, and requirements location information, and (2) the point-of-use device installation and in response to a single tap sample development of lead educational maintenance costs for the proposed rule, exceeding the 15 mg/L lead action level. materials for water-related utility work under the low cost scenario, are The proposed rule requires a number and delivery of those materials to $3,995,000 at a 3 percent discount rate of updates to existing public education affected households during water- and $3,492,000 at a 7 percent discount and additional outreach activities related work that could result in service rate. The POU impacts of the proposed associated with LSLs. The public line disturbance. rule for the high cost scenario are education requirements costed for all The proposed rule public education $16,400,000 discounted at 3 percent and water systems, regardless of their lead costs that are applied to water systems $15,485,000 discounted at 7 percent. 90th percentile tap sample levels, that exceed the 15 mg/L action level Since POU costs are zero under the include: (1) Updating Consumer include: (1) The development of lead current LCR, the incremental costs range Confidence Report language, (2) language for public education in from $3,995,000 to $16,400,000 at a 3 developing a lead outreach plan and response to a lead action level percent discount rate and from materials for new customers, (3) exceedance, (2) delivery of education $3,492,000 to $15,485,000 at a 7 percent developing an approach for improved materials to customers for CWSs and discount rate, under the low and high public access to lead information, (4) posting of lead information for cost scenarios respectively. Additional participating in joint communication NTNCWs, (3) water systems contacting information on the estimation of POU efforts with the State to provide public health agencies to obtain a list of costs can be found in Chapter 5, section increased information on lead education additional community organizations 5.3.4 of the EA. to health care providers, and (5) that should receive PE materials, (4) 5. Public Education and Outreach Costs providing annual documentation and water systems notifying public health certification to the State that public agencies and other community In addition to the current LCR public outreach on lead has been completed. organizations, (5) large water systems education requirements for water The costed proposed LCR public posting a lead notice on their website, systems with a lead action level education requirements applying to all (6) water system issuing a press release, exceedance, the cost model includes water systems with lead service lines (7) water systems consulting with the proposed rule requirements for ongoing are: (1) The planning, initially State on the materials development and lead education that applies to all water implementing and maintaining appropriate activities while the action systems with LSLs, regardless of the customer and public access to LSL level is exceeded, and (8) annually

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61720 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

certifying public education activities 6. Drinking Water System LSLR, tap sampling, public education, have been completed. Implementation and Administrative and administrative costs. Because of The proposed rule also includes a Costs uncertainty in five important LCRR cost requirement for water systems to notify All water systems will have one-time driver input variables, discussed in affected customers within 24 hours of start-up activities associated with the section VI.A. of this notice, the Agency developed low and high cost scenarios. becoming aware of an individual tap implementation of the proposed rule. These scenarios produce a range in the sample exceeding the 15 mg/L lead These compliance costs include: Water estimated cost per gallon and two action level. The model includes the system burden to read and understand the revised rule; water systems estimates for annualized per household development cost of the notification and costs. education materials to be delivered to assigning personnel and resources for rule implementation; water system The model multiplies this low and affected households and the incremental high scenario costs per gallon by the cost of expedited delivery of the personnel time for attending trainings provided by the State; and clarifying average annual household consumption notification. Note that materials costs regulatory requirements with the State (in gallons) to determine the cost per related to follow-up testing when a during rule implementation. This household per year associated with sample exceeds 15 mg/L are included in category of cost is not impacted by the increased costs borne by the CWS. The the tap sampling costs in section VI.C.1 variable that define the low and high EPA then adds to both these values the of this notice. The estimated annualized cost scenarios, therefore only one set of total consumer-side lead service line national water system public education estimated costs exist in the category. replacement cost borne by households and outreach costs for the current LCR The estimated annualized national PWS in the system, divided by the number of range from $48,000 to $1,093,000 at a 3 implementation and administrative households served by the system, to percent discount rate under the low and costs for the proposed LCR revisions are derive the CWS’s average annual high cost scenarios respectively. At a 7 $1,863,000 at a 3 percent discount rate household low and high scenario cost percent discount rate the annualized and $3,092,000 at a 7 percent discount estimates. Exhibits 6–10 and 6–11 show estimated current rule PE cost range is rate. Since there are no costs under the the distributions of incremental from $65,000 to $1,513,000. Under the current LCR, the PWS implementation annualized costs for CWS households proposed rule low cost scenario, the and administrative incremental costs are by primary water source and size estimated impacts are $29,364,000 at a also $1,863,000 at a 3 percent discount category. Note, the percentiles represent 3 percent discount rate and $28,765,000 rate and $3,092,000 at a 7 percent the distribution of average household at a 7 percent discount rate. Under the discount rate. Additional information costs across CWSs in a category, not the high scenario the estimated annualized on the estimation of water system distribution of costs across all costs are $35,491,000 at a 3 percent implementation and administrative households in a CWS category. Some discount rate and $35,525,000 at a 7 costs can be found in Chapter 5, section households that pay for a customer-side LSLR will bear a much greater annual percent discount rate. Therefore, the 5.3.6 of the EA. household burden. The EPA estimates incremental estimated public education 7. Annualized per Household Costs the cost of removing the customer- and outreach costs for water systems The cost model calculates the owned side of a service line range from range from $29,316,000 to $34,398,000 annualized cost per household, by first $1,480 to $4,440, with a central at a 3 percent discount rate and calculating the cost per gallon of water tendency of $2,960. The percentage of $28,700,000 to 34,012,000 at a 7 percent produced by the CWS. This cost per customers in each water system paying discount rate. See Chapter 5, section gallon represents the cost incurred by the higher customer-side LSL costs 5.3.5 of the EA for additional detailed the system to comply with the depends on the number of LSL in the information on the estimation of public requirements of the proposed LCRR. water system, the rate of replacement, education and outreach costs. This includes CCT cost, inventory and the details of the water systems creation, system payed customer-side LSLR program.

EXHIBIT 10—ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD BY CWS CATEGORY—LOW COST SCENARIO [2016$]

10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Source water Size Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile

Ground ...... 100 or Fewer ...... $¥5.36 $5.33 $8.61 $13.79 $23.01 Ground ...... 101 to 500 ...... 0.85 1.43 2.62 4.20 6.85 Ground ...... 501 to 1,000 ...... 0.28 0.35 0.47 0.67 1.57 Ground ...... 1,001 to 3,300 ...... 0.11 0.16 0.24 0.34 0.76 Ground ...... 3,301 to 10,000 ...... 0.19 0.26 0.39 0.52 1.00 Ground ...... 10,001 to 50,000 ...... 0.04 0.07 0.13 0.21 0.38 Ground ...... 50,001 to 100,000 ...... 0.08 0.10 0.20 0.25 0.30 Ground ...... 100,001 to 1,000,000 ...... 0.07 0.14 0.23 0.34 0.48 Ground ...... Greater than 1,000,000 ...... 0.17 0.17 0.24 0.26 0.26 Surface ...... 100 or Fewer ...... 2.87 4.96 8.86 15.52 23.87 Surface ...... 101 to 500 ...... 0.73 1.31 2.17 3.66 7.56 Surface ...... 501 to 1,000 ...... 0.26 0.34 0.52 0.81 2.11 Surface ...... 1,001 to 3,300 ...... 0.11 0.15 0.25 0.39 0.82 Surface ...... 3,301 to 10,000 ...... 0.20 0.26 0.43 0.78 1.56 Surface ...... 10,001 to 50,000 ...... 0.05 0.09 0.19 0.38 1.55 Surface ...... 50,001 to 100,000 ...... 0.08 0.11 0.25 0.32 1.07 Surface ...... 100,001 to 1,000,000 ...... 0.06 0.14 0.26 0.42 0.84 Surface ...... Greater than 1,000,000 ...... 0.09 0.18 0.21 0.29 0.32

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61721

EXHIBIT 11—ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD BY CWS CATEGORY—HIGH COST SCENARIO [2016$]

10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Source water Size Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile

Ground ...... 100 or Fewer ...... $¥10.22 $4.78 $8.60 $15.22 $28.73 Ground ...... 101 to 500 ...... ¥1.06 1.36 2.87 4.85 11.54 Ground ...... 501 to 1,000 ...... ¥0.19 0.36 0.55 1.30 4.72 Ground ...... 1,001 to 3,300 ...... 0.10 0.16 0.28 0.56 2.61 Ground ...... 3,301 to 10,000 ...... 0.19 0.28 0.45 0.91 3.53 Ground ...... 10,001 to 50,000 ...... 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.29 2.61 Ground ...... 50,001 to 100,000 ...... 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.27 2.44 Ground ...... 100,001 to 1,000,000 ...... 0.12 0.17 0.29 0.59 3.17 Ground ...... Greater than 1,000,000 ...... 0.17 0.17 0.24 0.26 0.26 Surface ...... 100 or Fewer ...... ¥9.24 4.09 10.29 18.82 40.74 Surface ...... 101 to 500 ...... ¥2.99 1.13 2.73 5.82 15.96 Surface ...... 501 to 1,000 ...... ¥3.18 0.33 0.89 1.62 4.98 Surface ...... 1,001 to 3,300 ...... ¥1.80 0.16 0.31 0.65 2.30 Surface ...... 3,301 to 10,000 ...... ¥0.24 0.29 0.72 1.28 4.49 Surface ...... 10,001 to 50,000 ...... 0.05 0.11 0.24 1.25 4.61 Surface ...... 50,001 to 100,000 ...... 0.08 0.10 0.23 0.53 2.61 Surface ...... 100,001 to 1,000,000 ...... 0.10 0.20 0.34 1.31 3.46 Surface ...... Greater than 1,000,000 ...... 0.09 0.18 0.21 0.29 0.32

8. Primacy Agency Costs • Lead tap sampling plans, changes in • Provide templates and targeted sampling locations, sample public education language for LSLR For each of the drinking water cost invalidations, sampling results and 90th programs; sections previously described, primacy percentile calculations, and certification • Determine the additional outreach agencies (i.e., States) have associated of customer notification of sampling activities required if a water system fails costs. These include start-up and results; to meet its goal-based LSLR rate; and implementation costs; reviewing water • 9-year waiver requests; • Review annual LSLR program quality parameter, source water, and • Source water sampling results; and compliance reports from water systems. school monitoring reports; reviewing • School sampling results. State activities associated with CWSs and approving lead tap sampling plans, The State activities associated with serving 3,300 or fewer people and sampling frequencies, results, and CCT installation, re-optimization, and NTNCWSs that select POU as a reports; consultation and reviews during ‘‘find-and-fix’’ rule requirements treatment alternative include: CCT, LSLR, and POU device include: • Conferring with water systems on installation; and reviewing and • Consulting with water systems on initial planning for POU programs; approving the lead public education source water and treatment changes; • Reviewing public education materials and consulting on specific • Reviewing CCT studies for material for POU devices; and outreach requirements. In the EPA cost installation and re-optimization; • Reviewing annual reports on POU model, the majority of the costs • Reviewing post CCT installation programs, including POU device associated with States are determined WQP monitoring and tap sample results sampling results. on a per water system basis. State (including sample invalidation); Proposed public education provisions actions and costs are largely driven by • Setting optimal water quality will require a great deal of primacy the proposed rule required actions that parameters; agency oversight. Activities which are triggered for the individual water • Reviewing ‘‘find-and-fix’’ follow-up produce primacy agency burden systems. These per water system tap and water quality parameter include: primacy agency costs are then summed sampling for each individual lead tap • Providing water systems with to obtain aggregate costs for this sample greater than 15 mg/L; templates to update CCR language; • • category. Reviewing water system’s ‘‘find- Reviewing water system and-fix’’ summary reports; information developed for new The State implementation and • administration costs of complying with Reviewing new the EPA’s CCT customer outreach; • Participating in joint the proposed LCR revisions include: guidance; and • Conducting CCT water quality communication efforts for sharing lead Reading and understanding the rule; reviews in conjunction with sanitary public education with health care adopting the rule and developing an surveys. providers; implementation program; modifying LSLR creates a number of water • Reviewing educational material data recording systems; training staff; system/State interactions. States would developed for delivery during water- providing water system staff with initial be required to: related work; and on-going technical assistance and • Review water system inventory • Reviewing water system training; coordinating annual data; certifications of lead public education administration tasks with the EPA; and • Confer with water systems with and outreach; reporting data to SDWIS/Fed. LSLs on initial planning for LSLR • Reviewing public education State activities regarding sampling program activities, including standard language submitted by water systems in include reviewing: operating procedures for conducting response to an individual tap sample • PWS reports on lead and copper replacements, and outreach programs; above the action level; WQP monitoring from entry points and • Work with LSL water systems to • Consulting with water systems on distribution system taps; determine a goal-based LSLR rate; public education response to a lead

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61722 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

action level exceedance, including WWTPs with phosphorus discharge likelihood and the unit cost (previously reviewing language; and limits after 35 years. Applied as the estimated) with incremental phosphorus • Reviewing the water systems public percentage of WWTPs that need to take loading to calculate incremental costs to education self-certification letter treatment actions, this estimate is likely WWTPs for each year of the analysis following a lead action level conservative, particularly given the period. The incremental annualized cost exceedance. potential availability of alternative that WWTPs would incur to remove The cost model estimates that the compliance mechanisms, such as, additional phosphorous associated with Primacy Agencies will incur individual facility variance and nutrient the proposed LCRR, under the low cost incremental estimated annualized costs, trading programs. scenario, ranges from $668,000 to under the low cost scenario, totaling The specific actions a WWTP might $1,066,000 at a 3 and 7 percent discount $14,915,000 at a 3 percent discount rate need to take to maintain compliance rate, respectively. The high cost and $15,054,000 at a 7 percent discount with a National Pollution Discharge scenario produced an incremental rate. For the high cost scenario total Elimination System (NPDES) estimated impact of $1,203,000 using a estimated costs is $15,598,000 at a 3 phosphorus limit will depend on the 3 percent discount rate, and $1,920,000 percent discount rate and $15,965,000 at type of treatment present at the WWTP at a 7 percent discount rate. a 7 percent discount rate. Additional and the corresponding phosphorus The EPA estimates that WWTP information on the estimation of removal provided (if any). Based on a treatment reduces phosphorus loads primacy agency costs can be found in review of NPDES data, it is likely that reaching water bodies by 59 percent but Chapter 5, section 5.4 of the EA. most of the WWTPs that already have they are not eliminated. The proposed 9. Costs and Ecological Impacts phosphorus limits have some type of rule’s national-level total incremental Associated With Additional Phosphate treatment to achieve the limit. phosphorus loads reaching water bodies Some treatment processes can Usage are projected to grow over the period of accommodate incremental increases in analysis from the low/high scenario Adding phosphate creates a protective influent loading and still maintain their range of 202,000 to 460,000 pounds inner coating on pipes that can inhibit removal efficiency. Such processes fifteen years after promulgation to the lead leaching. However, once phosphate might not need significant adjustment to low/high scenario range of 461,000 to is added to the public water system maintain their existing phosphorus 685,000 pounds at year 35. See Chapter (PWS), some of this incremental loading removal efficiency, given an 5, section 5.5 of the EA for information remains in the water stream as it flows incremental increase. Other treatment on how loading estimates are calculated. into wastewater treatment plants processes may need modifications to The ecological impacts of these (WWTPs) downstream. This generates their design or operation to maintain increased phosphorous loadings are treatment costs for certain WWTPs. In their removal efficiency in the face of an highly localized: Total incremental addition, at those locations where influent loading increase. phosphorus loadings will depend on the treatment does not occur, water with The EPA derived a unit cost of $4.59 amount and timing of the releases, elevated phosphorus concentrations per pound of phosphorus for removing characteristics of the receiving water may discharge to water bodies and incremental phosphorus (see Chapter 5, body, effluent discharge rate, existing induce certain ecological impacts. section 5.5.1 of the EA for additional total phosphorus levels, and weather When water systems add information). This unit cost includes the and climate conditions. Unfortunately, orthophosphate to their finished water cost of additional chemical detailed spatially explicit information for corrosion control purposes, some consumption and the operating cost of on effluents and on receiving water portion of the orthophosphate added additional sludge processing and bodies does not exist in a form suitable will reach downstream WWTPs. To disposal. The costs a WWTP could incur for this analysis. Rather, to evaluate the estimate the potential fate of the depend on the magnitude of the loading potential ecological impacts of the rule, orthophosphate added at PWSs, the EPA increase relative to the specific WWTP’s the EPA evaluated the significance of developed a conceptual mass balance effluent permit limit. WWTPs, whose the national-level phosphorus loadings model. The EPA applied this conceptual current discharge concentrations are compared to other phosphorous sources model to estimate the increase in closer to their limit, are more likely to in the terrestrial ecosystem. loading at WWTPs, given an initial have to act. WWTPs whose current To put these phosphorus loadings in loading from corrosion control at water concentrations are well below their context, estimates from the USGS treatment plants. WWTPs could incur limit may not incur costs but might, SPARROW model suggest that costs because of upstream under certain conditions, incur costs anthropogenic sources deposit roughly orthophosphate addition if they have (for example, when phosphorus removal 750 million pounds of total phosphorus permit discharge limits for phosphorus achieved by technology is sensitive to per year (USEPA, 2019b). The total parameters. The percentage of WWTPs incremental phosphorus loading phosphorus loadings from the proposed with phosphorus limits has increased increases). Furthermore, future LCRR high cost scenario would over time. From 2007 to 2016, in annual phosphorus limits could be more contribute about 1 percent (7 million/ percentage rate terms, the growth rate in stringent than existing limits in certain 750 million) of total phosphorus the percentage of WWTPs with watersheds. entering receiving waterbodies in a phosphorus limits is 3.3 percent. Therefore, the EPA conservatively given year, and the incremental amount The EPA assumed this increase would assumed that any WWTP with a of total phosphorus associated with the continue as States transition from discharge limit for phosphorus proposed LCRR relative to the current narrative to numerical nutrient criteria parameters could incur costs. LCR grows only 0.09 percent (685,000/ and set numeric permits limits, Accordingly, in calculating costs, the 750 million). At the national level, the especially for impaired waters. The EPA EPA used the anticipated percentage of EPA expects total phosphorus entering applied the growth rate observed from WWTPs with phosphorus discharge waterbodies as a result of the proposed 2007 to 2016 to estimate the anticipated limits as the likelihood that incremental LCR revisions to be small, relative to the percentage of WWTPs with phosphorus orthophosphate loading from a drinking total phosphorus load deposited limits in future years. This growth rate water system would reach a WWTP annually from all other sources. results in an estimated 41 percent of with a limit. The EPA combined this National average load impacts may

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61723

obscure localized ecological impacts in seasonal decomposition of additional 10. Summary of Rule Costs some circumstances, but the existing biomass, consuming oxygen and data do not allow an assessment as to creating a State of hypoxia, or low The estimated annualized low and whether this incremental load will oxygen, within the water body. In high scenario costs, discounted at 3 induce ecological impacts in particular extreme cases, the low to no oxygen percent and 7 percent, that PWSs, areas. It is possible, however, that States can create dead zones, or areas in households, and Primacy Agencies will localized impacts may occur in certain the water where aquatic life cannot incur in complying with the current water bodies without restrictions on survive. Studies indicate that LCR, the proposed LCRR, and phosphate deposits, or in locations with eutrophication can decrease aquatic incrementally are summarized in existing elevated phosphate levels. diversity for this reason (e.g., Dodds et Exhibits 6–12 and 6–13. The total An increase in phosphorus loadings al. 2009). Eutrophication may also estimated incremental annualized cost can lead to economic impacts and stimulate the growth of harmful algal of the proposed LCRR range from $132 undesirable aesthetic impacts. Excess blooms (HABs), or over-abundant algae to $270 million at a 3 percent discount nutrient pollution can cause populations. Algal blooms can harm the rate, and $130 to $286 million at a 7 eutrophication—excessive plant and aquatic ecosystem by blocking sunlight percent discount rate in 2016 dollars. algae growth—in lakes, reservoirs, and creating diurnal swings in oxygen The exhibits also detail the proportion streams, and estuaries throughout the levels because of overnight respiration. of the annualized costs attributable to United States. Eutrophication, by Such conditions can starve and deplete each rule component. inducing primary production, leads to aquatic species. EXHIBIT 6–12—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COSTS AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE [2016$]

Low cost estimate High cost estimate Current Proposed Current Proposed LCR LCRR Incremental LCR LCRR Incremental

PWS Annual Costs: Sampling ...... $41,376,000 $73,931,000 $32,555,000 $42,809,000 $80,955,000 $38,146,000 PWS Lead Service Line Replacement ...... 638,000 20,658,000 20,020,000 23,113,000 97,357,000 74,244,000 Corrosion Control Technology ...... 328,569,000 351,877,000 23,308,000 354,750,000 431,866,000 77,116,000 Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance ...... 0 3,995,000 3,995,000 0 16,400,000 16,400,000 Public Education and Outreach ...... 48,000 29,364,000 29,316,000 1,093,000 35,491,000 34,398,000 Rule Implementation and Administration ...... 0 1,863,000 1,863,000 0 1,863,000 1,863,000

Total Annual PWS Costs ...... 370,631,000 481,688,000 111,057,000 421,766,000 663,931,000 242,165,000

State Rule Implementation and Administration ...... 5,661,000 20,576,000 14,915,000 6,718,000 22,316,000 15,598,000 Household Lead Service Line Replacement ...... 234,000 5,478,000 5,244,000 9,063,000 20,003,000 10,940,000 Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs ...... 331,000 1,019,000 688,000 862,000 2,065,000 1,203,000

Total Annual Rule Costs ...... 376,857,000 508,762,000 131,905,000 438,408,000 708,314,000 269,906,000

EXHIBIT 6–13—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COSTS AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE [2016$]

Low cost estimate High cost estimate Current Proposed Current Proposed LCR LCRR Incremental LCR LCRR Incremental

PWS Annual Costs: Sampling ...... $40,064,000 $71,897,000 $31,833,000 $42,039,000 $81,276,000 $39,237,000 PWS Lead Service Line Replacement ...... 573,000 22,335,000 21,762,000 31,776,000 122,270,000 90,494,000 Corrosion Control Technology ...... 312,364,000 332,309,000 19,945,000 339,077,000 414,967,000 75,890,000 Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance ...... 0 3,492,000 3,492,000 0 15,485,000 15,485,000 Public Education and Outreach ...... 65,000 28,765,000 28,700,000 1,513,000 35,525,000 34,012,000 Rule Implementation and Administration ...... 0 3,092,000 3,092,000 0 3,092,000 3,092,000

Total Annual PWS Costs ...... 353,067,000 461,889,000 108,822,000 414,405,000 672,615,000 258,210,000

State Rule Implementation and Administration ...... 5,547,000 20,601,000 15,054,000 6,993,000 22,958,000 15,965,000 Household Lead Service Line Replacement ...... 210,000 5,290,000 5,080,000 12,459,000 22,501,000 10,042,000 Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs ...... 407,000 1,473,000 1,066,000 1,288,000 3,208,000 1,920,000

Total Annual Rule Costs ...... 359,230,000 489,253,000 130,023,000 435,144,000 721,282,000 286,138,000

D. Benefits Analysis immunological, developmental, and Research shows that, on average, other major body systems. The EPA is formula-fed infants and young children The proposed revisions to the LCR are particularly concerned about exposure consume more drinking water per day expected to result in significant health experienced by children because lead on a body weight basis than adolescents. benefits, since both lead and copper are can affect brain development. Using the USDA Continuing Survey of associated with adverse health effects. Additionally, children through their Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) Lead is a highly toxic pollutant that can physiology and water ingestion data, Kahn and Stralka (2009) damage neurological, cardiovascular, requirements may be at higher risk. demonstrated this trend, is most

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61724 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

pronounced in children under 1 year of • Applied the unit values to the regression models based on its fit and age who drink more than double older appropriate demographic groups parsimony and used it to produce children and adults per kg of body experiencing changes in lead tap water simulated lead concentrations for use in weight. Additionally, children absorb 2– concentrations as a result of the the benefits analysis (Exhibit 6–8, in 4 times more lead than adults through proposed regulatory changes across the Chapter 6 of the EA). The selected the gastrointestinal tract ((Mushak, period of analysis. model suggests that besides water (1991); WHO, (2011) and Ziegler et al. Subsections VI.D.1 through 4 of this system, residence, and sampling event, (1978)). No safe level of lead exposure notice outline the estimation of lead the largest effects on lead concentration has been identified (USEPA, 2013). The concentration values in drinking water in tap water come from the presence of EPA’s health risk reduction and benefits used to estimate before and after rule LSLs and the number of liters drawn assessment of the proposed LCR implementation concentration since the last stagnation period. CCT revisions concentrates on quantification scenarios, the corresponding estimated produces smaller effects on lead and monetization of the estimated avoided IQ loss in children, and a concentration than LSLs, and these impact of reductions in lead exposure summary of the monetized benefits of effects are larger in homes with LSLs. on childhood IQ. As explained in the proposed LCR Revisions. To statistically control for some sources of variability in the input data, Appendix D in the Economic 1. Modeled Drinking Water Lead the EPA did not use summary statistics Assessment of the Proposed Lead and Concentrations Copper Rule Revision (EA), there are from the original data directly in additional non-quantified lead health The EPA determined the lead estimating the effects of LSL and CCT impacts to both children and adults that concentrations in drinking water at status. Instead, the EPA produced will be realized as a result of this residential locations through the simulated mean lead concentrations for collection and analysis of consecutive rulemaking. 500,000 samples, summarized in Exhibit sampling data representing homes pre Although copper is an essential 6–14, based on the selected regression and post removal of LSLs, including element for health, excess intake of model. The simulated sample partial removal of LSLs, under differing copper has been associated with several concentrations represent estimates for levels of water system corrosion control adverse health effects. Most commonly, new cities, sites, and sampling events treatment. The data was collected from excess exposure to copper results in not included in the original dataset. multiple sources including: Water These simulations rely on estimates of gastrointestinal symptoms such as systems, the EPA Regional Offices and nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea variability and uncertainty from the the Office of Research and regression model and given information (National Research Council, 2000). In Development, and authors of published susceptible populations, such as on LSL and CCT status. Individual journal articles (Deshommes et al. 2016). estimates are best thought of as the children with genetic disorders or This data includes lead concentrations predispositions to accumulate copper, central tendency for a sample and information regarding LSL status, concentration given regression model chronic exposure to excess copper can location, and date of sample collection, result in liver toxicity. Because parameters and estimated variance. The representing 18,039 samples collected simulated samples represent, on household level data on the change in from 1,638 homes in 15 cities across the average, the lead concentrations taken copper concentrations that result from United States and Canada. The EPA after a short flushing period of roughly changes in CCT are not available, this grouped the samples into LSL status 30 seconds for all combinations of LSL analysis does not quantify any potential categories (‘‘LSL,’’ ‘‘Partial,’’ ‘‘No LSL’’). and CCT status. This represents a point benefits from reduced copper exposure Samples were also grouped by CCT near the average peak lead that may result from the proposed rule. treatment, assigning status as having concentration for homes with full or See Appendix E in the EA for additional ‘‘None,’’ ‘‘Partial,’’ or ‘‘Representative.’’ partial LSLs, and a point slightly below copper health impact information. ‘‘Partial’’ includes those water systems the peak lead concentration for homes To quantify the potential impact to with some pH adjustment and lower with no LSLs, regardless of CCT status. exposed populations of changes in lead doses of a phosphate corrosion The EPA estimates that improving tap water concentrations as a result of inhibitor, but this treatment is not CCT will produce significant reductions the proposed LCR revisions, the EPA: optimized. ‘‘Representative’’ are those in lead tap water concentration overall. • Estimated potential household lead water systems in the dataset that have However, for full LSLRs, the final model tap water concentrations under various higher doses of phosphate inhibitors, produced predictions of drinking water levels of corrosion control treatment, which in the model are considered concentrations that overlapped almost lead service line replacement, and optimized (see EA Chapter 6, section completely for all CCT conditions. implementation of POU devices; 6.2.1 for additional detail and docket Therefore, the EPA used the pooled • Modeled exposure using the lead number EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0300 for estimate of predicted drinking water tap water concentration data, the data). concentrations for all CCT conditions in information on peoples’ water The EPA fit several regression models residences with no LSL in place for the consumption activities, and background (see EA Chapter 6, section 6.2.2 for main analysis in Chapter 6 of the EA. lead levels from other potential additional detail) of tap water lead Because, the EPA in using this pooled pathways; concentration as predicted by LSL data the mean and standard deviation • Derived the potential change in presence (‘‘LSL’’ or ‘‘No LSL’’), LSL values of tap water lead concentrations blood lead levels (BLLs) that result from extent (‘‘Partial’’), CCT status, and in Exhibit 6–14 are the same for all three the changes in drinking water lead ‘‘profile liter.’’ Profile liter is the ‘‘no LSLs’’ status rows, regardless of exposure; cumulative volume a sample whether there is representative, partial, • Used concentration response represented within a consecutive or no CCT. Effectively, in the primary functions, from the scientific literature, sampling series at a single location and analysis the EPA did not quantify the to measure changes in IQ for children time. Models to describe the profile liter incremental benefits of CCT when LSLs given shifts in BLLs; accounted for the variation among are absent. On the other hand, because • Estimated the unit value of a change sampling events, sampling sites, and CCT is done on a system-wide basis, in childhood IQ; and city. The EPA selected one of the there are no incremental costs

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61725

associated with providing CCT to homes low cost scenario and 26 million in the Because small CWSs that serve fewer without LSL when it is being provided high cost scenario. The EPA considered than 10,000 people have flexibility in for the entire system. The impact of CCT one possible approach to estimating the the compliance option they select in for these no LSL homes likely varies by potential benefits to children of response to a lead action level location depending on the degree to reducing lead water concentrations in exceedance, some CWSs are modeled as which legacy leaded plumbing these homes (see Appendix F of the EA) installing POU devices at all residences. materials, including leaded brass but has determined that the data are too See section III.E of this notice for fixtures, and lead solder remain at the limited and the uncertainties too additional information on the location. significant to include in the quantified compliance alternatives available to The EPA does track the number of and monetized benefit estimates of this small CWSs. For individuals in these ‘‘no LSL’’ homes potentially affected by regulation. The EPA, therefore, is systems the EPA assumes, in the water systems increasing their corrosion requesting comment and additional analysis, that consumers in households control during the 35-year period of information about the change in lead with POU devises are exposed to the analysis. The number of no LSL homes concentrations that occur in non-LSL same lead concentration as residents that experience increase in CCT over the households that experience changes in with ‘‘No LSL’’ and ‘‘Representative’’ 35 years ranges from 14 million in the CCT. CCT in place.

EXHIBIT 6–14—LSL AND CCT SCENARIOS AND SIMULATED GEOMETRIC MEAN TAP WATER LEAD CONCENTRATIONS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS AT THE FIFTH LITER DRAWN AFTER STAGNATION FOR EACH COMBINATION OF LSL AND CCT STATUS

Simulated Simulated Simulated Simulated a LSL status CCT status mean of SD of geometric geometric log lead log lead mean lead SD a of lead (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L)

LSL ...... None ...... 2.92 1.37 18.62 3.95 Partial ...... None ...... 2.17 1.38 8.78 3.98 No LSL ...... None ...... ¥0.29 1.38 0.75 3.98 LSL ...... Partial ...... 2.42 1.37 11.27 3.94 Partial ...... Partial ...... 1.67 1.37 5.32 3.93 No LSL ...... Partial ...... ¥0.29 1.38 0.75 3.98 LSL ...... Representative ...... 1.95 1.38 7.01 3.96 Partial ...... Representative ...... 1.19 1.38 3.3 3.96 No LSL ...... Representative ...... ¥0.29 1.38 0.75 3.98 a Standard deviations reflect ‘‘among-sampling event’’ variability.

In the estimation of the costs and changes in lead concentration and EA for more detailed information on the benefits of the proposed LCR revisions, resultant blood lead are predicted every number of people switching lead each modeled person within a water year for the total population served by concentration categories under the low system is assigned to one of the the systems for the 35-year period of and high cost scenarios. estimated drinking water concentrations analysis. In the primary benefits in Exhibit 6–14, depending on the CCT, analysis for the rule, improvements to 2. Impacts on Childhood IQ POU, and LSL status. The EPA CCT and the use of installed POU The 2013 Integrated Science estimated benefits under both the low devices are only predicted for Assessment for Lead (USEPA 2013) cost and high cost scenarios used in the individuals in households with LSLs States that there is a causal relationship proposed LCRR which characterize prior to the LCRR (consistent with between lead exposure and cognitive uncertainty in the cost estimates. The discussion above about the limits of the function decrements in children based low cost scenario and high cost scenario data for predicting the impact of CCT differ in their assumptions made about: when LSL are not present). In the on several lines of evidence, including (1) The existing number of LSLs in model, LSL removals are predicted by findings from prospective studies in PWSs; (2) the number of PWS above the water system, by year, and multiplied diverse populations supported by AL or TL under the current and by the average number of people per evidence in animals, and evidence proposed monitoring requirements; (3) household (across demographic identifying potential modes of action. the cost of installing and re-optimizing categories) to determine the number of The evidence from multiple high- corrosion control treatment (CCT); (4) people shifting from one LSL status to quality studies using large cohorts of the effectiveness of CCT in mitigating another. To predict the changes in children shows an association between lead concentrations; and (5) the cost of exposure that result from an blood lead levels and decreased lead service line replacement (Section improvement in CCT, the EPA predicts intelligence quotient (IQ). The 2012 VI.C.3. above and Chapter 5, section 5.6 the entire LSL population of a water National Toxicology Program of the EA). The EPA predicted the status system will move to the new CCT status Monograph concluded that there is of each system under the low and high at the same time. The EPA also assumes sufficient evidence of association scenarios at baseline (prior to rule that the entire water system moves to between blood lead levels <5 mg/dL and implementation) and in each year of the drinking water lead concentration, decreases in various general and rule implementation. Depending on the assigned to POU when this option is specific measures of cognitive function timing of required actions that can implemented, which implies that in children from three months to 16 change CCT, POU, and LSL status under everyone in households in a distribution years of age. This conclusion is based on both the baseline and proposed LCRR system with LSLs is properly using the prospective and cross-sectional studies low and high scenario model runs, POU. See Chapter 6, section 6.3 of the using a wide range of tests to assess

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61726 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

cognitive function (National Toxicology estimating the blood lead levels, the lead intakes across media. These intakes Program, 2012). EPA utilized the SHEDS-Multimedia are multiplied by route-specific (e.g., The EPA quantitatively assessed and model, which can estimate distributions inhalation, ingestion) absorption monetized the benefits of avoided losses of lead exposure, using a two-stage fractions to obtain a distribution of lead in IQ as a result of the proposed LCR Monte Carlo sampling process, given uptakes (see Exhibit 6–14 in the EA revisions. Modeled lead tap water input lead concentrations in various Chapter 6, section 6.4). This step is concentrations (previously discussed in media and human behavior data from consistent with the uptake estimation this notice) are used to estimate the the EPA’s Consolidated Human Activity that would normally occur within the extent to which the proposed rule Database (CHAD) and CDC’s National IEUBK model. The media specific would reduce avoidable loss of IQ Health and Nutrition Examination uptakes can be summed across exposure among children. The first step in the Survey (NHANES). SHEDS-Multimedia, routes to give total lead uptake per day. quantification and monetization of in this case, uses individual time- Next, the EPA used age-based avoided IQ loss is to estimate the likely activity diaries from CDC’s NHANES relationships derived from IEUBK, decrease in blood lead levels in children and the EPA’s CHAD for children aged through the use of a polynomial based on the reductions in lead in their 0 to 7 to simulate longitudinal activity regression analysis, to relate these total drinking water as a result of the diaries. Information from these diaries is lead uptakes to blood lead levels. proposed LCRR. then combined with relevant lead input Exhibit 6–14 presents modeled SHEDS– The EPA estimated the distribution of distributions (e.g., outdoor air lead IEUBK blood lead levels in children by current blood lead levels in children, concentrations, inhalation rates) to year of life and LSL, CCT status, and age 0 to 7, using the EPA’s Stochastic estimate exposure. Drinking water tap POU. The blood lead levels in this Human Exposure and Dose Simulation concentrations for each of the modeled exhibit represent what children’s blood Multimedia (SHEDS-Multimedia) model LSL and CCT scenarios, above, were lead level would be if they lived under coupled with its Integrated Exposure used as the drinking water inputs to the corresponding LSL, POU, and CCT and Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model. SHEDS-Multimedia. For more detail on status combination for their entire lives. The coupled SHEDS–IEUBK model the other lead exposure pathways that Note that when ‘‘No LSL’’ is the framework was peer reviewed by the are held constant as background in the beginning or post-rule state, 0.75 mg/L is EPA in June of 2017 as part of model, see Chapter 6, section 6.4, of the the assumed concentration across all exploratory work into developing a EA. levels of CCT status (none, partial, health-based benchmark for lead in In the SHEDS–IEUBK coupled representative). The extent to which drinking water (ERG, 2017). For further methodology, the SHEDS model takes changes in CCT status make meaningful information on SHEDS–IEUBK model the place of the exposure and variability difference in lead concentrations for development and evaluation, refer to components of the IEUBK model by those without LSL cannot be Zartarian et al. (2017). As a first step in generating a probability distribution of determined from this Exhibit.

EXHIBIT 6–14—MODELED SHEDS–IEUBK GEOMETRIC MEAN BLOOD LEAD LEVELS IN CHILDREN FOR EACH POSSIBLE DRINKING WATER LEAD EXPOSURE SCENARIO FOR EACH YEAR OF LIFE

μ Corrosion control treatment Geometric mean blood lead level ( g/dL) for specified year of life Lead service line status status 0–1 a 1–2 2–3 3–4 4–5 5–6 6–7

LSL ...... None ...... 3.75 2.60 2.73 2.59 2.56 2.72 2.45 Partial ...... None ...... 2.43 1.88 1.96 1.89 1.87 1.95 1.69 No LSL...... None ...... 0.95 1.15 1.16 1.14 1.14 1.19 0.97 LSL ...... Partial ...... 2.71 2.05 2.20 2.06 2.08 2.17 1.90 Partial ...... Partial ...... 1.86 1.58 1.65 1.60 1.60 1.66 1.43 No LSL...... Partial ...... 0.95 1.15 1.16 1.14 1.14 1.19 0.97 LSL ...... Representative ...... 2.14 1.75 1.82 1.73 1.75 1.82 1.57 Partial ...... Representative ...... 1.51 1.41 1.45 1.42 1.40 1.46 1.24 No LSL...... Representative ...... 0.95 1.15 1.16 1.14 1.14 1.19 0.97

POU 0.95 1.15 1.16 1.14 1.14 1.19 0.97 a Due to lack of available data, blood lead levels for the first year of life are based on regression from IEUBK for 0.5- to 1-year-olds only. These represent the blood lead for a child living with the LSL/CCT status in the columns to the left. Each year blood lead corresponding to ac- tual modeled child is summed and divided by 7 in the model to estimate lifetime average blood lead. This table presents modeled SHEDS–IEUBK blood lead levels in children by year of life.

The blood lead levels presented in CCT status, or POU to another as a calculating lifetime average blood lead Exhibit 6–14, are used as inputs for the result of LCRR implementation. The level. benefits modeling. For each year of the tracking occurs for both the low and In order to relate the child’s estimated analysis modeled, children are assigned high cost scenarios. Because the child’s lifetime average blood lead level to an blood lead levels, which correspond to drinking water lead concentration can estimate of avoided IQ loss, the EPA a water lead concentration representing change annually in the model, the EPA selected a concentration-response the LSL, POU and CCT status of their chose to estimate lifetime blood lead function based on lifetime blood lead water system (see section 6.3 of the EA). levels by taking the average across each from the independent analysis by In the proposed LCRR cost-benefit year of the child’s life, up to age 7. With Crump et al. (2013). This study used model, individual children in LSL this averaging, age at implementation of data from a 2005 paper by Lanphear et households for each water system are the LCRR (changing LSL, CCT, or POU al., which has formed the basis of tracked as they move from one LSL, status), is taken into account when concentration-response functions used

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61727

in several EPA regulations (National replicate, the net monetized value of a Monograph on Health Effects of Low- Ambient Air Quality Standard, 2008; one-point decrease in IQ is subsequently Level Lead (National Toxicology TSCA Lead Repair and Renovation Rule, estimated as the gross value of an IQ Program, 2012). In these documents, 2008; and Steam Electric Effluent point, less the value of additional lead has been associated with adverse Limitation Guidelines Rule, 2005). The education costs and lost earnings while cardiovascular effects (both morbidity Crump et al. (2013) function was in school. The EPA uses an IQ point and mortality effects), renal effects, selected over the Lanphear et al. (2005) value discounted to age 7. Based on reproductive effects, immunological reanalysis to minimize issues with EPA’s reanalysis of Salkever (1995), the effects, neurological effects, and cancer. overestimating predicted IQ loss at the mean value of an IQ point in 2016$ (see Appendix D of the EA). lowest levels of lead exposure (less than discounted to age 7 is $5,708 using a 7 Although the EPA did not quantify or 1 mg/dL BLL), which is a result of the percent discount rate and $22,503 using monetize changes in adult health use of the log-linear function. The a 3 percent discount rate.2 See benefits for the proposed LCRR, the Crump et al. (2013) function avoids this Appendix F, of the EA for a sensitivity Agency has estimated the potential issue by adding one to the estimated analysis of avoided IQ loss benefits changes in adult drinking water blood lead levels prior to log- based on Lin et al. (2018). exposures and thus blood lead levels to transformation. Since the proposed The EPA used the estimated changes illustrate the extent of the lead revisions to the LCR are expected to in lifetime (age 0 to 7) average blood reduction to the adult population reduce chronic exposures to lead, the lead levels that result from changes in estimated as a result of the proposed EPA selected lifetime blood lead as the LSL, CCT, or POU status as inputs to the LCRR. The EPA estimated blood lead most appropriate measure with which to concentration response function from levels in adults for each year of life, evaluate benefits. No threshold has been the independent analysis by Crump et beginning at age 20 and ending with age identified for the neurological effects of al. (2013). The resultant annual avoided 80. Males and females are assessed lead (Budtz-J

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61728 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

ages 20 and 80 from NHANES 2011– combination summarized by age groups Lead Model, these results are shown in 2016, which may result in some minor (blood lead values for each year of age Appendix F of the EA. The All Ages double counting of exposure from are used to determine average BLL). The Lead Model results are not used in the drinking water. Exhibit 6–15 displays EPA also estimated BLLs using output primary analysis because an ongoing the estimated blood lead levels for for other exposure pathways from peer review of the model has not been adults by each LSL, POU or CCT SHEDS in the ALM and the All Ages completed.

EXHIBIT 6–15—ESTIMATES OF BLOOD LEAD LEVELS IN ADULTS ASSOCIATED WITH DRINKING WATER LEAD EXPOSURES FROM LSL/CCT OR POU STATUS COMBINATIONS

Geometric mean blood lead level (μg/dL) for Lead service Corrosion control specified age group in years line status treatment status Sex 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70–80

LSL ...... None ...... Males ...... 1.90 2.05 2.26 2.46 2.66 2.93 Females ...... 1.60 1.73 1.92 2.25 2.38 2.55 Partial ...... None ...... Males ...... 1.33 1.46 1.67 1.87 2.04 2.28 Females ...... 1.03 1.14 1.34 1.66 1.77 1.91 No LSL ...... None ...... Males ...... 0.86 0.98 1.19 1.39 1.54 1.75 Females ...... 0.56 0.66 0.86 1.18 1.27 1.38 LSL ...... Partial ...... Males ...... 1.47 1.61 1.82 2.02 2.20 2.44 Females ...... 1.17 1.29 1.48 1.81 1.92 2.07 Partial ...... Partial ...... Males ...... 1.13 1.25 1.46 1.66 1.83 2.05 Females ...... 0.83 0.93 1.13 1.45 1.55 1.68 No LSL ...... Partial ...... Males ...... 0.86 0.98 1.19 1.39 1.54 1.75 Females ...... 0.56 0.66 0.86 1.18 1.27 1.38 LSL ...... Representative ...... Males ...... 1.23 1.36 1.56 1.76 1.93 2.16 Females ...... 0.93 1.03 1.23 1.56 1.66 1.79 Partial ...... Representative ...... Males ...... 1.01 1.13 1.34 1.54 1.70 1.92 Females ...... 0.71 0.81 1.01 1.33 1.43 1.55 No LSL ...... Representative ...... Males ...... 0.86 0.98 1.19 1.39 1.54 1.75 Females ...... 0.56 0.66 0.86 1.18 1.27 1.38

POU Males ...... 0.86 0.98 1.19 1.39 1.54 1.75 Females ...... 0.56 0.66 0.86 1.18 1.27 1.38

As discussed in the analysis of for each water system are tracked as when ‘‘No LSL’’ is the beginning or childhood IQ impacts section VI.D.2 of they move from one LSL, CCT, or POU post-rule state, 0.75 mg/L is the assumed this notice), the estimated BLLs in status to another as a result of rule concentration across all levels of CCT Exhibit 6–15 are average adult annual implementation. Exhibit 6–16 shows the status (none, partial, representative). blood lead levels given the estimated changes in average lifetime The extent to which changes in CCT corresponding estimated lead tap water blood lead levels for adults that move status make meaningful difference in concentrations resulting from LSL, CCT, from the set of initial LSL, CCT, and lead concentrations for those without and POU status. In the proposed LCR POU status combinations to a new LSL cannot be determined from this revisions cost-benefit model, individual status as a result of LSL removal, and/ Exhibit. males and females in LSL households or installation of CCT or POU. Note that

EXHIBIT 6–16—ESTIMATED LIFETIME AVERAGE BLOOD LEAD CHANGE FOR ADULTS MOVING BETWEEN LSL, CCT, AND POU STATUS COMBINATIONS

Pre-rule drinking water Post-rule drinking water Estimated average blood lead change (in geometric Lead conc. Lead conc. means) (μg/L) LSL status CCT status (μg/L) LSL status CCT status Ages 20–80 (μg/dL)

18.62 ...... LSL ...... None ...... 0.75 No LSL...... None ...... 1.09 18.62 ...... LSL ...... None ...... 7.01 LSL ...... Representative ...... 0.71 18.62 ...... LSL ...... None ...... 0.75 No LSL...... Representative ...... 1.09

18.62 ...... LSL ...... None ...... 0.75 POU 1.09

8.78 ...... Partial ...... None ...... 0.75 No LSL...... None ...... 0.49 8.78 ...... Partial ...... None ...... 3.3 Partial ...... Representative ...... 0.34 8.78 ...... Partial ...... None ...... 0.75 No LSL...... Representative ...... 0.49

8.78 ...... Partial ...... None ...... 0.75 POU 0.49

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61729

EXHIBIT 6–16—ESTIMATED LIFETIME AVERAGE BLOOD LEAD CHANGE FOR ADULTS MOVING BETWEEN LSL, CCT, AND POU STATUS COMBINATIONS—Continued

Pre-rule drinking water Post-rule drinking water Estimated average blood lead change (in geometric Lead conc. Lead conc. means) (μg/L) LSL status CCT status (μg/L) LSL status CCT status Ages 20–80 (μg/dL)

0.75 ...... No LSL ...... None ...... 0.75 No LSL ...... Representative ...... 0.00

0.75 ...... No LSL ...... None ...... 0.75 POU 0.00

11.27 ...... LSL ...... Partial ...... 0.75 No LSL...... Partial ...... 0.64 11.27 ...... LSL ...... Partial ...... 7.01 LSL ...... Representative ...... 0.26 11.27 ...... LSL ...... Partial ...... 0.75 No LSL...... Representative ...... 0.64

11.27 ...... LSL ...... Partial ...... 0.75 POU 0.64

5.32 ...... Partial ...... Partial ...... 0.75 No LSL...... Partial ...... 0.28 5.32 ...... Partial ...... Partial ...... 3.3 Partial ...... Representative ...... 0.12 5.32 ...... Partial ...... Partial ...... 0.75 No LSL...... Representative ...... 0.28

5.32 ...... Partial ...... Partial ...... 0.75 POU 0.28

0.75 ...... No LSL ...... Partial ...... 0.75 No LSL ...... Representative ...... 0.00

0.75 ...... No LSL ...... Partial ...... 0.75 POU 0.00

7.01 ...... LSL ...... Representative ...... 0.75 No LSL...... Representative ...... 0.38

7.01 ...... LSL ...... Representative ...... 0.75 POU 0.38

3.3 ...... Partial ...... Representative ...... 0.75 No LSL...... Representative ...... 0.16

3.3 ...... Partial ...... Representative ...... 0.75 POU 0.16

0.75 ...... No LSL ...... Representative ...... 0.75 POU 0.00

4. Total Monetized Benefits at 3 and 7 percent, respectively. The granularity in the assembled lead potential changes in adult blood lead concentration profile data, with regard Exhibits 6–17 and 6–18 show the levels estimated from changing LSL and to CCT status when samples were estimated, monetized national CCT status under the proposed LCRR collected (see section VI.D.1 of this annualized total benefits, under the low can be found in section VI.D.3 of this notice), the benefits of small and high cost scenarios, from avoided notice and Chapter 6 of the EA. The improvements in CCT, like those child IQ decrements associated with the impact of lead on the risk of attention- modeled under the ‘‘find-and-fix,’’ current LCR, the proposed LCRR, and deficit/hyperactivity disorder and cannot be quantified in the model. For the increment of change between the reductions in birth weight are discussed additional information on non- two, for CCT improvements, LSLR, and in Appendix H of the EA. It should also quantified benefits see section VI.E.2 of POU devise implementation discounted be noted that because of the lack of this notice. EXHIBIT 6–17—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUAL BENEFITS, 3% DISCOUNT RATE [2016$]

System type: All estimate Low cost estimate High cost estimate Current Proposed Current Proposed Estimated child IQ benefits LCR LCRR Incremental LCR LCRR Incremental

Number of Children Impacted (over 35 years) ...... 71,449 1,148,110 1,076,661 1,034,170 3,431,200 2,397,030 Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT) ...... 431 8,764 8,333 6,875 28,127 21,252 Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT) ...... $7,300,000 $152,661,000 $145,361,000 $129,985,000 $521,356,000 $391,371,000 Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR/POU) ...... 297 4,010 3,713 5,065 12,011 6,946 Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR/POU) ...... $5,091,000 $70,811,000 $65,720,000 $99,412,000 $229,200,000 $129,788,000

Total Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided ...... $12,391,000 $223,472,000 $211,081,000 $229,397,000 $750,556,000 $521,159,000 This table summarizes the national annual children’s benefit for a 3 percent discount rate under High & Low Cost assumptions. This table uses a 3% discount rate over the 35 year analysis period. Children are modeled throughout their lifetime, and their drinking water concentration and BLL can change in each year of the anal- ysis as CCT, POU or LSL changes happen in their modeled PWS.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61730 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

EXHIBIT 6–18—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUAL BENEFITS, 7% DISCOUNT RATE [2016$]

System type: All estimate Low cost estimate High cost estimate Current Proposed Current Proposed Estimated child IQ benefits LCR LCRR Incremental LCR LCRR Incremental

Number of Children Impacted (over 35 years) ...... 71,449 1,148,110 1,076,661 1,034,170 3,431,200 2,397,030 Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT) ...... 431 8,764 8,333 6,875 28,127 21,252 Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT) ...... $1,201,000 $26,219,000 $25,018,000 $25,008,000 $97,772,000 $72,764,000 Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR/POU) ...... 297 4,010 3,713 5,065 12,011 6,946 Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR/POU) ...... $858,000 $12,453,000 $11,595,000 $20,311,000 $45,005,000 $24,694,000

Total Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided ...... $2,059,000 $38,671,000 $36,612,000 $45,319,000 $142,778,000 $97,459,000 This table summarizes the national annual children’s benefit for a 7 percent discount rate under High & Low Cost assumptions. This table uses a 7% discount rate over the 35 year analysis period. Children are modeled throughout their lifetime, and their drinking water concentration and BLL can change in each year of the anal- ysis as CCT, POU or LSL changes happen in their modeled PWS.

E. Cost-Benefit Comparison both the non-monetized costs and annualized incremental benefits, under benefits of the rulemaking. Exhibits 6– the low and high cost scenarios, range This section summarizes and 19 and 6–20 compare the annualized from $79 to $251 million. Under the low describes the numeric relationship monetized incremental costs and and high cost scenarios and a 7 percent between the monetized incremental benefits of the proposed LCRR for the discount rate, the net annualized costs and benefits of the proposed LCR low and high cost scenarios. Under a 3 incremental benefits range from a revisions. The section also discusses percent discount rate, the net negative $91 to negative $189 million.

EXHIBIT 6–19—COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED MONETIZED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL COSTS TO BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED LCRR AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE

Low cost High cost scenario scenario

Annualized Incremental Costs ...... $131,987,000 $269,989,000 Annualized Incremental Benefits ...... 211,081,000 521,159,000

Annual Net Benefits ...... 79,094,000 251,170,000

EXHIBIT 6–20—COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED MONETIZED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL COSTS TO BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED LCRR AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE

Low cost High cost scenario scenario

Annualized Incremental Costs ...... $130,104,000 $286,219,000 Annualized Incremental Benefits ...... 36,612,000 97,459,000

Annual Net Benefits ...... ¥91,492,000 ¥188,760,000

1. Non-Monetized Costs anthropogenic sources. However, the EA and are expected to affect both national average load impacts may children and adults. The EPA focused The proposed LCRR are expected to obscure significant localized ecological its non-quantified impacts assessment result in additional phosphate being impacts. Impacts, such as on the endpoint identified using two added to drinking water to reduce the eutrophication, may occur in water amount of lead leaching into the water comprehensive U.S. Government bodies without restrictions on in the distribution system. The EPA’s documents summarizing the recent cost model estimated that, nationwide, phosphate deposits, or in locations with literature on lead exposure health the proposed LCRR will result in total existing elevated phosphate levels. See impacts. These documents are the EPA’s incremental phosphorus loads Chapter 5, section 5.5.4 of the EA for Integrated Science Assessment for Lead increasing over the period of analysis, additional information. (ISA) (USEPA, 2013); and the U.S. Department of Health and Human under the low cost and high cost 2. Non-Quantified Non-Monetized scenarios, by a range of 202,000 to Benefits Services’ National Toxicology Program 460,000 pounds fifteen years after Monograph on Health Effects of Low- promulgation, and increasing under the In addition to the benefits monetized Level Lead (National Toxicology low cost and high cost scenarios by a in the proposed rule analysis for Program (NTP), 2012). Both of these range of 461,000 to 685,000 pounds at reductions in lead exposure, there are sources present comprehensive reviews year 35. At the national level, under the several other benefits that are not of the literature on the risk of adverse high cost scenario, this additional quantified. The risk of adverse health health effects associated with lead phosphorous loading is small, less than effects due to lead that are expected to exposure. The EPA summarized those 0.09 percent of the total phosphorous decrease as a result of the proposed endpoints to which either the EPA ISA load deposited annually from all other LCRR are summarized in Appendix D of or the NTP Lead Monograph assigned

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61731

one of the top two tiers of confidence in rule analysis, the benefits of small Appendix E of the EA. These risks the relationship between lead exposure improvements in CCT to individuals include acute gastrointestinal and the risk of adverse health effects. residing in homes with LSLs, like those symptoms, which are the most common These endpoints include: modeled under the ‘‘find-and-fix,’’ are adverse effect observed among adults Cardiovascular effects, renal effects, not quantified. and children. In sensitive groups, there reproductive and developmental effects, The EPA also did not quantify the may be reductions in chronic hepatic immunological effects, neurological benefits of reduced lead exposure to effects, particularly for those with rare effects, and cancer. individuals who reside in homes that do conditions such as Wilson’s disease and not have lead service lines. The EPA has There are a number of proposed rule children pre-disposed to genetic determined that the revised LCR cirrhosis syndromes. These diseases requirements that reduce lead exposure requirements may result in reduced lead to both children and adults that the EPA disrupt copper homeostasis, leading to exposure to the occupants of these excessive accumulation that can be could not quantify. The proposed rule buildings as a result of improved would require additional lead public worsened by excessive copper ingestion monitoring and additional actions to (National Research Council, 2000). education requirements that target optimize CCT. In the analysis of the consumers directly, schools and child proposed LCRR, the number of non-LSL F. Other Regulatory Options Considered care facilities, health agencies, and homes potentially affected by water The Office of Management and Budget specifically people living in homes with systems increasing their corrosion recommends careful consideration ‘‘of lead service lines. Increased education control during the 35-year period of all appropriate alternatives for the key will lead to additional averting behavior analysis is 14 million in the low cost attributes or provisions of a rule (Office on the part of the exposed public, scenario and 26 million in the high cost of Management and Budget, 2003).’’ resulting in reductions in the negative scenario. These households, while not Pursuant to this guidance, the EPA impacts of lead. The proposed rule also having an LSL in place, may still considered other regulatory options would require the development of lead contain leaded plumbing materials, when developing the proposed LCRR service line inventories and making the including leaded brass fixtures, and lead related to: location of lead service lines publicly solder. These households could • accessible. This would give exposed The lead in drinking water potentially see reductions in lead tap sampling program at schools and consumers more information, and it water concentrations. The EPA has would provide potential home buyers licensed child care facilities, assessed the potential benefits to • this information as well, possibly children of reducing lead water The lead tap sampling protocol resulting in additional lead service line concentrations in these homes (see requirements for water systems with removals initiated by homeowners Appendix F of the EA) but has LSLs, and • before, during, or following home sale determined that the data are too limited LSL locational information to be transactions. The benefits of these and the uncertainties too significant to made publicly available. additional removals are not quantified include in the quantified and monetized • Providing small system flexibility to in the analysis of the proposed LCRR. benefit estimates of this regulation. CWSs that serve a population of 3,300 As indicated in section VI.D.4 of this Additionally, the risk of adverse or less. notice, because of the lack of granularity health effects associated with copper Exhibit 6–21 provides a summary of in the lead tap water concentration data that are expected to be reduced by the the proposed requirement and other available to the EPA for the proposed proposed LCRR are summarized in option considered for these four areas.

EXHIBIT 6–21—SUMMARY OF OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE PROPOSED LCRR

Area Proposed LCRR Other option considered

Lead in Drinking Water Sampling Program at Mandatory program: Upon request program: Schools and Licensed Child Care Facilities. • 20% of schools and licensed child care • Schools and licensed child care facili- facilities tested annually. ties would be tested upon request. • 5 samples per school ...... • 5 samples per school. • 2 samples per licensed child care facil- • 2 samples per licensed child care facil- ity. ity. Lead Tap Sampling Requirements for Systems • Systems with LSLs collect 100% of their • Systems with LSLs collect 100% of their with Lead Service Lines (LSLs). samples from LSLs sites, if available. samples from LSLs sites, if available. • Samples are first liter, collected after 6-hour • Samples are fifth liter, collected after 6-hour minimum stagnation time. minimum stagnation time. Publicly Available LSL Locational Information... Systems report a location identifier (e.g., Systems report the exact street address of street, intersection, landmark) for customer- customer-owned portion of LSLs owned portion of LSLs. Small System Flexibility ...... CWSs that serve 10,000 or less people, and CWSs that serve 3,300 or less people, and all all NTNCWSs, are provided compliance NTNCWSs, are provided compliance flexi- flexibility when they exceed the AL. bility when they exceed the AL. Notes: The fifth liter sample is intended to be representative of water residing in the LSL.

1. Lead Public Education and Sampling and licensed child care facilities that sampling program to K–12 schools or at Schools and Child Care Facilities they serve. The EPA is also considering child care facilities served by the water Option an ‘‘upon request’’ option that would system that request testing. CWSs would The EPA is proposing that all CWSs contain the same components of the be required to annually contact these conduct a mandatory sampling and mandatory program under the proposed facilities about this lead sampling public education program for schools LCR revisions but would limit the program.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61732 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

For the ‘‘upon request’’ option, the for each facility. CWSs would only be that request to participate in the EPA assumed that five percent of required to sample at those facilities sampling program. In addition, there is schools and licensed child care facilities that request this sampling. As shown in a great degree of uncertainty regarding per year would elect to participate in Exhibit 6–22, the ‘‘upon request’’ option the percentage of facilities that will the sampling program and that CWSs is estimated to be less costly than the request this sampling and how this would contact each facility annually to proposed option. However, the cost of interest may fluctuate over time. determine its interest in the program in the ‘‘upon request’’ option is highly lieu of developing a sampling schedule dependent on the percentage of facilities

EXHIBIT 6–22—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR SCHOOL SAMPLING OPTIONS [2016$]

Annualized Annualized Option cost at 3% cost at 7% discount rate discount rate

Proposed LCRR: Mandatory Program ...... $28,540,000 $27,520,000 Other Option Considered: Upon Request Program ...... 10,430,000 10,047,200

2. Lead Tap Sampling Requirements for would fill a one-gallon container that systems would have a trigger level Water Systems With Lead Service Lines would not be analyzed, then exceedance under the fifth liter option, immediately collect a one-liter sample while the number and percentages of The EPA is proposing that water for lead in a separate bottle without LSL water systems with no trigger level systems with LSLs collect all one-liter, turning off the tap. While technically exceedance or action level exceedance first-draw tap samples from sites served this is not the fifth liter of water, the would be lower. Note that these by LSLs as opposed to a minimum of 50 EPA will refer to this sample as the fifth numbers would not change for non-LSL percent as currently required. As noted liter. water systems under the fifth liter in section III.E.1 of this notice, tap Under this proposal, copper samples option compared to the proposed LCR sample sites served by an LSL are at the would continue to be first-draw, which revisions since the requirement to highest risk for elevated lead levels in would necessitate collection of two tap collect a fifth liter would only apply to drinking water, therefore, the EPA is samples using different protocols at LSL water systems. revising the tap sample site selection each sampling site for systems with Exhibits 6–23 and 6–24 provide the criteria to ensure water systems with LSLs. Collection of tap samples for both national annualized rule costs and LSLs use those sites for lead tap lead and copper at a single tap sample benefits, under the low cost scenario, sampling. The EPA is proposing to site could not be achieved on the same discounted at 3 and 7 percent, for the retain the first draw sampling procedure day under the alternative option above. current rule, proposed LCRR, and the because this approach has been To accomplish tap sampling for both fifth liter option. Exhibits 6–25 and 6– effectively implemented by water lead and copper on a single visit would 26 provide the high cost scenario systems and can identify when systems require collection of five consecutive national annualized rule costs and must take additional actions to address one liter tap samples without turning benefits at the 3 and 7 percent discount elevated lead exposure. However, the tap off. The first liter would be rates. The EPA predicts higher State studies have shown LSLs to be one of analyzed for copper and the fifth liter oversight costs, LSLR costs assigned to the greatest contributors to lead, and would be analyzed for lead. This households, and wastewater treatment first-draw samples of one-liter may not procedure significantly complicates tap plant costs associated with CCT under capture water that has sat in the lead sample collection and may introduce the fifth liter option than under the service line, which may contain the error, such as misidentifying the correct proposed LCRR and current rule. At a 3 highest lead in drinking water levels. liter for the two different analyses. Due percent discount rate, the EPA estimates When the 1991 LCR was promulgated, to this complexity, copper samples may higher total benefits under the fifth liter the best available data was first draw need to be collected on a different day option ($429 to $946 million) compared one-liter samples. Recent studies have to meet stagnation time and first draw to the proposed LCRR ($223 to $751 been conducted to identify which liter requirements in the current LCR. The million) and current rule ($12 to $229 from the tap best captures the highest EPA requests comment on the feasibility million) based on estimated IQ point level of lead that could potentially be of the fifth liter collection option. decrement avoided benefits. The EPA consumed by residents. The EPA has The EPA expects that the fifth liter estimates that the cost of the rule will evaluated these studies and determined sampling for LSL water systems will be higher under the fifth liter option that a fifth liter tap sample may be a increase the percent of water systems ($543 to $762 million) compared to the more conservative option than a first- with a trigger level exceedance or action proposed LCRR ($509 to $708 million) draw sample, because it would capture level exceedance and the probability and current rule ($377 to 438 million) water from the lead service line, and that individual tap samples would because more water systems will be sample results would theoretically exceed 15 mg/L. The EPA estimated that required to conduct additional tap result in more protective measures, even the number and percentage of LSL water sampling and treatment requirements in though it is unlikely that any given systems with an action level exceedance response to higher measured fifth liter person consistently drinks water at the would be two to three times higher tap sample lead levels. level of the fifth liter draw. Therefore, under the fifth liter option for water At a 7 percent discount rate, the EPA the EPA is considering a ‘‘fifth-liter systems without and with CCT, estimates higher total benefits under the option.’’ To take a fifth liter tap sample, respectively, than the proposed LCR fifth liter option ($76 to $178 million) the person sampling, in accordance with revisions. The EPA also estimated a compared to the proposed LCRR ($39 to all proposed tap sampling revisions, larger number and percentage of water $143 million) and current rule ($2 to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61733

$45 million) based on estimated IQ to the proposed LCRR ($489 to $721 requirements in response to higher point decrement avoided benefits. The million) and current rule ($359 to $435 measured fifth liter tap sample lead EPA estimates that the cost of the rule million) because more water systems levels. will be higher under the fifth liter will be required to conduct additional option ($524 to $777 million) compared tap sampling and treatment

EXHIBIT 6–23—ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COSTS FOR THE LOW COST SCENARIO AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE CURRENT RULE, PROPOSED LCRR, AND FIFTH LITER OPTION [2016$]

Proposed LCRR Fifth liter option Benefit/cost category Current LCR total Total Incremental Total Incremental

Total Annual Rule Costs ...... $376,857,000 $508,762,000 $131,905,000 $543,079,000 $166,222,000 Total Annual PWS Costs ...... 370,631,000 481,688,000 111,057,000 512,176,000 141,545,000 Total Annual Benefits ...... 12,391,000 223,472,000 211,081,000 428,597,000 416,206,000

EXHIBIT 6–24—ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COSTS FOR THE LOW COST SCENARIO AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE CURRENT RULE, PROPOSED LCRR, AND FIFTH LITER OPTION [2016$]

Proposed LCRR Fifth liter option Benefit/cost category Current LCR total Total Incremental Total Incremental

Total Annual Rule Costs ...... $359,230,000 $489,253,000 $130,023,000 $523,524,000 $164,294,000 Total Annual PWS Costs ...... 353,067,000 461,889,000 108,822,000 491,005,000 137,938,000 Total Annual Benefits ...... 2,059,000 38,671,000 36,612,000 75,895,000 73,836,000

EXHIBIT 6–25—ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COSTS FOR THE HIGH COST SCENARIO AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE CURRENT RULE, PROPOSED LCRR, AND FIFTH LITER OPTION [2016$]

Proposed LCRR Fifth liter option Benefit/cost category Current LCR total Total Incremental Total Incremental

Total Annual Rule Costs ...... $438,408,000 $708,314,000 $269,906,000 $762,023,000 $323,615,000 Total Annual PWS Costs ...... 421,766,000 663,931,000 242,165,000 717,537,000 295,771,000 Total Annual Benefits ...... 229,397,000 750,556,000 521,159,000 946,051,000 716,654,000

EXHIBIT 6–26—ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COSTS FOR THE HIGH COST SCENARIO AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE CURRENT RULE, PROPOSED LCRR, AND FIFTH LITER OPTION [2016$]

Proposed LCRR Fifth liter option Benefit/cost category Current LCR total Total Incremental Total Incremental

Total Annual Rule Costs ...... $435,144,000 $721,282,000 $286,138,000 $777,471,000 $342,327,000 Total Annual PWS Costs ...... 414,405,000 672,615,000 258,210,000 728,865,000 314,460,000 Total Annual Benefits ...... 45,319,000 142,778,000 97,459,000 178,024,000 132,705,000

3. Reporting of LSL-Related Information considering an additional option in the same method for publicly providing which systems with LSLs would be and maintaining information regarding The EPA is proposing to require water required to make the address associated its LSL information and LSL locational systems to make their LSL inventory with each LSL publicly available. information, e.g., posting information to publicly available with a locational Available information indicates that the water system’s website. The EPA identifier associated with each LSL. The prospective buyers and renters value anticipates the benefits between the EPA is not proposing that address-level reductions in risks associated with address-level and location identifier information must be provided to protect LSLs. Public disclosure of LSL locations options would be similar. information regarding real property (see can create an incentive, through 4. Small System Flexibility section II.E.3 of this notice). Public increased property values or home sale disclosure of the LSL inventory would incentives, to replace LSLs. As discussed in section III.E of this increase transparency and consumer The EPA anticipates that the costs notice, the proposed LCRR includes awareness of the extent of LSLs in the between these two options would be significant flexibility for CWSs that distribution system. The EPA is similar because the system would use serve 10,000 or fewer people, and all

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61734 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

NTNCWSs. If these PWSs have an CCT; (3) Provide POU devices to all 3,300 or fewer people and all action level exceedance, they can customers. The EPA is proposing the NTNCWSs. Exhibits 6–27 and 6–28 choose from three options (modeled in above three flexibilities for NTNCWS provide the range of the estimated the cost-benefit model) to reduce the and an additional option of replacement incremental annualized rule costs and concentration of lead in their water. of all lead bearing plumbing fixtures at benefits, under both the low and high These options are: (1) Replace seven every tap where water could be used for cost scenarios, for the proposed LCRR percent of their baseline number of LSLs human consumption. and the alternative small system per year until all LSLs are replaced; (2) The EPA is considering limiting small flexibility option at a 3% and 7% optimize existing CCT or install new system flexibility to CWSs that serve discount rate, respectively.

EXHIBIT 6–27—ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL RULE COSTS AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE FOR THE PROPOSED LCRR AND ALTERNATIVE SMALL SYSTEM FLEXIBILITY OPTION

Proposed LCRR: Small system Alternative small system flexibility for CWSs serving flexibility option: CWSs serving <=10,000 people and all <=3,300 people and all Benefit/cost category NTNCWSs NTNCWSs Low cost High cost Low cost High cost scenario scenario scenario scenario

Total Annual Rule Costs ...... $131,987,000 $269,989,000 $134,385,000 $292,863,000 Total Annual PWS Costs ...... 111,057,000 242,165,000 112,734,000 260,053,000 Total Annual Benefits ...... 211,081,000 521,159,000 215,070,000 548,382,000

EXHIBIT 6–28—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL RULE COSTS AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE FOR THE PROPOSED LCRR AND ALTERNATIVE SMALL SYSTEM FLEXIBILITY OPTION

Proposed LCRR: Small system Alternative small system flexibility for CWSs serving flexibility option: CWSs serving <=10,000 people and all <=3,300 people and all Benefit/cost category NTNCWSs NTNCWSs Low cost High cost Low cost High cost scenario scenario scenario scenario

Total Annual Rule Costs ...... $130,104,000 $286,219,000 $132,748,000 $314,163,000 Total Annual PWS Costs ...... 108,822,000 258,210,000 110,742,000 280,731,000 Total Annual Benefits ...... 36,612,000 97,459,000 37,310,000 102,741,000

G. Cost-Benefit Determination In addition to the monetized benefits lead public education requirements that of the proposed rule, a number of target all potential affected consumers The Administrator has determined potentially significant non-quantified directly, schools and child care that the quantified and non-quantified and non-monetized sources of benefit facilities, health agencies, and people benefits of the proposed LCR revisions exist that further strengthen the living in homes with LSLs; and the justify the costs. determination of benefits justifying development of LSL inventories with Under section 1412(b)(3)(C)(ii) of the costs. The harmful impacts of lead the requirement for public access to the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA, when exposure include: Cardiovascular effects information. The analysis was also the EPA proposes a NPDWR that (both morbidity and mortality effects), unable to quantify the potentially includes a treatment technique, the renal effects, reproductive and significant benefits of reducing lead Administrator shall publish and seek developmental effects, immunological concentrations in drinking water from: public comment on an analysis of the effects, neurological effects, and cancer. Households without LSLs in water health risk reduction benefits and costs The EPA has only monetized a portion systems where the proposed rule likely to be experienced as the result of of the benefits associated with triggered an installation or re- compliance with the treatment neurodevelopmental endpoints. optimization of CCT; and all households technique and alternative treatment Although the EPA did estimate the in systems implementing small techniques that are being considered. reductions to adult blood lead levels improvement in CCT because of the Sections VI.A through F of this notice that could potentially result from ‘‘find-and-fix’’ proposed rule summarize the results of this proposed changes to LSL and CCT status, the rule analysis. As indicated in section Agency did not quantify or monetize the requirements. VI.E of this notice, the monetized costs potential benefits associated with VII. Request for Comment and benefits result in net annualized reductions in adverse cardiovascular incremental benefits that range from $79 effects, renal effects, reproductive The EPA is requesting comments to $251 million, under the low and high effects, immunological effects, upon all aspects of the proposed cost scenarios at a 3 percent discount neurological effects, and cancer. The revisions described in this notice. While rate. Under the low and high cost EPA analysis has not quantified the all comments relevant to the LCR scenarios at a 7 percent discount rate, positive impacts from increases in revisions proposed in this notice will be the net annualized incremental benefits consumer averting behavior and the considered by the EPA, comments on range from a negative $91 to negative potential for customer initiated LSLR the following issues will be especially $189 million. due to the proposed rule’s additional helpful to the EPA in developing a final

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61735

rule. The EPA specifically requests number and location of lead service at the locations that have the highest comment on the following issues. lines in their water system. lead levels and/or the most susceptible The EPA request comment on populations. The EPA requests General Matters whether small water systems should be comment on whether to require water The EPA is requesting comment on exempt from the requirement to prepare systems to describe in their LSLR plan, the overall framework for the proposed a LSLR plan concurrent with their LSL how LSLR will be prioritized or to LCR revisions. Has the EPA developed inventory, given that they may opt not require a prioritization plan at the time proposed revisions that address the to select LSLR as a compliance option LSLR is compelled. variability in conditions among the if the action level is exceeded. The EPA is requesting comment on regulated water systems that effect the The EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of requiring two levels of lead that may be present in including galvanized pipe in lead years of tap sample monitoring before drinking water? Do the proposed service line (LSL) inventories and in water systems may stop LSLR. Under revisions to the LCR target the goal-based and mandatory lead service this proposal, corrosion control appropriate treatment technique actions line replacement (LSLR) rates under the treatment (CCT) or re-optimization of to prevent known or anticipated adverse proposed LCR revisions. CCT may not immediately reduce lead health effects to the extent feasible in The EPA requests comment on the levels at the tap. The EPA proposes that accordance with the Safe Drinking treatment of unknown service lines in two years of monitoring would be Water Act (SDWA)? the inventory. enough time to evaluate and ensure The EPA requests comment on The EPA requests comment on the these measures consistently reduce lead whether the Agency should require complexity of the regulatory to meet the action level. water systems to distribute education requirements that result from targeting The EPA requests comment on materials to homes with unknown different actions for different types of requiring systems with LSLs to make service lines to inform them of the water systems and challenges States and publicly available the exact address of potential for their line to be made of water systems will encounter. the LSL in the inventory instead of a lead and the actions they can take to location identifier (street, intersection, The EPA requests comment on ways reduce their exposure to drinking water landmark) as proposed. As discussed in that the proposed LCR revisions could lead. section VI of this notice, the EPA be simplified and burden, including The EPA requests comment on estimates that the costs and benefits of paperwork burden, could be reduced proposed revisions to the lead service this alternative would be similar to the while still assuring adverse health line replacement program requirements. proposal. effects are prevented to the extent The EPA requests comment on the The EPA request comment on the feasible. The EPA solicits comment on goal-based lead service line requirement appropriateness of pitcher filters for risk ways it can improve the ability of State for systems that exceed the trigger level. mitigation after LSLR or LSL or Federal government to enforce this Does the goal based LSLR requirement disturbances given that the customer rule. The EPA solicits comment on ways provide adequate incentives for water would be responsible for operation and it can improve the ability of State or systems to achieve meaningful maintenance. Federal government to assist water reductions in their lead service line systems with compliance. inventory? Does the goal based program Corrosion Control Treatment Trigger Level enable systems to effectively incorporate The EPA is requesting comment on LSLR into their infrastructure the proposed CCT re-optimization The EPA requests comment on the replacement programs? The EPA requirements. EPA requests comment proposed trigger level of 10 mg/L and the requests comment on what criteria must upon the potential actions water actions water systems must take if they be met for the EPA to establish a federal systems could take to adjust their exceed this trigger level. Does this level goal rate for water system under corrosion control treatment and how represent an appropriate 90th percentile § 142.19. they should work with the State to level at which to require systems to The EPA also requests comment upon determine if adjustments to the initiate progressive actions to reduce the feasibility of replacing a minimum treatment would better optimize drinking water lead levels? The EPA of three percent of the lead service lines corrosion control. requests comment on other 90th a year for the systems that exceed the Tap Sampling percentile level thresholds that would action level. The EPA requests comment be reasonable for water systems to on whether the number of lines required The EPA is requesting comment on an initiate progressive actions to reduce to be replaced should be three percent alternative revision to the LCR’s existing drinking water lead levels. of the number of lead service lines plus tap sample collection method provisions. In promulgating the LCR, Lead Service Line Requirements the number of unknown service lines at the time the systems exceeds the action the EPA noted ‘‘the rule contains other The EPA requests comment on the level. procedures to ensure that excessive lead feasibility of creating initial lead service The EPA requests comment on the and/or copper levels would be detected line inventories by the compliance date, feasibility for a water system to replace in monitoring by requiring, for example, which is three years after publication of its portion of an LSL within 45 days of sampling of the first liter of water from the final rule, and if a different being notified that a customer has the tap after water has been standing for frequency (other than annual) would be replaced the customer portion of an at least six hours, conditions under more appropriate for inventory updates. LSL. Should this time frame be longer? which higher than average contaminant The EPA requests comment on whether Should this time frame be shorter? The levels are likely to occur’’ (58 FR additional requirements or guidance are EPA also requests comment on whether 26514). The EPA continues to believe needed relating to the content or format such replacement by a water system that first draw sampling following a 6- of inventories. The EPA also requests should be mandatory or voluntary. hour stagnation period is an effective comment on the actions that system The EPA requests comment on how technique to determine when optimal with limited records can take to water systems that are conducting LSLR corrosion control treatment is being improve their understanding of the can identify and prioritize replacements maintained. However, the EPA notes

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61736 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

that research using sequential tap control, many primacy agencies will activities a water system would conduct sample collection techniques on homes require the water systems to conduct if they do not meet the goal LSLR rate with LSLs indicates that a first draw more frequent tap sampling following in response to a trigger level sample may not represent the significant the change in treatment or source. The exceedance. The EPA also requests contributions of LSLs (Lytle et al., EPA requests comment on whether the comments on other actions or additional 2019). The EPA evaluated the feasibility regulation should specify a minimum outreach efforts water systems could of conducting sequential sampling tap sampling frequency of once every take to meet their LSLR goal rate. techniques for every tap sample site for six months or once per year following The EPA requests comment on the the public water systems that are subject the source water change or significant appropriateness, frequency, and content to the LCR. The EPA finds it is not treatment change. of required outreach to State and local feasible due to the complexity of the health agencies and whether the Testing in Schools and Child Care sequential sampling technique, the requirement should apply only to a Facilities number of samples that must be subset of the country’s community analyzed and the difficulty of The EPA requests comment on water systems. whether it should revise the rule to interpreting the results from multiple Economic Analysis tap samples. However, the EPA is require community water systems requesting comment on whether water (CWSs) to offer to collect samples from The EPA is soliciting comment on all systems with lead service lines should schools and child care facilities every aspects of the analysis for this rule. The be required to collect tap samples that five years or to collect samples from a agency offers a fulsome discussion on are representative of water that was in school or a child care facility only if assumptions, models and related contact with lead service lines during requested. The CWS would still be uncertainties in the regulatory impact the 6-hour stagnation period. required to provide the schools and analysis. In particular, the EPA requests The EPA requests comment on an child care facilities information on the comment on the five drivers of costs alternative tap sampling technique for health effects and sources of lead in identified including rate of LSLR in its sampling locations with LSLs. The EPA drinking water, and the 3Ts guidance. economic analysis. EPA requests requests comment on requiring tap Under this approach, CWS would be comments on whether this estimated samplers to collect the first gallon of able to respond to requests for sampling rate of lead service lines being replaced water from the tap following the in a way that allows the water system is appropriate. The EPA also solicits stagnation period (referred to as the fifth to spread out the cost burden over comment on: (1) The existing number of liter), then to collect a one-liter sample multiple years (i.e., delay fulfilment of LSLs in PWSs; (2) the number of PWS for analysis. The sampler would be requests to future years) if the water above the AL or TL under the current instructed to pour out the gallon system samples at a minimum of five and proposed monitoring requirements; container or to use it for other purposes percent of schools and child care (3) the cost of installing and optimizing (e.g., watering plants) and to submit the facilities each year. Additionally, a corrosion control treatment (CCT); (4) one-liter tap sample for analysis. The facility could decline the offer. The EPA the effectiveness of CCT in mitigating EPA finds this approach would be more has included an analysis of the costs lead concentrations; and (5) the cost of representative of lead concentrations in and benefits of this option in section VI lead service line replacement cost of service lines (Del Toral, 2013) and of this notice and Chapter 9 of the lead service line replacement, cost of would be more likely to identify a Economic Analysis of the Proposed CCT, effectiveness of CCT. In addition greater number of water systems that Lead and Copper Rule Revisions to these cost drivers, the EPA solicits would be required to take action to (USEPA, 2019a). comment on the assumptions regarding address elevated levels of lead. The EPA labor required to comply with this rule, has included an analysis of the costs Small System Flexibilities including labor required to collect and and benefits of this option in Section VI The EPA is proposing that small analyze samples. As described in of this notice and Chapter 9 of the system flexibilities be allowed for CWSs section VI.E.2 of this notice, the EPA is Economic Analysis of the Proposed serving 10,000 or fewer persons and all not estimating benefits of avoided Lead and Copper Rule Revisions NTNCWS. The EPA request comment cardiovascular mortality that may result (USEPA, 2019a). The EPA also requests on whether this flexibility is needed by from the proposed LCR revisions. The comment on how the EPA could systems serving between 3,301 and EPA acknowledges the scientific develop tap sample protocols that 10,000 persons and whether a different understanding of the relationship would allow for collection of a first threshold is more appropriate. EPA between lead exposure and draw copper sample and a fifth liter requests comment on whether different cardiovascular mortality is evolving and lead tap sample during a single tap flexibilities would be more appropriate scientific questions remain. The EPA sample event. The EPA requests data for small systems whether defined as intends to conduct additional analysis that demonstrate collecting a tap sample water systems serving 10,000 or fewer and conduct a peer review that includes liter (i.e., 5th liter) other than a first persons or 3,300 or fewer persons. an opportunity for public comment. In draw is more representative of water the interim, EPA solicits peer reviewed that has been in contact with a lead Public Education and Outreach information on the evidence relevant to service line during the six hour The EPA requests comment on quantifying the incremental stagnation period. whether the Agency should require contribution of blood lead The EPA is proposing to require that water systems to distribute education concentrations (especially at BLL <5 mg/ all water systems that change their materials to homes with unknown dL) to cardiovascular disease (and source water or make significant service line types to inform them of the associated mortality) relative to strong treatment changes obtain approval from potential for their line to be made of predictors such as diet, exercise, and their primacy agency prior to making lead and the actions they can take to genetics that may be useful in future the change. The EPA expects that in reduce their exposure to drinking water benefits analysis. addition to evaluating and mitigating lead. As mentioned in Section VI, and the impacts of the source water change The EPA requests comment on the detailed in Appendix F of the EA, the or treatment change on corrosion appropriateness of required outreach EPA in a secondary analysis has

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61737

estimated the changes in lead before December 13, 2019. You can find reviewing lead service replacement concentrations at non-LSL households a copy of the ICR in the docket for this plans. that result from changes in CCT. The rule (EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0300), and it The information collected under the lead concentration values used in this is briefly summarized here. The burden ICR is critical to States and other assessment come from data EPA includes the time needed to conduct authorized entities that have been collected from 15 cities across the Primacy Agency and public water granted primacy (i.e., primary United States and Canada (See Chapter system activities during the first three enforcement authority) for the Lead and 6, section 6,2 of the EA for more detail). years after promulgation, as described in Copper Rule (LCR). These authorized The EPA has not found additional Chapter 8 from the Economic Analysis entities are responsible for overseeing studies to corroborate this data. The of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule the LCR implementation by certain EPA, therefore, is requesting comment Revisions (USEPA, 2019a)). public water systems within their and additional information about the Burden means the total time, effort, or jurisdiction. Primacy agencies would change in lead concentrations that occur financial resources expended by people utilize these data to determine in non-LSL households that experience to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or compliance, designate additional changes in CCT. provide information to or for a federal treatment controls to be installed, and establish enforceable operating Recordkeeping agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, parameters. The collected information is The EPA requests comment on the install, and utilize technology, and also necessary for public water systems. utility of States maintaining records of systems for the purposes of collecting, Public water systems would use these water system actions related to find- validating, and verifying information, data to demonstrate compliance, assess and-fix. processing and maintaining treatment options, operate and maintain VIII. Administrative Requirements information, and disclosing and installed treatment equipment, and providing information; adjust the communicate water quality information A. Executive Order 12866 Regulatory existing ways to comply with any to consumers served by the water Planning and Review and Executive previously applicable instructions and system. Primacy agencies would also be Order 13563: Improving Regulation and requirements; train personnel to be able required to report a subset of these data Regulatory Review to respond to a collection of to the EPA. The EPA would utilize the This action is an economically information; search data sources; information to protect public health by significant regulatory action that was complete and review the collection of ensuring compliance with the LCR, submitted to the Office of Management information; and transmit or otherwise measuring progress toward meeting the and Budget (OMB) for review. Any disclose the information. LCR’s goals, and evaluating the appropriateness of State implementation changes made in response to OMB The paperwork burden associated activities. No confidential information recommendations have been with this proposal consists of the would be collected as a result of this documented in the docket. The EPA burden imposed on systems to read and prepared an analysis of the potential ICR. understand the LCRR as well as the Respondents/affected entities: Data costs and benefits associated with this burden associated with certain new or action. This analysis, the Economic associated with this proposed ICR revised collections of information. would be collected and maintained at Analysis of the Proposed Lead and Specifically, public water systems will Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, XX), is the public water system, and by State have to assign personnel and devote and Federal governments. Respondents available in the docket and is resources in order to implement the summarized in section VI of this notice. would include owners and operators of rule. In addition, public water systems public water systems, who must report B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing will need to conduct training sessions to their primacy agency(s). Regulations and Controlling Regulatory and receive technical assistance from Respondent’s obligation to respond: If Cost their Primacy Agency during the proposed LCR is finalized, then the This action is expected to be an implementation of the LCRR. respondent’s obligation to respond Executive Order 13771 regulatory Furthermore, public water systems will would be mandatory. Section 1401(1)(D) action. Details on the estimated costs of have to develop a lead service line of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) this proposed rule can be found in the inventory or submit a demonstration to requires that ‘‘criteria and procedures to EPA’s analysis of the potential costs and the Primacy Agency that they do not assure a supply of drinking water which benefits associated with this action have lead service lines. For the public dependably complies with such summarized in section VI. water systems that have lead service maximum contaminant levels [or lines, a lead service replacement plan treatment techniques promulgated in C. Paperwork Reduction Act (From the will need to be developed. lieu of a maximum contaminant level]; Office of Mission Support’s Information Likewise, the paperwork burden for including accepted methods for quality Collection Request Center) (PRA) primacy agencies include reading and control and testing procedures to insure The information collection activities understanding the LCRR. The primacy compliance with such levels and to in this proposed rule have been agencies will have to adopt the rule and insure proper operation and submitted for approval to the OMB develop programs to implement the maintenance of the system. . .’’ under the PRA. The Information LCRR. This may result in the Primacy Furthermore, section 1445(a)(1)(A) of Collection Request (ICR) document that Agency modifying their data system the SDWA requires that ‘‘[e]very person the EPA prepared has been assigned the while implementing the LCRR. Also, the who is subject to any requirement of Agency’s ICR number 2040–NEW. Primacy Agency will have to provide this subchapter or who is a grantee, Under the Paperwork Reduction Act the Primacy Agency’s staff with training shall establish and maintain such (PRA), comments on the information and technical assistance during records, make such reports, conduct collection provisions are best assured of implementation of the LCRR. The such monitoring, and provide such consideration if the Office of Primacy Agency is also responsible for information as the Administrator may Management and Budget (OMB) reviewing demonstration of no lead reasonably require by regulation to receives a copy of your comments on or service lines from systems and assist the Administrator in establishing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61738 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

regulations under this subchapter, in The net change burden associated 19, 1998). As stated in that document, determining whether such person has with moving from the information the alternative definition would apply acted or is acting in compliance with requirements of the current rule to those to this regulation. this subchapter. . .’’ In addition, in the proposed LCRR over the three The SDWA is the core statute section 1413(a)(3) of the SDWA requires years covered by the ICR is 2.72 to 2.86 addressing drinking water at the Federal States to ‘‘keep such records and make million hours, for an average of 0.91 to level. Under the SDWA, the EPA sets such reports . . . as the Administrator 0.95 million hours per year. The range public health goals and enforceable may require by regulation.’’ reflects the upper- and lower-bound standards for drinking water quality. As Estimated number of respondents: If estimates of the number of systems that previously described, the LCR requires the proposed rule is finalized, the total need to develop LSL inventories. The water systems to minimize lead and number of respondents for the ICR total net change in costs over the three- copper in drinking water, primarily by would be 67,712. The total includes 56 year clearance period are $96.2 to 101.2 reducing water corrosivity and primacy agencies and 67,656 public million, for an average of $32.1 to $33.7 preventing the leaching of these metals water systems. million per year (simple average over from the premise plumbing and Frequency of Response: The average three years). drinking water distribution system burden per response (i.e., the amount of An agency may not conduct or components. The EPA is proposing time needed for each activity that sponsor, and a person is not required to regulatory revisions to strengthen public requires a collection of information) is respond to, a collection of information health protection and improve 8.15 to 8.41 hours; the average cost per unless it displays a currently valid OMB implementation in the following areas: response is $288 to $298. control number. The OMB control Tap sampling, corrosion control Total estimated burden: For the first numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 treatment; LSLR; consumer awareness; three years after the final rule is CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. and public education. published, water systems and primacy Submit your comments on the EPA’s The EPA identified over 65,000 small agencies will implement several need for this information, the accuracy public water systems that may be proposed rule requirements. Since, the of the provided burden estimates and impacted by the proposed LCR first three years of the rule focuses on any suggested methods for minimizing revisions. A small public water system the creation of inventories for lead respondent burden to the EPA using the serves between 25 and 10,000 people. service lines, households are not faced Docket ID. You may also send your ICR- These water systems include over with costs. The public water systems related comments to OMB’s Office of 45,758 community water systems that burden will include the following Information and Regulatory Affairs via serve year-round residents and more activities: Reading and understanding email to OIRA_submission@ than 17,566 non-transient non- the revised rule, personnel time for omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for community water systems that serve the attending trainings, clarifying regulatory the EPA. Since OMB is required to make same persons over six months per year requirements with the Primacy Agency a decision concerning the ICR between (e.g., a public water system that is an during rule implementation. Public 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must office park or church). The proposed water systems would also be required to receive comments no later than revisions to the LCR include create a lead service line (LSL) materials December 13, 2019. The EPA will requirements for: Conducting an LSL inventory and develop an initial lead respond to any ICR-related comments in inventory that is updated annually; service line replacement (LSLR) plan. the final rule. installing or re-optimizing corrosion The total burden hours for public water control treatment when water quality D. Regulatory Flexibility Act as systems ranges from 2.24 to 2.35 million declines; enhanced water quality Amended by the Small Business hours. The total cost for public water parameter monitoring; establishment of Regulatory Fairness Act (RFA) systems ranges from $68.3 to $72 a ‘‘find-and-fix’’ provision to evaluate million. For additional information on Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, and remediate elevated lead at a site the public water systems activity burden the EPA prepared an initial regulatory where the tap sample exceeds the lead see sections VI.C.3 and VI.C.4 of this flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines action level; and improved customer notice. the impact of the proposed rule on small outreach. These proposed revisions also The Primacy Agency burden for the entities along with regulatory include reporting and recordkeeping first three years of proposed rule alternatives that could minimize that requirements. States are required to implementation would include the impact. The complete IRFA is available implement operator certification (and following: Reading and understanding in Part 8.4 of the EA and is summarized recertification) programs per the SDWA the rule; adopting the rule and here. section 1419 to ensure operators of developing an implementation program; For purposes of assessing the impacts community water systems and non- modifying data recording systems; of this proposed rule on small entities, transient non-community water training staff; providing water system the EPA considered small entities to be systems, including small water system staff with initial and on-going technical water systems serving 10,000 people or operators, have the appropriate level of assistance and training; coordinating fewer. This is the threshold specified by certification. annual administration tasks with the Congress in the 1996 Amendments to Under the proposed rule EPA; reporting data to SDWIS/Fed; the SDWA for small water system requirements, small CWSs, serving reviewing public water system (PWS) flexibility provisions. As required by the 10,000 or fewer people, and all inventory data; and conferring with LSL RFA, the EPA proposed using this NTNCWS with a 90th percentile lead water systems on initial planning for alternative definition in the Federal value above the action level of 15 mg/L LSLR program activities. The total Register (FR) (63 FR 7620, February 13, may choose between LSLR, CCT burden hours for primacy agencies is 1998), sought public comment, installation, or POU device installation 485,821 to 508,207 hours. The total cost consulted with the Small Business and maintenance as the compliance for primacy agencies is $27.8 to $29.1 Administration, and finalized the small option. A fourth option available to million. See section VI.C.8 of this notice water system threshold in the Agency’s NTNCWSs, is the removal of all lead for additional discussion on burden and Consumer Confidence Report regulation bearing plumbing material from the cost to the Primacy Agency. (USEPA, 1998b, 63 FR 44524, August system was not analyzed in the EPA’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61739

cost-benefit model. The EPA is 1538, that may result in expenditures of Council of State Governments, the estimating low and high cost scenarios $100 million or more for State, local and National League of Cities, the U.S. to characterize uncertainty in the cost tribal governments, in the aggregate, or Conference of Mayors, the National model results. These scenarios are the private sector in any one year. Association of Counties, the functions of assigning different, low and Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a International City/County Management high, input values to a number of written statement required under Association, the National Association of variables that affect the relative cost of section 202 of UMRA. The statement is Towns and Townships, the County the small system compliance options. included in the docket for this action Executives of America, and the Under the current LCR, the EPA (see Chapter 8 in the Economic Analysis Environmental Council of States. estimates that, under the low cost of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Additionally, the EPA invited the scenario, 21,435 small CWSs will have Revisions (USEPA, 2019a)) and is Association of State Drinking Water annual total LCR related costs of more briefly summarized here. Administrators, the Association of than one percent of revenues, and that Consistent with the intergovernmental Metropolitan Water Agencies, the 10,599 of these small CWSs will have consultation provisions of UMRA National Rural Water Association, the annual total costs of three percent or section 204, the EPA consulted with American Water Works Association, the greater of revenue. Under the proposed governmental entities affected by this American Public Works Association, the LCRR, the number of small CWSs that rule. The EPA describes the National School Board Association, the will experience annual total costs of government-to-government dialogue and American Association of School more than one percent of revenues comments from State, local, and tribal Administrators, and the Western increases by 7,556 to 28,990 and the governments in section VIII.F Executive Governors’ Association to participate in number of small CWSs that will have Order 13132: Federalism and section the meeting. The EPA also provided the annual total costs exceeding three VIII.G Executive Order 13175: associations’ membership an percent of revenues increases by 7,051 Consultation and Coordination with opportunity to provide input during to 17,648. Under the high cost scenario, Indian Tribal Governments of this follow-up meetings. The EPA held five the EPA estimates that under the current notice. follow up meetings between January 8, LCR, 22,732 small CWSs will have Consistent with UMRA section 205, 2018, and March 8, 2018. In addition to annual total costs of more than one the EPA identified and analyzed a input received during the meetings, the percent of revenues, and that 12,127 of reasonable number of regulatory EPA provided an opportunity to receive these small CWSs will have annual total alternatives to determine the treatment written input within 60 days after the costs of three percent or greater of technique requirements in the proposed initial meeting. A summary report of the revenue. Under the proposed LCRR, the LCR revisions. Sections III, IV, and V of views expressed during Federalism number of small CWSs that will this notice describe the proposed consultations is available in the Docket experience annual total costs of more options. See section VI.F of this notice (EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0300). than one percent of revenues increases and Chapter 9 in the Economic Analysis G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation by 8,274 to 31,002 and the number of of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule and Coordination With Indian Tribal small CWSs that will have annual total Revisions (USEPA, 2019a)) for Governments costs of more than three percent of alternative options that were revenues increases by 7,749 to 19,873. considered. This action has tribal implications. See section 8.4 of the proposed LCRR This action may significantly or However, it will neither impose Economic Analysis for more uniquely affect small governments. The substantial direct compliance costs on information on the characterization of EPA consulted with small governments federally recognized tribal governments, the impacts under the proposed rule. concerning the regulatory requirements nor preempt tribal law as specified in The EPA has considered an alternative that might significantly or uniquely Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, approach to provide regulatory affect them. The EPA describes this November 9, 2000). Consistent with the flexibility to small water systems. consultation above in the Regulatory EPA Policy on Consultation and Section 8.4 of the LCRR Economic Flexibility Act (RFA), section VIII.D of Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4, Analysis contains an assessment of this notice. 2011), the EPA consulted with Tribal officials during the development of this impacts for an alternative option that F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism sets the threshold for system action to gain an understanding of compliance flexibility at systems The EPA has concluded that this Tribal views of potential revisions to serving 3,300 or fewer people. action has Federalism implications, as key areas of the LCR. The EPA held As required by section 609 (b) of the specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 consultations with federally-recognized RFA, the EPA also convened a Small FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it Indian Tribes in 2011 and 2018. The Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) imposes substantial direct compliance 2018 consultations with federally- Panel to obtain advice and costs on State or local governments. The recognized Indian Tribes began on recommendations from small entity EPA consulted with State and local January 16, 2018 and ended March 16, representatives that potentially would governments early in the process of 2018. The first national webinar was be subject to the rule’s requirements. developing the proposed action to allow held January 31, 2018, while the second The SBAR panel evaluated the them to provide meaningful and timely national webinar was held February 15, assembled materials and small-entity input into its development. The EPA 2018. A total of 48 tribal representatives comments on issues related to the held Federalism consultations on participated in the two webinars. elements of the IRFA. A copy of the full November 15, 2011, and on January 8, Updates on the consultation process SBAR panel report is available in the 2018. The EPA invited the following were provided to the National Tribal rulemaking docket. national organizations representing Water Council upon request at regularly State and local elected officials to a scheduled monthly meetings during the E. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act meeting on January 8, 2018, in consultation process. Also, upon (UMRA) Washington, DC: The National request, informational webinars were This action contains a Federal Governors’ Association, the National provided to the National Tribal Toxics mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531– Conference of State Legislatures, the Council’s Lead Subcommittee on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61740 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

January 30, 2018, and the EPA Region J. National Technology Transfer and decades of higher LSL usage. The 9’s Regional Tribal Operations Advancement Act of 1995 proposed LCR revisions seek to reduce Committee (RTOC) on February 8, 2018. The proposed revisions may involve the health risks of exposure to lead in Additionally, the EPA received written existing voluntary consensus standards drinking water provided by CWS and comments from the following Tribes in that it requires additional monitoring NTNCWS. Because water systems LSLs and Tribal organizations: The Navajo for lead and copper. Monitoring and are more likely to have an action level Tribal Utility Authority, the National sample analysis methodologies are often exceedance or a trigger level exceedance Tribal Water Council, the United South based on voluntary consensus and, therefore, engage in actions to and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty standards. However, the proposed LCR reduce lead concentrations, the Protection Fund, and the Yukon River revisions does not change any proposed revisions should help improve Inter-Tribal Watershed Council. A methodological requirements for the baseline environmental justice summary report of the views expressed monitoring or sample analysis. The concerns. during Tribal consultations is available EPA’s approved monitoring and The proposed LCR revisions are not in the Docket (EPA–HQ–OW–2017– sampling protocols generally include expected to have disproportionately 0300). voluntary consensus standards high and adverse human health or H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of developed by agencies such as the environmental effects on minority Children From Environmental Health American National Standards Institute populations and low-income and Safety Risks (ANSI) and other such bodies wherever populations. The proposed revisions should result in CCT and LSLR changes This action is subject to Executive the EPA deems these methodologies appropriate for compliance monitoring. at water systems with higher baseline Order 13045 because it is an lead concentrations. It increases the economically significant regulatory The EPA notes that in some cases, the proposed LCR revises the required level of health protection for all affected action as defined by Executive Order populations. The LSLR provision may 12866, and, based on the record, the frequency and number of lead tap samples. be less likely than the CCT provision to EPA finds that the environmental health address baseline health risk disparity or safety risk addressed by this action K. Executive Order 12898: Federal among low-income populations because has a disproportionate effect on Actions To Address Environmental LSLR may not be affordable for low- children. Accordingly, the EPA has Justice in Minority Populations and income households. evaluated the environmental health or Low-Income Populations However, there are Federal and State safety effects of lead found in drinking programs that may be used to fund water on children and estimated the risk Based on the record the EPA finds that this action does not have LSLR programs including the cost of reduction and health endpoint impacts LSLR for customer-owned LSLs. to children associated with the adoption disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects Financing support for lead reduction and optimization of corrosion control efforts may be available from State and treatment technologies and the on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, local governments, EPA programs (e.g., replacement of LSLs. The results of the Drinking Water State Revolving these evaluations are contained in the as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The Fund (DWSRF), the WIFIA Program, Economic Analysis of the Proposed and the Water Infrastructure Lead and Copper Rule Revisions documentation for this decision is contained in the Environmental Justice Improvements for the Nation Act of (USEPA, 2019a) and described in 2016 (WIIN Act) grant programs), and section VI.D.2 of this notice. Copies of Analysis for the Proposed Lead and other federal agencies (e.g., HUD’s the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Copper Revision Rule Report, which can Community Development Block Grants). Lead and Copper Rule Revisions and be found in the docket ID EPA–HQ– OW–2017–0300. Executive Order 12898 The benefit-cost analysis of the rule supporting information are available in indicates that CCT changes will account the Docket (EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0300). (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on for most of the benefits. Therefore, I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That environmental justice. Its main health risk reduction benefits will be Significantly Affect Energy Supply, provision directs Federal agencies, to more uniformly distributed among Distribution, or Use the greatest extent practicable and populations with high baseline health This action is not a ‘‘significant permitted by law, to make risks including minority and low- energy action’’ because it is not likely to environmental justice part of their income households. Also, given the have a significant adverse effect on the mission. Agencies must do this by availability of Federal and State funding supply, distribution or use of energy. identifying and addressing as sources to support full LSLR, the The public and private water systems appropriate any disproportionately high proposed LCR revisions meet the intent affected by this action do not, as a rule, and adverse human health or of the Federal policy requiring generate power. This action does not environmental effects of their programs, incorporation of environmental justice regulate any aspect of energy policies, and activities on minority into Federal agency missions. distribution as the water systems that populations and low-income L. Consultations With the Science are regulated by the LCR already have populations in the United States. Advisory Board and the National electrical service. Finally, The EPA has In evaluating baseline exposure to Drinking Water Advisory Council determined that the incremental energy lead in drinking water, data indicate used to implement corrosion control that the possibility of a 1. Consultation With the Science treatment at drinking water systems in disproportionately high and adverse Advisory Board (SAB) response to the proposed regulatory human health risk among minority As required by section 4365 of the requirements is minimal. As such, the populations and low-income SDWA, in 2011, the EPA sought an EPA does not anticipate that this rule populations exist. Higher than expected evaluation of current scientific data to will have a significant adverse effect on proportions of children in minority determine whether partial LSLR the supply, distribution, or use of households and/or low-income effectively reduce water lead levels. energy. households live in housing built during When the LCR was promulgated in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61741

1991, large water systems, serving partial LSLR, the EPA determined that anticipated costs in their capital greater than 50,000 people, were partial replacements should no longer improvement program or the requests required to install CCT and small and be required when water systems exceed for Drinking Water State Revolving medium water systems, serving 50,000 the action level for lead, but the EPA Funds. The LCRWG outlined an or fewer people if samples exceeded the still considers full replacement of the extensive list of recommendations for action level for lead. If the action level LSL as beneficial (USEPA, 2011). the LCR revisions, including was not met after installing CCT, water 2. Consultation With National Drinking establishing a goal-based LSLR program, systems are required to replace 7 Water Advisory Council strengthening CCT requirements, and percent of its LSLs annually. However, tailoring water quality parameters to the in 2000, revisions to the LCR allowed The National Drinking Water specific CCT plan for each water system. water systems, if they exceeded the Advisory Council (NDWAC) is a Federal The report NDWAC provided for the action level, to replace only the portion Advisory Committee that supports EPA EPA also included recommendations for of the LSL that the water system owned in performing its duties and renewed collaborative commitments and to replace the customer’s portion of responsibilities related to the national between government and all levels of the LSL at the customer’s expense. This drinking water program and was created the public from State and local agencies, practice is known as a partial LSLR. through a provision in the SDWA in to other stakeholders and consumers The EPA asked the SAB to evaluate 1974. The EPA sought advice from the while recognizing the EPA’s leadership the current scientific data on the NDWAC as required under § 300j–5 of role in this area. These complementary following five partial LSLR issues: (1) the SDWA. The EPA consulted with actions as well as a detailed description Associations between partial LSLR and NDWAC on July 21–22, 2011, to provide of the provisions for NDWAC’s blood lead levels in children; (2) lead updates on the proposed LCR revisions recommendations for the long-term tap water sampling data before and after and solicit feedback on potential revisions to the LCR can be found in the partial LSLR; (3) comparisons between regulatory options under consideration. ‘‘Report of the Lead and Copper Rule partial and full LSLR; (4) partial LSLR In November 2011, NDWAC held Working Group to the National Drinking techniques; and (5) the impact of deliberations on LSLR requirements Water Advisory Council’’ (NDWAC, galvanic corrosion. The EPA identified after they received the SAB’s final 2015). The EPA took into consideration several studies for the SAB to review report on the effectiveness of partial NDWAC’s recommendations when while the SAB selected additional LSLR. In December 2011, a public developing these proposed revisions to studies for their evaluation. The SAB meeting was held where NDWAC the LCR. deliberated and sought input from provided the EPA with major public meetings held on March 30 and recommendations on the potential LCR M. Consultation With Health and 31, 2011, and during a public regulatory revisions, which are outlined Human Services conference call on May 16, 2011. The in a letter dated December 23, 2011. On June 12, 2019, the EPA consulted SAB’s final report, titled ‘‘SAB In 2014, the NDWAC formed the Lead with the Department of Health and Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Partial and Copper Rule Working Group Human Services (HHS). The EPA Lead Service Line Replacements’’ was (LCRWG) to provide additional advice received and considered comments from approved by the SAB on July 19, 2011, to the EPA on potential options for long- the HHS through the inter-agency and transmitted to the EPA term regulatory revisions. The EPA held review process described in section Administrator on September 28, 2011. meetings from March of 2014 until VIII.A of this notice. The SAB determined that the quality December 2015 where NDWAC LCRWG and quantity of data was inadequate to members discussed components of the IX. References fully evaluate the effectiveness of partial rule and provided the EPA with advice LSLR in reducing drinking water lead for addressing the following issues: ANSI. (November 1, 2017). Replacement and concentrations. Both the small number Sample site collection criteria, lead Flushing of Lead Service Lines. AWWA sampling protocols, public education for C810–17 43810. First Edition. Denver, of studies and the limitations within CO: AWWA, 2017. these studies (i.e., lack of comparability copper, and measures to ensure optimal Association of State Drinking Water between studies, small sample size) CCT and LSLR. NDWAC provided the Administrators. (August 2019). barred a comprehensive assessment of Agency with their final Developing Lead Service Line partial LSLR efficacy. However, despite recommendations and findings in a Inventories Presented by the Association the limitations, the SAB concluded that report submitted to the Administrator in of State Drinking Water Administrators. partial LSLR’s have not been shown to December 2015. In the report, NDWAC Retrieved August 2019, from: https:// reliably reduce drinking water lead acknowledged that reducing lead www.asdwa.org/wp-content/uploads/ _ levels in the short-term of days to exposure is a shared responsibility 2019/08/ASDWA Developing-Lead- months, and potentially even longer. between consumers, the government, Service-Line-Inventories.pdf. public water systems, building owners, AWWA. 2017. Lead Service Line Additionally, partial LSLR is often Management. Retrieved September 3, associated with elevated drinking water and public health officials. In addition, 2019 from: https://www.awwa.org/ lead levels in the short-term. The they recognized that creative financing Policy-Advocacy/AWWA-Policy- available data suggested that the is necessary to reach the LSL removal Statements/Lead-Service-Line- elevated drinking water lead levels after goals, especially for disparate and Management. the partial LSLR tend to stabilize over vulnerable communities. The NDWAC AwwaRF. 2008. Contribution of Service Line time to lower than or to levels similar advised the EPA to maintain the LCR as and Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and to before the partial LSLR. Therefore, a treatment technique rule but with Copper Rule Compliance Issues. 978–1– the SAB concluded that available data enhanced improvements. NDWAC 60573–031–7. suggest that partial LSLR’s may pose a qualitatively considered costs before AwwaRF and DVGW-Technologiezentrum Wasser. 1996. Internal Corrosion of risk to the population due to short-term finalizing its recommendations, Water Distribution Systems. 2nd edition. elevations in drinking water lead emphasizing that public water systems AwwaRF Order 90508. Project #725. concentrations after a partial LSLR, and States should focus efforts where AWWA Research Foundation (now which last for an unknown period. the greatest public health protection can Water Research Foundation) and Considering the SAB’s findings on be achieved, incorporating their AWWA. Denver, CO.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61742 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Budtz-J

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61743

46(5), 300–305. doi:10.1080/ USEPA. 2008b. ‘‘National Ambient Air https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy- 00039896.1991.9934391. Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR data/estimated-total-nitrogen-and-total- Sherlock, J., Smart, G., Forbes, G.I., Moore, 66964. Pages 66964–67062. November phosphorus-loads-and-yields-generated- M.R., Patterson, W.J., Richards, W.N., & 2008 (to be codified at 40 CFR 51, 51, 53, within. Wilson, T.S. (1982). Assessment of lead and 58).’’ Retrieved from https:// USEPA. 2019a. Economic Analysis for the intakes and dose-response for a www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/ Proposed Lead and Copper Rule population in Ayr exposed to a 11/12/E8-25654/national-ambient-air- Revisions. plumbosolvent water supply. Hum quality-standards-for-lead. USEPA. 2019b. Estimated Total Nitrogen and Toxicol, 1(2), 115–122. USEPA. 2008c. Sanitary Survey Guidance Total Phosphorus Loads and Yields Slabaugh, R.M., R.B. Arnold, S. Chaparro, Manual for Ground Water Systems. EPA Generated within States. Retrieved from: and C.P. Hill. 2015. National Cost 815–R–08–015. October 2008. https:// https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy- Implications of Potential Long-Term LCR www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ data/estimated-total-nitrogen-and-total- Requirements. Journal American Water 2016-12/documents/gwr_sanitary_ phosphorus-loads-and-yields-generated- Works Association. 107(8):E389–E400. survey_guidance.pdf. within. State of California. 2016. Public water USEPA. 2010. Lead and Copper Rule USEPA. 2019c. Lead Service Line systems: lead user service lines. SB– Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Replacement Rate Analysis Workbook. 1398. Public Water Systems. EPA 816–R–10– Unpublished raw data. State of Illinois. 2017. 99th General 004. March 2010. https://nepis.epa.gov/ USEPA. 2019d. Strategies to Achieve Full Assembly. PA 99–0922. Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100DP2P.txt. Lead Service Line Replacement. State of Michigan. 2017. Supplying Water to USEPA. 2011. Science Advisory Board Weston, Roy F. and Economic and the Public, 2017–008 EQ. Drinking Water Committee Augmented Engineering Services, Inc. 1990. Final State of Ohio. 2016. 31st General Assembly. for the Review of the Effectiveness of Report: Lead Service Line Replacement A Adoption of Rules Relating to Water Partial Lead Service Line Replacements. Benefit-to-Cost Analysis. Denver, System Testing. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/ Colorado: American Water Works United States. America’s Water Infrastructure sites/production/files/2015-09/ Association. Act. 2018. documents/sab_evaluation_partial_lead_ The White House. 2019a. 2020 Budget Fact United States. Water Infrastructure service_lines_epa-sab-11-015.pdf. Sheet. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp- Improvements for the Nation Act. 2016. content/uploads/2019/03/FY20-Fact- USEPA. 2013. Integrated Science Assessment _ _ USEPA, 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection for Lead. (EPA/600/R–10/075F). Sheet Infrastructure FINAL.pdf Agency. Impact of Lead and Other Research Triangle Park, NC. The White House. 2019b. Remarks by Metallic Solders on Water Quality. USEPA. 2015. Benefit and Cost Analysis for President Trump on America’s Environmental Leadership. https:// Prepared by N.E. Murrell for USEPA the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and (February 1990). www.whitehouse.gov/briefings- Standards for the Steam Electric Power USEPA. 1991. ‘‘Drinking Water Regulations; statements/remarks-president-trump- Generating Point Source Category EPA– Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and americas-environmental-leadership/ 821–R–15–005. Retrieved from: https:// National Primary Drinking Water Wilczak, A.J., Hokanson, D.R., Rhodes www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Trussel, R., Boozarpour, M., and Degraca, 2015-10/documents/steam-electric_ Rule.’’ Federal Register, 40 CFR parts A. 2010. Water Conditioning for LCR benefit-cost-analysis_09-29-2015.pdf. 141 and 142. Vol. 56, No. 110. June 7, Compliance and Control of Metals 1991. USEPA. 2016a. National Lakes Assessment Release In San Francisco’s Water System. USEPA. 1999. Guidance Manual for 2012: A Collaborative Survey of Lakes in J. AWWA, 102(3):52–64. Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public the United States. Retrieved from: Zartarian, V., Xue, J., Tornero-Velez, R., & https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ Brown, J. 2017. Children’s Lead Water Systems; Surface Water and _ _ files/2016-12/documents/nla report Exposure: A Multimedia Modeling Ground Water Under the Direct _ Influence (GWUDI) of Surface Water. dec 2016.pdf. Analysis to Guide Public Health EPA 815–R–99–016. April 1999. https:// USEPA. 2016b. National Rivers and Streams Decision-Making. Environmental Health nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi? Assessment 2008–2009 Fact Sheet. Perspectives, 125(9). doi:10.1289/ Dockey=200022MT.txt. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/ EHP1605. sites/production/files/2016-03/ USEPA. 2003a. Final Revised Guidance _ _ _ _ Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper documents/fact sheet draft variation List of Subjects _ _ Control Strategies. Report No. EPA–816– march 2016 revision.pdf. USEPA. 2016c. Optimal Corrosion Control 40 CFR Part 141 National Primary R–03–001. U.S. Environmental Drinking Water Regulations Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Treatment Evaluation Technical http://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and- Recommendations for Primacy Agencies Environmental protection, Chemicals, copper-rule-compliance-help- and Public Water Systems (EPA–816–B– Indians—lands, Intergovernmental primacyagencies. 16–003) https://www.epa.gov/sites/ relations, Radiation protection, USEPA. 2003b. Recommendations of the production/files/2019-07/documents/ Reporting and recordkeeping occtmarch2016updated.pdf. Technical Review Workgroup for Lead requirements, Water supply. for an Approach to Assessing Risks USEPA. 2016d. Safe Drinking Water Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead Information System Federal Version 40 CFR Part 142 National Primary in Soil. Retrieved from https:// (SDWIS/Fed) Data Reporting Drinking Water Regulations semspub.epa.gov/work/06/199244.pdf. Requirements, v1.2. Office of Ground Implementation USEPA. 2004a. Integrated Risk Information Water and Drinking Water. March 2016. System (IRIS) Chemical Assessment USEPA. 2016e. WSG 197. U.S. Environmental protection, Summary for Lead and compounds Environmental Protection Agency. Administrative practice and procedure, (inorganic); CASRN 7439–92–1 (https:// Memorandum to Water Division Chemicals, Indians—lands, Radiation cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/ Directions, Regions I–X, from Peter C. protection, Reporting and recordkeeping documents/subst/0277_summary.pdf). Grevatt, Office of Ground Water & requirements, Water supply. USEPA. 2004b. U.S. EPA Lead Service Line Drinking Water. Clarification of Replacement Workshop Summary Recommended Tap Sampling Procedures Dated: October 10, 2019. Report. for Purposes of the Lead and Copper Andrew R. Wheeler, USEPA 2008a. Economic Analysis for the Rule (Feb. 29, 2016). Administrator. TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair and USEPA. 2018. Summary Report on Painting Program Final Rule for Target Federalism: Lead and Cooper Rule. For the reasons stated in the Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities. USEPA. 2019. Estimated Total Nitrogen and preamble, the Environmental Protection Office of Pollution Prevention and Total Phosphorus Loads and Yields Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part Toxics. Washington, DC. Generated within States. Retrieved from: 141 and part 142 as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61744 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY consumer in accordance with certified to remove lead in accordance DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS § 141.85(d). with applicable standards established First-draw sample means a one-liter by the American National Standards ■ 1. The authority citation for part 141 sample of tap water, collected in Institute. continues to read as follows: accordance with § 141.86(b)(2)., * * * * * Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g– * * * * * Potholing means the practice of 2, 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, Galvanized service line generally digging a test hole to expose a potential 300j–9, and 300j–11. means iron or steel piping that has been lead service line. ■ 2. Amend § 141.2 by: dipped in zinc to prevent corrosion and * * * * * ■ a. Revising the definition of ‘‘action rusting. Practical quantitation Limit (PQL) level’’; Gooseneck, pigtail or connector is a means the minimum concentration of an ■ b. Adding in alphabetical order the short section of piping, usually one to analyte (substance) that can be definitions of ‘‘aerator’’, ‘‘child care two feet long, which can be bent and measured with a high degree of facility’’, ‘‘consumer’’, ‘‘customer’’, and used for connections between rigid confidence that the analyte is present at ‘‘find-and-fix’’; service piping. or above that concentration. ■ c. Revising the definition for ‘‘first- * * * * * * * * * * draw sample’’; Hydrovacing means an alternative Pre-stagnation flushing is the running ■ d. Adding in alphabetical order the method to digging up a lead service line of taps to flush water from plumbing definitions of ‘‘galvanized service line’’, to identify it using high-pressure water prior to the minimum 6-hour stagnation ‘‘gooseneck, pigtail or connector’’, and and a vacuum system to dig a hole. period required for lead and copper tap ‘‘hydrovacing’’; * * * * * sampling. ■ e. Revising the definition of ‘‘lead Lead service line means a service line * * * * * service line’’; and made of lead, which connects the water Sampling period for the purpose of ■ f. Adding in alphabetical order the main to the building inlet. A lead subpart I of this part only means the definitions of ‘‘method detection limit’’; service line may be owned by the water time period, within a tap sampling ‘‘monitoring period (tap sampling)’’, system, owned by the property owner, monitoring period, during which the ‘‘pitcher filter’’; ‘‘potholing’’, ‘‘pre- or both. For the purposes of this water system is required to collect stagnation flushing’’; ‘‘sampling subpart, a galvanized service line is samples for lead and copper analysis. period’’, ‘‘school’’, ‘‘tap sampling considered a lead service line if it ever The annual sampling period must be protocol’’, ‘‘trenching’’, ‘‘trigger level’’, was or is currently downstream of any between the months of June and and ‘‘wide-mouth bottles’’. lead service line or service line of September, unless a different sampling The revisions and additions read as unknown material. If the only lead period is approved in writing to be more follows: piping serving the home or building is appropriate by the primacy agency. § 141.2 Definitions a lead gooseneck, pigtail, or connector, and it is not a galvanized service line * * * * * * * * * * that is considered an LSL the service School for the purpose of subpart I of Action level means the concentrations line is not a lead service line. this part only means any public, private, of lead or copper in water as specified charter or other location that provides in § 141.80(c) which determines, in * * * * * student learning for elementary or Medium-size water system, for the some cases, the treatment, lead service secondary students. purpose of subpart I of this part only, line replacement, and tap sampling * * * * * requirements that a water system is means a water system that serves greater than 10,000 and less than or equal to Small water system, for the purpose of required to complete. The action level subpart I of this part only, means a for lead is 0.015 mg/L and the action 50,000 persons. Method Detection Limit (MDL) means water system that serves 10,000 persons level for copper is 1.3 mg/L. or fewer. Aerator means the device embedded the minimum concentration of a * * * * * in the water faucet to enhance air flow substance that can be measured and Tap sampling protocol means the with the water stream and to prevent reporting with 99% confidence that the instructions given to residents or those splashing. analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined from analysis of sampling on behalf of the water system * * * * * a sample in a given matrix containing to conduct tap sampling for lead and Child care facility means a location the analyte. copper. Tap sampling protocols may not that houses a licensed provider of child Monitoring period for the purposes of include any instructions or care, day care or early learning services subpart I of this part only means the recommendations for pre-stagnation to children, as determined by the State, schedule during which each water flushing or removal or cleaning of faucet local, or tribal licensing agency. system must conduct tap sampling for aerators prior to sample collection. * * * * * lead and copper analysis. A monitoring * * * * * Consumer means customers and other period is determined by lead and copper Trenching is a method of excavation, users of a public water system. concentrations in tap samples and the in this case to identify a lead service * * * * * frequency can range from every six line, where a depression is dug that is Customer means a paying user of a months (i.e., semi-annual) up to once generally deeper than its width. public water system. every nine years. The start of each new Trigger level means a particular * * * * * lead monitoring period, with the concentration of contaminants in water Find-and-Fix means the requirement exception of semi-annual monitoring, as specified in § 141.80(c) that prompts in 141.82(j) that water systems must must begin on January 1. certain activities. The trigger level for perform at every sampling site that * * * * * lead is a concentration greater than yielded a lead result above the action Pitcher filter means the filtration 0.010 mg/L but less than or equal to level (0.015 mg/L). Follow-up sampling insert for water pitchers that removes 0.015 mg/L. The trigger level for lead results must be provided to the lead in drinking water, and that is determines the treatment, lead service

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61745

line replacement, and tap sampling AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF (1) The lead trigger level is exceeded requirements applicable to each water THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal if the 90th percentile concentration of system. Register]. lead as specified in (c)(4) of this section * * * * * (3) Community water systems and is greater than 0.010 mg/L. Wide-mouth bottles for the purpose of non-transient, non-community water (2) The lead action level is exceeded subpart I of this part only means bottles systems must comply with the if the 90th percentile concentration of configured with a mouth that is at least requirements of this subpart no later lead as specified in (c)(4) of this section 55 mm wide, required to be used for than [DATE THREE YEARS AFTER is greater than 0.015 mg/L. lead and copper tap sampling collection PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE (3) The copper action level is to optimize capturing accurate lead IN THE Federal Register], except where exceeded if the 90th percentile measurements. otherwise specified at §§ 141.81, 141.84, concentration of copper as specified in (c)(4) of this section is greater than 1.3 * * * * * 141.85, 141.86, and 141.90, or where an ■ exemption in accordance with 40 CFR mg/L. 3. Amend § 141.31 to revise paragraph (4) For purposes of this subpart, the (d)(1) to read as follows: 142 at subpart C or F has been established by the Administrator. 90th percentile concentration shall be § 141.31 Reporting requirements. (4)(i) Between [DATE 60 DAYS computed as follows: (i) For systems that do not have lead * * * * * AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE service line sites and only have sites (d)(1) The public water system, within IN THE Federal Register] and [DATE 3 identified as Tier 3 or 4 under 10 days of completing the public YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], § 141.86(a). notification requirements under subpart (A) The results of all lead or copper community water systems and non- Q of this part for the initial public samples taken during a monitoring transient, non-community water notice and any repeat notices, must period shall be placed in ascending systems must comply with 40 CFR submit to the primacy agency a order from the sample with the lowest 141.80 through 141.90 as promulgated certification that it has fully complied concentration to the sample with the in 56 FR 26548, June 7, 1991; 57 FR with the public notification regulations. highest concentration. Each sampling 28788, June 29, 1992; 59 FR 33862, June For Tier 2 and 3 notices, the public result shall be assigned a number, 30, 1994; 65 FR 2004, January 12, 2000; water system must include with this ascending by single integers beginning 72 FR 57814, October 10, 2007. certification a representative copy of with the number 1 for the sample with (ii) If an exemption from Subpart I has each type of notice distributed, the lowest contaminant level. The been issued in accordance with 40 CFR published, posted, and made available number assigned to the sample with the 142 subpart C or F, then the water to the persons served by the system and highest contaminant level shall be equal systems must comply with 40 CFR to the media. (2) For Tier 1 notices to the total number of samples taken. public water systems must provide a 141.80 through 141.90 as promulgated (B) The number of samples taken copy of any Tier 1 notice to the in 56 FR 26548, June 7, 1991; 57 FR during the monitoring period shall be Administrator and the head of the 28788, June 29, 1992; 59 FR 33862, June multiplied by 0.9. Primacy Agency as soon as practicable, 30, 1994; 65 FR 2004, January 12, 2000; (C) The contaminant concentration in but not later than 24 hours after the 72 FR 57814, October 10, 2007 until the the numbered sample yielded by the public water system learns of the expiration of that exemption. calculation in paragraph (c)(4)(i)(B) of violation or exceedance. (b) Scope. These regulations establish this section is the 90th percentile * * * * * a treatment technique that includes concentration. ■ 4. Amend § 141.80 by: requirements for corrosion control (D) For water systems serving fewer ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), treatment, source water treatment, lead than 100 people that collect 5 samples (d)(1) and (f); service line inventory, lead service line per monitoring period, the 90th ■ b. Adding paragraph (d)(3); replacement, public notice, monitoring percentile concentration is the average ■ c. Revising paragraph (g); for lead in schools and child care of the highest and second highest ■ e. Redesignating paragraph (k) as facilities, and public education. Several concentration. paragraph (m); of these requirements are prompted by (E) For a public water system that has ■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (h) the lead and copper action levels or the been allowed by the State to collect through (j) as paragraphs (i) through (k); lead trigger level, specified in paragraph fewer than five samples in accordance and (c) of this section, as measured in with § 141.86(c), the sample result with ■ f. Adding new paragraphs (h) and (1). samples collected at consumers’ taps. the highest concentration is considered The revisions and additions read as All community water systems are the 90th percentile value. follows: subject to sampling for lead in schools (ii) For public water systems with and child care facilities and public lead service lines with sites identified as § 141.80 General requirements. education requirements regardless of the Tier 1 or 2 under § 141.86(a) with (a) Applicability, effective date, and results of the compliance tap sampling. enough Tier 1 or 2 sites to meet the compliance deadlines. The (c) Lead trigger level, lead action level, minimum number of sites listed in requirements of this subpart constitute and copper action level. Trigger levels § 141.86(c): the National Primary Drinking Water and action levels must be determined (A) The results of all lead or copper Regulations for lead and copper. based on tap water samples collected in samples taken at Tier 1 or Tier 2 sites (1) The provisions of this subpart accordance with the monitoring during a monitoring period shall be apply to community water systems and requirements of § 141.86 and tested placed in ascending order from the non-transient, non-community water using the analytical methods specified sample with the lowest concentration to systems (hereinafter referred to as in § 141.89. The trigger level and action the sample with the highest ‘‘water systems’’ or ‘‘systems’’) as levels described in this paragraph are concentration. Sample results from Tier defined at 40 CFR 141.2. applicable to all sections of subpart I. 3 and Tier 4 sites shall not be included (2) The requirements of this subpart Trigger level and action levels for lead in this calculation. Each sampling result are effective as of [DATE 60 DAYS and copper are as follows: shall be assigned a number, ascending

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61746 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

by single integers beginning with the with § 141.86(c), the sample result with (l) Testing in schools and child care number 1 for the sample with the lowest the highest concentration is considered facilities. All water systems must collect contaminant level. The number assigned the 90th percentile value. samples from all schools and child care to the sample with the highest (d) Corrosion control requirements. (1) facilities within its distribution system contaminant level shall be equal to the All water systems shall install and in accordance with § 141.92. total number of samples taken. operate corrosion control treatment in (m) Violation of national primary (B) The number of samples taken at accordance with §§ 141.81 and 141.82, drinking water regulations. Failure to Tier 1 or Tier 2 sites during the and that meets the definition of optimal comply with the applicable monitoring period shall be multiplied corrosion control treatment at § 141.2 of requirements of §§ 141.80 through by 0.9. this chapter. 141.93, including requirements (C) The contaminant concentration in * * * * * established by the State pursuant to the numbered sample yielded by the (3) Any small water system that these provisions, shall constitute a calculation in paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(B) of complies with the applicable small violation of the national primary this section is the 90th percentile system compliance flexibility drinking water regulations for lead and/ concentration. requirements specified by the State or copper. (D) For water systems serving fewer under § 141.81 and § 141.93 shall be ■ 5. Revise § 141.81 to read as follows: than 100 people that collect 5 samples deemed in compliance with the per monitoring period, the 90th § 141.81 Applicability of corrosion control treatment requirement in paragraph treatment steps to small, medium, and large percentile concentration is the average (d)(1) of this section. of the highest and second highest water systems. concentration. * * * * * (a) Corrosion control treatment. Water (E) For a public water system that has (f) Lead service line replacements. systems shall complete the applicable been allowed by the State to collect Lead service line replacements must be corrosion control treatment fewer than five samples in accordance conducted as follows: requirements described in § 141.82 by with § 141.86(c), the sample result with (1) Any water system exceeding the the deadline established in this section. the highest concentration is considered lead action level specified at (c) of this (1) Large water system (serving the 90th percentile value. section must complete mandatory lead >50,000 people). (iii) For systems with lead service service line replacement. Lead service (i) Large water systems with corrosion lines with sites identified as Tier 1 or 2 line replacement must be conducted in control treatment that exceed either the under § 141.86(a) with insufficient accordance with § 141.84 and must lead trigger level or copper action level number of Tier 1 or 2 sites to meet the include public education pursuant to shall complete the corrosion control minimum number of sites listed in § 141.85. treatment steps specified in paragraph § 141.86(c): (2) Any water system exceeding the (d) of this section. (A) The results of all lead or copper lead trigger level specified at (c) of this (ii) Large water systems without samples taken at Tier 1 or Tier 2 sites section must complete goal-based lead corrosion control treatment that exceed along with the highest results from Tier service line replacement pursuant to either the lead trigger level or the 3 or Tier 4 sites sufficient to meet the § 141.84 and public education pursuant copper action level shall complete the minimum number of sites shall be to § 141.85. corrosion control treatment steps placed in ascending order from the (g) Service line inventory. All water specified in paragraph (e) of this sample with the lowest concentration to systems must prepare an inventory of section. the sample with the highest service lines connected to its (iii) Large water systems with concentration. Sample results from any distribution system, whether or not they corrosion control treatment that do not remaining Tier 3 and Tier 4 sites shall are owned or controlled by the water exceed the lead trigger level and copper not be included in this calculation. Each system, to identify those service lines action level but are not deemed to have sampling result shall be assigned a that are made of lead or of unknown optimized corrosion control under number, ascending by single integers material. The inventory must be paragraph (b)(3) of this section may be beginning with the number 1 for the prepared in accordance with § 141.84(a). required by the State to complete the sample with the lowest contaminant (h) Public education and notification corrosion control treatment steps in level. The number assigned to the requirements. Pursuant to § 141.85(d), paragraph (d) of this section. sample with the highest contaminant all water systems must provide (iv) Large water systems without level shall be equal to the total notification of lead tap water monitoring corrosion control treatment that do not minimum number of sites listed in results to persons served at the sites exceed the lead trigger level and copper § 141.86(c). (taps) that are tested. In addition: action level but are not deemed to have (B) The required minimum number of (1) Any water system exceeding the optimized corrosion control under sites listed in § 141.86(c) shall be lead action level specified at (c) of this paragraph (b)(3) of this section may be multiplied by 0.9. section shall implement the public required by the State to complete the (C) The contaminant concentration in education requirements in accordance corrosion control treatment steps in the numbered sample yielded by the with § 141.85(a) and (b). paragraph (e) of this section. calculation in paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(B) is (2) Any water system exceeding the (2) Medium-size water systems the 90th percentile concentration. lead trigger level specified at (c) of this (serving >10,000 and ≤50,000 people). (D) For water systems serving fewer section shall provide notification to all (i) Medium-size water systems with than 100 people that collect 5 samples customers with a lead service line in corrosion control treatment that exceed per monitoring period, the 90th accordance with § 141.85(f). either the lead trigger level or copper percentile concentration is the average (3) Any water system exceeding the action level shall complete the corrosion of the highest and second highest lead action level specified at (c) of this control treatment steps specified in concentration. section shall notify the public in paragraph (d) of this section. (E) For a public water system that has accordance with the public notification (ii) Medium-size water systems been allowed by the State to collect requirements in subpart Q of this part. without corrosion control treatment that fewer than five samples in accordance * * * * * exceed either the lead or copper action

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61747

level shall complete the corrosion (1) A small or medium-size water (iii) Any water system deemed to have control treatment steps specified in system is deemed to have optimized optimized or re-optimized corrosion paragraph (e) of this section. corrosion control if the water system control pursuant to this paragraph shall (iii) Medium-size water systems does not exceed the lead trigger level notify the State in writing pursuant to without corrosion control treatment that and copper action level during two § 141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming long- exceed the lead trigger level shall consecutive 6-month monitoring term change in treatment or addition of complete the treatment recommendation periods conducted in accordance with a new source as described in § 141.90. steps specified in paragraph (e) of this § 141.86(b) and (d)(i) or does not exceed The State must review and approve the section. The water system shall the lead trigger level and copper action addition of a new source or long-term complete the remaining steps in level in monitoring conducted in change in water treatment before it is paragraph (e) of this section if it accordance with § 141.86(b) and implemented by the water system. The subsequently exceeds either the lead or (d)(ii)(C) or (D). A small or medium-size State may require any such water copper action level. water system is deemed to have re- system to conduct additional (3) Small water systems (serving optimized corrosion control if the water monitoring or to take other action the ≤10,000 people). system does not exceed the lead trigger State deems appropriate to ensure that (i) Small water systems with corrosion level and copper action level during two such water system maintains minimal control treatment that exceed either the consecutive 6-month monitoring levels of corrosion control in its lead trigger level or copper action level periods conducted in accordance with distribution system. shall complete the corrosion control § 141.86. (iv) A water system is not deemed to treatment steps specified in paragraph (2) Small or medium-size systems that have optimized or re-optimized (d) of this section. exceed the lead trigger level but do not corrosion control under this paragraph (ii) Small water systems without exceed the lead and copper action levels and shall implement corrosion control corrosion control treatment that exceed during two consecutive 6-month treatment pursuant to (b)(3)(v) of this section unless it meets the copper action either the lead or copper action level monitoring periods conducted in accordance with § 141.86(b) and (d)(i) or level. shall complete the corrosion control small or medium-size systems that (v) Any water system triggered into treatment steps specified in paragraph exceed the lead trigger level but do not corrosion control because it is no longer (e) of this section. exceed the lead and copper action levels deemed to have optimized or re- (iii) Small water systems without in monitoring conducted in accordance optimized corrosion control under this corrosion control treatment that exceed with § 141.86(d)(1)(ii)(B). A small or paragraph shall implement corrosion the lead trigger level shall complete the medium-size water system is deemed to control treatment in accordance with treatment recommendation steps have re-optimized corrosion control if the deadlines in paragraph (d) or (e) of specified in paragraph (e) of this the water system does not exceed the this section. The time period for section. The water system shall lead trigger level and copper action completing each step shall be triggered complete the remaining steps in level during two consecutive 6-month by the date the sampling was conducted paragraph (e) of this section, if it monitoring periods conducted in showing that the water system no longer subsequently exceeds either the lead or accordance with § 141.86. meets the requirements to be deemed to copper action level. (i) Water systems without corrosion have optimized or re-optimized (b) Optimized corrosion control. A control treatment must complete the corrosion control under this paragraph. system is deemed to have optimized or treatment recommendation step to be (4) Any small system selecting a small re-optimized corrosion control and is deemed optimized under this section. system compliance option shall monitor not required to complete the applicable (ii) Water systems with corrosion and follow the small system option corrosion control re-optimization steps control treatment are deemed optimized steps described in § 141.93. identified in this section if the system or re-optimized if the system meets the (c) Corrosion control steps completion satisfies one of the criteria specified in requirements of this section and the for small and medium-size water (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section. Any State has not required the system to systems without corrosion control such system deemed to have optimized meet optimal water quality parameters treatment. (1) Any small or medium-size corrosion control under this paragraph and monitor under § 141.87(d). water system that is required to and which has treatment in place shall (3) Any water system is deemed to complete the corrosion control steps in continue to operate and maintain have optimized or re-optimized paragraph (e) of this section due to its optimal corrosion control treatment and corrosion control if it submits results of exceedance of the lead or copper action meet any requirements that the State tap water monitoring in accordance level may cease completing the determines to be appropriate to ensure with § 141.86 demonstrating that the treatment steps after paragraph (e), Step optimal corrosion control treatment is 90th percentile tap water lead level is 2 of this section, when the water system maintained. Any small community less than or equal to the practical meets both action levels during each to water system or Non-transient Non- quantitation level of 0.005 mg/L for two two consecutive 6-month monitoring community water system selecting a consecutive 6-month monitoring periods conducted pursuant to § 141.86 small system option under paragraph periods. and submits the results to the State. Any (b)(4) of this section shall follow the (i) [Reserved]. such system required to conduct a schedule for that small system option (ii) Any water system deemed to have corrosion control treatment study under under § 141.81(f). Any small system optimized or re-optimized corrosion paragraph (e), Step 3 of this section, selecting a small system option under control in accordance with this shall complete the study and paragraph § 141.93 and which has treatment in paragraph shall continue monitoring for (e), Step 4 of this section, unless the place shall continue to operate and lead and copper at the tap no less water system meets both action levels maintain optimal corrosion control frequently than once every three during each of two consecutive six- treatment and meet any requirements calendar years using the reduced month monitoring periods prior to the that the State determines to be number of sites specified in § 141.86(c) start of the study. If any such water appropriate to ensure optimal corrosion and collecting samples at times and system thereafter exceeds the lead or control treatment is maintained. locations specified in § 141.86(d)(4)(iv). copper action level during any

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61748 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

monitoring period, the water system (or the lead trigger level or copper action (4) Step 4. (i) The State shall designate the State) shall recommence completion level. re-optimized corrosion control of the applicable treatment steps, (d) Treatment steps and deadlines for treatment (§ 141.82(d)(3)) within six beginning with the first treatment step water systems re-optimizing corrosion months after completion of paragraph which was not previously completed in control treatment. Except as provided in (d)(3)(i), Step 3 of this section. its entirety, and complete all the steps paragraph (b) of this section, water (ii) If the water system has performed through installation of optimal systems with corrosion control corrosion control studies under corrosion control treatment (paragraph treatment shall complete the following paragraph (d), Step 2 of this section, the (e), Step 5 of this section). The State corrosion control treatment steps State shall designate re-optimized may require a water system to repeat (described in the referenced portions of corrosion control treatment treatment steps previously completed by §§ 141.82, 141.86 and 141.87) by the (§ 141.82(d)(3) or (4) within six months the water system when the State indicated time periods. after completion of paragraph (d), Step 3(ii) of this section. determines that this is necessary to (1) Step 1. The water system shall complete the initial tap sampling (5) Step 5. (i) Large water systems implement the treatment requirements shall complete modifications to of this section. The State shall notify the (§ 141.86(d)(1) and § 141.87(b)) until the water system either exceeds the lead corrosion control treatment to have re- system in writing of such a optimized corrosion control treatment determination and explain the basis for trigger level or copper action level or becomes eligible for reduced monitoring installed within 12 months after its decision. The requirement for any completion of paragraph (d), Step 4(i) of small or medium-size water system to under § 141.86(d)(4)(ii)(A). A water system exceeding the lead trigger level this section. implement corrosion control treatment (ii) Small or medium-size water or copper action level shall recommend steps in accordance with paragraph (e) systems that exceed the lead trigger optimal corrosion control treatment of this section (including water systems level or copper action level shall install (§ 141.82(a)(5) or (6) or (7)) within six deemed to have optimized corrosion re-optimized corrosion control months after the end of the monitoring control under paragraph (b)(1) of this treatment (§ 141.82(e)(3) or (4)) within period during which it exceeds either section) is triggered whenever any small 12 months after completion of the lead trigger level or copper action or medium-size water system exceeds paragraph (d), Step 4(ii) of this section. level. the lead or copper action level. (6) Step 6. Water systems shall (2) Step 2. (i) Large water systems that (2) Any small or medium-size water complete follow-up sampling exceed the lead trigger level or copper (§ 141.86(d)(2) and § 141.87(c)) within system that is required to complete the action level shall conduct the corrosion corrosion control steps in paragraph (e) 12 months after completion of control studies for re-optimization paragraph (d), Step 5(i) or (ii) of this of this section due to its exceedance of under paragraph (d), Step 3 of this the lead trigger level may cease section. section. (7) Step 7. The State shall review the completing the treatment steps after (ii) Within 12 months after the end of paragraph (e), Step 2 of this section. water system’s installation of treatment the monitoring period during which a and designate optimal water quality Any such system required to conduct a small or medium-size water system with control parameters (§ 141.82(f)(1)) corrosion control treatment study under corrosion control treatment exceeds the within six months of completion of paragraph (e), Step 3 of this section, lead trigger level or copper action level, paragraph (d)(6), Step 6 of this section. shall complete the study and paragraph the State may require the water system (8) Step 8. The water system shall (e), Step 4 of this section. If any such to perform corrosion control studies for operate in compliance with the State- water system thereafter exceeds the lead re-optimization (§ 141.81(d)(2) or (3)). If designated optimal water quality control or copper action level during any the State does not require the system to parameters (§ 141.82(g)(1)) and continue monitoring period, the water system (or perform such studies, the State shall to conduct tap sampling (§ 141.86(d)(3) the State) shall recommence completion specify re-optimized corrosion control and water quality parameter monitoring of the applicable treatment steps, treatment (§ 141.82(d)(3) or (4)) within under § 141.87(d)). beginning with the first treatment step the following timeframes: (e) Treatment steps and deadlines for which was not previously completed in (A) For medium-size water systems, small and medium-size systems without its entirety and complete all the steps within 12 months after the end of the corrosion control treatment. Except as through installation of optimal monitoring period during which such provided in paragraph (b) of this corrosion control treatment paragraph water system exceeds the lead trigger section, small and medium-size water (e), (Step 5) of this section. The State level or copper action level. systems without corrosion control may require a water system to repeat (B) For small water systems, within 18 treatment shall complete the following treatment steps previously completed by months after the end of the monitoring corrosion control treatment steps the water system when the State period during which such water system (described in the referenced portions of determines that this is necessary to exceeds the lead trigger level or copper §§ 141.82, 141.86 and 141.87) by the implement the treatment requirements action level. indicated time periods. of this section. The State shall notify the (3) Step 3. (i) Large water systems that (1) Step 1. The water system shall system in writing of such a exceed the lead trigger level or copper complete the initial tap sampling determination and explain the basis for action level shall complete the corrosion (§ 141.86(d)(1) and § 141.87(b)) until the its decision. The requirement for any control treatment studies for re- water system either exceeds the lead small or medium-size water system to optimization within 18 months. trigger level or copper action level or implement corrosion control treatment (ii) If the State requires a water system becomes eligible for reduced monitoring steps in accordance with paragraph (e) to perform corrosion control studies under § 141.86(d)(4)(i)(A) or (B). A of this section (including water systems under paragraph (d), Step 2 of this water system exceeding the lead trigger deemed to have optimized corrosion section, the water system shall complete level or copper action level shall control under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this the studies (§ 141.82(c)(1)) within 18 recommend optimal corrosion control section) is triggered whenever any small months after the State requires that such treatment (§ 141.82(a)(1) or (2) or (3) or or medium-size water system exceeds studies be conducted. (4)) within six months after the end of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61749

the monitoring period during which it (f) Treatment steps and deadlines for compliance flexibility options under exceeds either the lead trigger level or small community water systems and § 141.93. copper action level. Non-transient Non-community water (iii) Non-transient, non-community (2) Step 2. Within 12 months after the systems using small system compliance water systems using the replacement of end of the monitoring period during flexibility options under § 141.93. lead-bearing materials option under which a water system exceeds the lead Small water systems selecting the § 141.93(d)(4). trigger level or copper action level, the corrosion control small system (A) Non-transient, non-community State may require the water system to compliance flexibility option shall water systems with lead service lines perform corrosion control studies complete the following steps by the shall replace the lead service line within (§ 141.82(b)(1)); the State shall notify the indicated time periods. one year after State approval under Step system in writing of this requirement. If (1) Step 1. The water system shall 2 and shall complete the replacement of the State does not require the system to complete the initial tap sampling other lead-bearing materials on a perform such studies, the State shall (§ 141.86(d)(1) and § 141.87(b)) until the schedule not to exceed one year after specify optimal corrosion control water system either exceeds the lead State approval under paragraph (f), Step treatment (§ 141.82(d)(1) or (2)) within trigger level or copper action level or 2 of this section, or a shorter schedule the following timeframes: becomes eligible for reduced monitoring if specified by the State. (i) For medium-size water systems, under § 141.86(d)(4)(i)(A) or (B). A (B) Non-transient, non-community within 18 months after the end of the water system exceeding the lead trigger water systems without lead service lines monitoring period during which such level or copper action level shall shall complete the replacement of lead- water system exceeds the lead trigger recommend a small system compliance bearing material within one year after level or copper action level. flexibility option (§ 141.93(a) or (b)) State approval under paragraph (f), Step (ii) For small water systems, within 24 within six months after the end of the 2 of this section, or a shorter schedule months after the end of the monitoring monitoring period during which it if specified by the State. ■ period during which such water system exceeds either the lead trigger level or 6. Revise § 141.82 to read as follows: exceeds the lead trigger level or copper copper action level. (2) Step 2. The State shall approve in § 141.82 Description of corrosion control action level. treatment requirements. writing the recommended small system (3) Step 3. If the State requires a water Each system shall complete the system to perform corrosion control treatment option or designate another small system treatment option or require corrosion control treatment studies under paragraph (e), Step 2 of requirements described as follows, this section, the water system shall the water system to optimize or re- optimize corrosion control treatment which are applicable to such system complete the studies (§ 141.82(c)(1)) under § 141.81. within 18 months after the State notifies within six months of completion of paragraph (f), Step 1 of this section. (a) System recommendation regarding the system in writing that such studies corrosion control treatment. (1) Based must be conducted. Water systems required by the State to optimize or re-optimize corrosion upon the results of lead and copper tap (4) Step 4. If the water system has sampling and water quality parameter performed corrosion control studies control treatment shall follow the schedules in paragraphs (d) or (e) of this monitoring, large systems without under paragraph (e), Step 2 of this corrosion control treatment that exceed section, the State shall designate section. (3) Step 3. (i) Small water systems the lead trigger level or medium-size optimal corrosion control treatment using the lead service line replacement water systems without corrosion control (§ 141.82(d)(1) or (2)) within six months compliance flexibility option under treatment that exceed either the lead or after completion of paragraph (e), Step § 141.93. copper action level shall recommend 3 of this section. (A) Small water systems shall begin designation of one or more of the (5) Step 5. Any water system that the lead service line replacement corrosion control treatments listed in exceeds the lead or copper action level program and must begin to replace lead paragraph (c)(1) of this section as the after the State designates optimal service line lines at a rate approved by optimal corrosion control treatment for corrosion control treatment under the State within one year after State that system. The State may require the paragraph (e), Step 4 of this section approval under paragraph (f), Step 2 of system to conduct additional water shall install optimal corrosion control this section. quality parameter monitoring in treatment (§ 141.82(e)(1) or (2)) within (B) Small water systems shall accordance with § 141.87(b) to assist the 24 months. continue to replace lead service lines at State in reviewing the system’s (6) Step 6. The system shall complete a rate approved by the State and shall recommendation. Large systems must follow-up sampling (§ 141.86(d)(2)(i) complete replacement of all lead service complete the study in paragraph (c)(1) and § 141.87(c) within 12 months after lines no later than 15 years after of this section. completion of paragraph (e), Step 5 of commencement of the program. (2) Based upon the results of lead and this section. (ii) Small water systems using the copper tap sampling and water quality (7) Step 7. The State shall review the point-of-use (POU) device compliance parameter monitoring, small water water system’s installation of treatment flexibility option under § 141.93. systems without corrosion control and designate optimal water quality (A) Small water systems shall install treatment that exceed the lead or copper control parameters (§ 141.82(f)(1)) POU devices at the locations listed in action level shall recommend within six months of completion of § 141.93 on a schedule not to exceed designation of one or more of the paragraph (e), Step 6 of this section. one year after State approval under corrosion control treatments listed in (8) Step 8. The water system shall paragraph (f), Step 2 of this section, or paragraph (c)(1) of this section as the operate in compliance with the State- a shorter schedule if specified by the optimal corrosion control treatment for designated optimal water quality control State. that system or one of the small system parameters (§ 141.82(g)(1)) and continue (B) Small water systems shall operate options listed in paragraph § 141.93. to conduct tap sampling (§ 141.86(d)(3) and maintain the POU devices until the The State may require the system to and water quality parameter monitoring water system receives State approval to conduct additional water quality under § 141.87(d)). select one of the other small system parameter monitoring in accordance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61750 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

with § 141.87(b) to assist the State in complete the study in paragraph (c)(2) treatment studies under paragraph (c)(3) reviewing the system’s of this section. of this section to identify re-optimized recommendation. (6) Based upon the results of lead and optimal corrosion control treatment for (3) Based upon the results of lead and copper tap sampling and water quality the system (i.e. optimal corrosion copper tap sampling and water quality parameter monitoring, any small system control treatment after a re-optimization parameter monitoring, any medium-size with corrosion control treatment evaluation). water systems without corrosion control exceeding an action level shall (c) Performance of corrosion control treatment exceeding the lead trigger recommend designation of one or more studies. (1) Water systems without level shall recommend designation of of the corrosion control treatments corrosion control that are conducting one or more of the corrosion control listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this section corrosion control studies shall complete treatments listed in paragraph (c)(1) of as the optimal corrosion control for that the following: this section as the optimal corrosion system or State approval of one of the (i) Any water system without control treatment for that system. This small system options listed in paragraph corrosion control treatment shall corrosion control treatment shall be § 141.93. The State may require the evaluate the effectiveness of each of the installed if the lead or copper action system to conduct additional water following treatments, and if appropriate, level is subsequently exceeded. The quality parameter monitoring in combinations of the following State may require the system to conduct accordance with § 141.87(b) to assist the treatments to identify the optimal additional water quality parameter State in reviewing the system’s corrosion control treatment for the monitoring in accordance with recommendation. system: § 141.87(b) to assist the State in (7) Based upon the results of lead and (A) Alkalinity and pH adjustment; reviewing the system’s copper tap sampling and water quality (B) The addition of an recommendation. parameter monitoring, any small system orthophosphate- or silicate-based with corrosion control treatment (4) Based upon the results of lead and corrosion inhibitor at a concentration exceeding the lead trigger level shall copper tap sampling and water quality sufficient to maintain an effective recommend designation of one or more parameter monitoring, any small water residual concentration in all test tap of the corrosion control treatments system without corrosion control samples; listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this section (C) The addition of an treatment exceeding the lead trigger as the optimal corrosion control orthophosphate-based corrosion level shall recommend designation of treatment for that system or State inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to one or more of the corrosion control approval of one of the small system maintain a 1 mg/L orthophosphate treatments listed in paragraph (c)(1) of options listed in paragraph § 141.93. residual concentration in all tap test this section as the optimal corrosion This corrosion control treatment or samples, and; control treatment for that system or small system option shall be (D) The addition of an shall recommend State approval to elect implemented if the lead or copper orthophosphate-based corrosion one of the small system compliance action level is subsequently exceeded. inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to options listed in paragraph § 141.93. The State may require the system to maintain a 3 mg/L orthophosphate This corrosion control treatment or conduct additional water quality residual concentration in all tap test small system option shall be parameter monitoring in accordance samples. implemented if the lead or copper with § 141.87(b) to assist the State in (ii) The water system shall evaluate action level is subsequently exceeded. reviewing the system’s each of the corrosion control treatments The State may require the system to recommendation. using either pipe rig/loop tests, partial- conduct additional water quality (b) State decision to require studies to system tests, or analyses based on parameter monitoring in accordance identify initial optimal corrosion control documented analogous treatments with with § 141.87(b) to assist the State in treatment (applicable to small and other systems of similar size, water reviewing the system’s medium-size systems) and re-optimized chemistry, and distribution system recommendation. corrosion control treatment. (1) The configurations. Metal coupon tests can (5) Based upon the results of lead and State may require any small or medium- be used as a screen to reduce the copper tap sampling and water quality size system without corrosion control number of options that are evaluated parameter monitoring, any large or that exceeds either the lead or copper using pipe rig/loops to the current medium system with corrosion control action level to perform corrosion control conditions and two options. treatment that exceeds the lead trigger treatment studies under paragraph (c)(1) (iii) The water system shall measure level shall conduct a re-optimization of this section to identify optimal the following water quality parameters evaluation of the existing corrosion corrosion control treatment for the in any tests conducted under this control treatment and make a system. paragraph before and after evaluating recommendation to the State for (2) The State may require any small or the corrosion control treatments modification (if any) of the designation medium-size system without corrosion previously listed in this section: of optimal corrosion control treatment. control that exceeds the lead trigger (A) Lead; This re-optimization evaluation shall level to perform corrosion control (B) Copper; include an evaluation of other corrosion treatment studies under paragraph (c)(1) (C) pH; control treatments listed in paragraph of this section to identify optimal (D) Alkalinity; (c)(2) of this section to determine the corrosion control treatment for the (E) Orthophosphate (when an optimal corrosion control treatment. system. This corrosion control treatment orthophosphate-based inhibitor is used), The State may require the system to shall be installed if the lead or copper and; conduct additional water quality action level is subsequently exceeded. (F) Silicate (when a silicate-based parameter monitoring in accordance (3) The State may require any small or inhibitor is used). with § 141.87(b) to assist the State in medium-size water systems with (iv) The water system shall identify reviewing the system’s recommendation corrosion control treatment exceeding all chemical or physical constraints that for a designation of optimal corrosion either the lead trigger level or copper limit or prohibit the use of a particular control treatment. Large systems must action level to perform corrosion control corrosion control treatment and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61751

document such constraints with one of sufficient to maintain an effective treatment strategies from the studies the following: residual concentration in all test tap based on the constraints identified in (A) Data and documentation showing samples; this section unless the treatment was that a particular corrosion control (C) The addition of an found to be ineffective in a previous treatment has adversely affected other orthophosphate-based corrosion pipe loop/rig study. water treatment processes when used by inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to (v) The water system shall evaluate another water system with comparable maintain a 1 mg/L orthophosphate the effect of the chemicals used for water quality characteristics. Systems residual concentration in all tap test corrosion control treatment on other using coupon studies to screen and/or samples, and; water quality treatment processes. pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate (D) The addition of an Systems using coupon studies to screen treatment options shall not exclude orthophosphate-based corrosion and/or pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate treatment strategies from the studies inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to treatment options shall not exclude based on the constraints identified in maintain a 3 mg/L orthophosphate treatment strategies from the studies this section. residual concentration in all tap test based on the effects identified in this (B) Data and documentation samples. section. demonstrating that the water system has (ii) The system shall evaluate each of (vi) On the basis of an analysis of the previously attempted to evaluate a the corrosion control treatments using data generated during each evaluation, particular corrosion control treatment either pipe rig/loop tests, partial-system the water system shall recommend to and has found that the treatment is tests, or analyses based on documented the State in writing the treatment option ineffective or adversely affects other analogous treatments with other systems that the corrosion control studies water quality treatment processes. of similar size, water chemistry, and indicate constitutes optimal corrosion Systems using coupon studies to screen distribution system configurations. control treatment for that system. The and/or pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate Coupon tests can be used as a screen to water system shall provide a rationale treatment options shall not exclude reduce the number of options that are for its recommendation along with all treatment strategies from the studies evaluated using pipe rig/loops to the supporting documentation specified in based on the constraints identified in current conditions and two options. paragraph (c)(1)(i) through (v) of this this section unless the treatment was (iii) The water system shall measure section. found to be ineffective in a previous the following water quality parameters (3) Systems with an inhibitor pipe loop/rig study. in any tests conducted under this corrosion control treatment process (v) The water system shall evaluate paragraph before and after evaluating conducting re-optimization corrosion the effect of the chemicals used for the corrosion control treatments listed control studies shall complete the corrosion control treatment on other above: following: water quality treatment processes. (A) Lead; (i) Any system with an inhibitor Systems using coupon studies to screen (B) Copper; corrosion control treatment process and/or pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate (C) pH; shall evaluate the effectiveness of each treatment options shall not exclude (D) Alkalinity; of the following treatments, and if treatment strategies from the studies (E) Orthophosphate (when an appropriate, combinations of the based on the effects identified in this orthophosphate-based inhibitor is used), following treatments to identify the section. and; optimal corrosion control treatment for (vi) On the basis of an analysis of the (F) Silicate (when a silicate-based the system: data generated during each evaluation, inhibitor is used). (A) Alkalinity and/or pH adjustment; the water system shall recommend to (iv) The water system shall identify (B) The addition of an the State in writing the treatment option all chemical or physical constraints that orthophosphate-based corrosion that the corrosion control studies limit or prohibit the use of a particular inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to indicate constitutes optimal corrosion corrosion control treatment and maintain a 1 mg/L orthophosphate control treatment for that system. The document such constraints with one of residual concentration in all tap test water system shall provide a rationale the following: samples unless the current inhibitor for its recommendation along with all (A) Data and documentation showing process already meets this residual, and; supporting documentation specified in that a particular corrosion control (C) The addition of an paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (v) of this treatment has adversely affected other orthophosphate-based corrosion section. water treatment processes when used by inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to (2) Systems with a pH and alkalinity another water system with comparable maintain a 3 mg/L orthophosphate corrosion control treatment process water quality characteristics. Systems residual concentration in all tap test conducting re-optimization corrosion using coupon studies to screen and/or samples unless the current inhibitor control studies shall complete the pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate process already meets this residual. following: treatment options shall not exclude (ii) The system shall evaluate each of (i) Any system with a pH and treatment strategies from the studies the corrosion control treatments using alkalinity corrosion control treatment based on the constraints identified in either pipe rig/loop tests, partial-system process shall evaluate the effectiveness this section. tests, or analyses based on documented of each of the following treatments, and (B) Data and documentation analogous treatments with other systems if appropriate, combinations of the demonstrating that the water system has of similar size, water chemistry, and following treatments to identify the previously attempted to evaluate a distribution system configurations. optimal corrosion control treatment for particular corrosion control treatment Coupon tests can be used as a screen to the system: and has found that the treatment is reduce the number of options that are (A) Additional alkalinity and/or pH ineffective or adversely affects other evaluated using pipe rig/loops to the adjustment; water quality treatment processes. current conditions and two options. (B) The addition of an Systems using coupon studies to screen (iii) The water system shall measure orthophosphate- or silicate-based and/or pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate the following water quality parameters corrosion inhibitor at a concentration treatment options shall not exclude in any tests conducted under this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61752 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

paragraph before and after evaluating optimized corrosion control treatment. treatment(s) from among those listed in the corrosion control treatments listed (1) Designation of Initial OCCT for paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (c)(3)(i) of this above: medium systems. (i) Based upon section. When designating re-optimized (A) Lead; considerations of available information corrosion control treatment, the State (B) Copper; including, where applicable, studies shall consider the effects that additional (C) pH; conducted under paragraph (c)(1) of this corrosion control treatment will have on (D) Alkalinity; section and a system’s recommended water quality parameters and on other (E) Orthophosphate (when an corrosion control treatment option, the water quality treatment processes. orthophosphate-based inhibitor is used), State shall either approve the corrosion (ii) The State shall notify the water and; control treatment option recommended system of its decision on re-optimized (F) Silicate (when a silicate-based by the medium-size water system or corrosion control treatment in writing inhibitor is used). designate alternative corrosion control and explain the basis for this (iv) The water system shall identify treatment(s) from among those listed in determination. If the State requests all chemical or physical constraints that paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section. When additional information to aid its review, limit or prohibit the use of a particular designating optimal corrosion control the water system shall provide the corrosion control treatment and treatment, the State shall consider the information. document such constraints with one of effects that additional corrosion control the following: (4) Designation of Re-optimization of treatment will have on water quality OCCT or small water system compliance (A) Data and documentation showing parameters and on other water quality that a particular corrosion control flexibility. (i) Based upon considerations treatment processes. of available information including, treatment has adversely affected other (ii) The State shall notify the medium- water treatment processes when used by where applicable, studies conducted size water system of its decision on under paragraph (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this another water system with comparable optimal corrosion control treatment in water quality characteristics. Systems section and a system’s recommended writing and explain the basis for this treatment alternative, the State shall using coupon studies to screen and/or determination. If the State requests pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate either approve the corrosion control additional information to aid its review, treatment modification recommended treatment options shall not exclude the water system shall provide the treatment strategies from the studies by the small water system or designate information. alternative corrosion control based on the constraints identified in (2) Small systems. (i) Based upon treatment(s) from among those listed in this section. considerations of available information paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (c)(3)(i) of this (B) Data and documentation including, where applicable, studies section or an applicable small water demonstrating that the water system has conducted under paragraph (c)(1) of this system compliance flexibility under previously attempted to evaluate a section and a system’s recommended § 141.93. When designating re- particular corrosion control treatment treatment alternative, the State shall and has found that the treatment is either approve the corrosion control optimized corrosion control treatment, ineffective or adversely affects other treatment option recommended by the the State shall consider the effects that water quality treatment processes. small water system or designate additional corrosion control treatment Systems using coupon studies to screen alternative corrosion control will have on water quality parameters and/or pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate treatment(s) from among those listed in and on other water quality treatment treatment options shall not exclude paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section or a processes. treatment strategies from the studies small water system compliance (ii) The State shall notify the water based on the constraints identified in flexibility under § 141.93. When system of its decision on re-optimized this section unless the treatment was designating optimal corrosion control corrosion control treatment in writing found to be ineffective in a previous treatment, the State shall consider the and explain the basis for this pipe loop/rig study. effects that additional corrosion control determination. If the State requests (v) The water system shall evaluate treatment will have on water quality additional information to aid its review, the effect of the chemicals used for parameters and on other water quality the water system shall provide the corrosion control treatment on other treatment processes. information. water quality treatment processes. (ii) The State shall notify the small (e) Installation of optimal corrosion Systems using coupon studies to screen water system of its decision on either control treatment and re-optimization of and/or pipe loop/rig studies to evaluate optimal corrosion control treatment or a corrosion control treatment. (1) Each treatment options shall not exclude small water system compliance medium-size water system shall treatment strategies from the studies flexibility in writing and explain the properly install and operate throughout based on the effects identified in this basis for this determination. If the State its distribution system the optimal section. requests additional information to aid corrosion control treatment designated (vi) On the basis of an analysis of the its review, the water system shall by the State under paragraph (d)(1) of data generated during each evaluation, provide the information. this section. the water system shall recommend to (3) Designation of Re-optimized OCCT (2) Each small water system shall the State in writing the treatment option for large and medium systems. (i) Based properly install and operate throughout that the corrosion control studies upon considerations of available its distribution system the optimal indicate constitutes optimal corrosion information including, where corrosion control treatment or control treatment for that system. The applicable, studies conducted under implement the small water system water system shall provide a rationale paragraph (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this section compliance flexibility as designated by for its recommendation along with all and a system’s recommended treatment the State under paragraph (d)(2) of this supporting documentation specified in alternative, the State shall either section. paragraph (c)(3)(i) through (v) of this approve the corrosion control treatment (3) Each medium-size water system section. modification option recommended by shall properly modify and operate (d) State designation of optimal the water system or designate throughout its distribution system the corrosion control treatment and re- alternative corrosion control re-optimized corrosion control

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61753

treatment designated by the State under previously listed in this section, shall be the water system. The State may paragraph (d)(3) of this section. those that the State determines to reflect designate values for additional water (4) Each small water system shall optimal corrosion control treatment for quality control parameters determined properly modify and operate throughout the water system. The State may by the State to reflect optimal corrosion its distribution system the re-optimized designate values for additional water control for the water system. The State corrosion control treatment or quality control parameters determined shall notify the system in writing of implement the small water system by the State to reflect optimal corrosion these determinations and explain the compliance flexibility designated by the control for the water system. The State basis for its decisions. State under paragraph (d)(2) of this shall notify the system in writing of (g) Continued operation and section. these determinations and explain the monitoring for optimal corrosion control (f) State review of treatment and basis for its decisions. treatment and re-optimized corrosion specification of optimal water quality (2) The State shall evaluate the results control treatment. (1) All systems control parameters for optimal of all lead and copper tap sampling and optimizing corrosion control shall corrosion control treatment and re- water quality parameter monitoring continue to operate and maintain optimized corrosion control treatment. submitted by the water system and optimal corrosion control treatment, (1) The State shall evaluate the results determine whether the water system has including maintaining water quality of all lead and copper tap sampling and properly installed and operated the re- parameters at or above minimum values water quality parameter sampling optimized corrosion control treatment or within ranges designated by the State submitted by the water system and designated by the State in paragraph under paragraph (f)(1) of this section, in determine whether the water system has (d)(3) or (d)(4) of this section, accordance with this paragraph for all properly installed and operated the respectively. Upon reviewing the results samples collected under § 141.87(d) optimal corrosion control treatment of tap sampling and water quality through (f). The requirements of this designated by the State in paragraph parameter monitoring by the water paragraph (g) apply to all systems, (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section, system, both before and after the water including consecutive systems that respectively. Upon reviewing the results system installs re-optimized corrosion distribute water that has been treated to of tap water and water quality parameter control treatment, the State shall control corrosion by another system. monitoring by the water system, both designate: Any water system with optimal (i) A minimum value or a range of before and after the water system corrosion control treatment or re- values for pH measured at each entry installs optimal corrosion control optimized corrosion control treatment point to the distribution system. treatment, the State shall designate: that is not required to monitor water (i) A minimum value or a range of (ii) A minimum pH value measured in quality parameters under § 141.87 shall values for pH measured at each entry all tap samples. Such a value shall be continue to operate and maintain such point to the distribution system. equal to or greater than 7.0, unless the (ii) A minimum pH value measured in State determines that meeting a pH level treatment. Compliance with the all tap samples. Such a value shall be of 7.0 is not technologically feasible or requirements of this paragraph shall be equal to or greater than 7.0, unless the is not necessary for the system to determined every six months, as State determines that meeting a pH level optimize corrosion control. specified under § 141.87(d). A water of 7.0 is not technologically feasible or (iii) If a corrosion inhibitor is used, a system is out of compliance with the is not necessary for the system to minimum concentration or a range of requirements of this paragraph for a six- optimize corrosion control. concentrations for orthophosphate or month period if it has excursions for (iii) If a corrosion inhibitor is used, a silicate measured at each entry point to any State-specified parameter on more minimum concentration or a range of the distribution system. than nine days during the period. An concentrations for orthophosphate or (iv) If a corrosion inhibitor is used, a excursion occurs whenever the daily silicate measured at each entry point to minimum orthophosphate or silicate value for one or more of the water the distribution system. concentration measured in all tap quality parameters measured at a (iv) If a corrosion inhibitor is used, a samples that the State determines is sampling location is below the minimum orthophosphate or silicate necessary to form a passivating film on minimum value or outside the range concentration measured in all tap the interior walls of the pipes of the designated by the State. Daily values are samples that the State determines is distribution system. When calculated as follows. States have necessary to form a passivating film on orthophosphate is used, such a discretion to delete results of obvious the interior walls of the pipes of the concentration shall be equal to or sampling errors from this calculation. distribution system. When greater than 1.0 mg/L as (i) On days when more than one orthophosphate is used, such a orthophosphate, unless the State measurement for the water quality concentration shall be equal to or determines that meeting an parameter is collected at the sampling greater than 0.5 mg/L as orthophosphate residual of 1.0 mg/L is location, the daily value shall be the orthophosphate, unless the State not technologically feasible or is not average of all results collected during determines that meeting an necessary for the system to optimize the day regardless of whether they are orthophosphate residual of 0.5 mg/L is corrosion control. collected through continuous not technologically feasible or is not (v) If alkalinity is adjusted as part of monitoring, grab sampling, or a necessary for the system to optimize optimal corrosion control treatment, a combination of both. If the EPA has corrosion control. minimum concentration or a range of approved an alternative formula under (v) If alkalinity is adjusted as part of concentrations for alkalinity, measured § 142.16(d)(1)(ii) of this chapter in the optimal corrosion control treatment, a at each entry point to the distribution State’s application for a program minimum concentration or a range of system and in all tap samples. revision submitted pursuant to § 142.12 concentrations for alkalinity, measured (vi) The values for the applicable of this chapter, the State’s formula shall at each entry point to the distribution water quality control parameters, be used to aggregate multiple system and in all tap samples. previously listed in this section, shall be measurements taken at a sampling point (vi) The values for the applicable those that the State determines to reflect for the water quality parameters in lieu water quality control parameters, optimal corrosion control treatment for of the formula in this paragraph.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61754 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(ii) On days when only one quality parameter was measured at the in the same pressure zone and located measurement for the water quality sampling location. within a half mile of the location with parameter is collected at the sampling (h) Modification of State treatment the action level exceedance within 5 location, the daily value shall be the decisions for optimal corrosion control days of receiving the sample results. result of that measurement. and re-optimized corrosion control. The water system shall measure the (iii) On days when no measurement is Upon its own initiative or in response following parameters: collected for the water quality parameter to a request by a water system or other (i) pH; at the sampling location, the daily value interested party, a State may modify its (ii) Alkalinity; shall be the daily value calculated on determination of the optimal corrosion (iii) Orthophosphate, when an the most recent day on which the water control treatment under paragraph inhibitor containing an orthophosphate quality parameter was measured at the (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), or (d)(4) of this compound is used; sampling location. section, or optimal water quality control (iv) Silica, when an inhibitor containing a silicate compound is used; (2) All systems re-optimizing parameters under paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section. A request for and corrosion control shall continue to (v) Water systems with an existing operate and maintain re-optimized modification by a system or other interested party shall be in writing, water quality parameter location that corrosion control treatment, including meets the requirements of this section maintaining water quality parameters at explaining why the modification is appropriate, and providing supporting can conduct this sampling at that or above minimum values or within location. All water systems required to ranges designated by the State under documentation. The State may modify its determination where it concludes meet optimal water quality control paragraph (f)(2) of this section, in parameters shall add new sites to the accordance with this paragraph for all that such change is necessary to ensure that the water system continues to minimum number of sites as described samples collected under § 141.87(d) in § 141.87(g). through (f). Compliance with the optimize corrosion control treatment re- optimized corrosion control treatment. (2) Step 2. Water systems shall collect requirements of this paragraph shall be a follow-up sample at any tap sample determined every six months, as A revised determination shall be made in writing, set forth the new treatment site that exceeds the action level within specified under § 141.87(d). A water 30 days of receiving the sample results. system is out of compliance with the requirements and/or water quality parameters, explain the basis for the These follow-up samples may use requirements of this paragraph for a six- different sample volumes or different month period if it has excursions for State’s decision, and provide an implementation schedule for sample collection procedures to assess any State-specified parameter on more the source of elevated lead levels. than nine days during the period. An completing the treatment modifications for re-optimized corrosion control Samples collected under this section excursion occurs whenever the daily shall be submitted to the State but shall value for one or more of the water treatment. (i) Treatment decisions by the EPA in not be included in the 90th percentile quality parameters measured at a lieu of the State on optimal corrosion calculation for compliance monitoring sampling location is below the control treatment and re-optimized under § 141.86. If the water system is minimum value or outside the range corrosion control treatment. (1) unable to collect a follow-up sample at designated by the State. Daily values are Pursuant to the procedures in § 142.19 a site, the water system shall provide calculated as follows. States have of this chapter, the EPA Regional documentation to the State, explaining discretion to delete results of obvious Administrator may review optimal why it was unable to collect a follow- sampling errors from this calculation. corrosion control treatment up sample. (i) On days when more than one determinations made by a State under (3) Step 3. Water systems shall measurement for the water quality paragraph (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), evaluate the results of the monitoring parameter is collected at the sampling (f)(1), (f)(2), or (h) of this section and conducted under this paragraph to location, the daily value shall be the issue Federal treatment determinations determine if either localized or average of all results collected during consistent with the requirements of centralized adjustment of the optimal the day regardless of whether they are those paragraphs where the Regional corrosion control treatment (initial, collected through continuous Administrator finds that: modified, or re-optimized) is necessary monitoring, grab sampling, or a (i) A State has failed to issue a and submit the recommendation to the combination of both. If the EPA has treatment determination by the State within six months after the end of approved an alternative formula under applicable deadlines contained in the monitoring period in which the § 142.16(d)(1)(ii) of this chapter in the § 141.81. site(s) exceeded the lead action level. State’s application for a program (ii) A State has abused its discretion Corrosion control treatment revision submitted pursuant to § 142.12 in a substantial number of cases or in modification may not be necessary to of this chapter, the State’s formula shall cases affecting a substantial population; address every exceedance. Water be used to aggregate multiple or systems shall note if the cause of the measurements taken at a sampling point (iii) The technical aspects of a State’s elevated lead level if known in their for the water quality parameters in lieu determination would be indefensible in recommendation to the State. of this formula in this paragraph. an expected Federal enforcement action (4) Step 4. The State shall approve the (ii) On days when only one taken against a water system. treatment recommendation or specify a measurement for the water quality (j) Find-and-fix assessment for tap different approach within six months of parameter is collected at the sampling sample sites that exceed the lead action completion of paragraph (j), Step 3 of location, the daily value shall be the level. The water system shall conduct this section. result of that measurement. the following steps, when a tap sample (5) Step 5. If the State-approved (iii) On days when no measurement is site exceeds the lead action level under treatment recommendation requires the collected for the water quality parameter monitoring conducted under § 141.86. water system to adjust the optimal at the sampling location, the daily value (1) Step 1. The water system shall corrosion control treatment process, the shall be the daily value calculated on sample at a new water quality parameter water system shall complete the most recent day on which the water site that is on the same size water main modifications to its corrosion control

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61755

treatment within 12 months after (ii) All water system records, number of lead service lines used to completion of paragraph (j), Step 4 of including distribution system maps and calculate lead service line replacement this section. Systems without corrosion drawings, historical records on each rates. Such service lines must not be control treatment required to install service connection, meter installation considered replaced. optimal corrosion control treatment records, historical capital improvement (iv) Service lines initially shall follow the schedule in § 141.81(e). or master plans, and standard operating characterized as non-lead that are later (6) Step 6. Water systems adjusting its procedures. found to be made of lead on either the optimal corrosion control treatment (iii) All inspections and records of the system or customer portion shall be re- shall complete follow-up sampling distribution system that indicate the characterized as a lead service line and (§ 141.86(d)(2) and § 141.87(c)) within material composition of the service added to the number of lead service 12 months after completion of connections that connect a structure to lines used to calculate the lead service paragraph (j), Step 5 of this section. the distribution system. line replacement rates. (7) Step 7. For water systems (iv) Any resource required by the (6) The primacy agency may designate adjusting its optimal corrosion control State to asses service line materials for acceptable methods to determine the treatment, the State shall review the structures built prior to 1989. service line material of unknown lines. water system’s modification of corrosion (3) The initial inventory must include (7) All water systems with lead control treatment and designate optimal all service lines connected to the public service lines must make its inventory water quality control parameters water distribution system regardless of publicly accessible. (§ 141.82(f)(1)) within six months of ownership status (e.g., where service (i) The inventory must include a completion of paragraph (j), Step 6 of line ownership is shared, the inventory location identifier, such as a street, this section. would include both the portion of the intersection, or landmark, served by (8) Step 8. For water systems service line owned by the water system each lead service line. Water systems adjusting its optimal corrosion control and the customer-owned portion of the are not required to list the exact address treatment, the water system shall service line). Service lines shall be of each lead service line. operate in compliance with the State- categorized in the following manner: (ii) Water systems serving greater than designated optimal water quality control (i) Lead where either the water system 100,000 persons must make the parameters (§ 141.82(g)(1)) and continue portion, customer portion or both inventory available electronically. to conduct tap sampling (§§ 141.86(d)(3) portions of the service line are made of (b) Lead service line replacement and 141.87(d)). lead or where the customer-owned plan. All water systems with lead ■ 7. Revise § 141.84 to read as follows: portion is a galvanized pipe where the service lines in their distribution system water system’s portion is or was a lead shall, by [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER § 141.84 Lead service line inventory and service line. PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN replacement requirements. (ii) Non-lead where both the water Federal Register], submit a lead service (a) Lead service line inventory. All system portion and customer portion are line replacement plan and lead service water systems must develop and non-lead. line inventory to the primacy agency maintain a publicly accessible inventory (iii) Unknown where the service line described in paragraph (a) of this of lead service lines and service lines of material is only known to be non-lead section. The plan must include unknown materials in its distribution on either the water system portion or procedures to conduct full lead service system. The inventory must meet the the customer portion of the service line line replacement, a strategy for following requirements: or the service line material for both informing customers before a full or (1) Deadlines. All water systems must portions of the line is unknown. partial lead service line replacement, a develop the initial inventory by [DATE (4) Systems shall update the inventory lead service line replacement goal rate 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF on an annual basis to address any lead in the event of a lead trigger level PUBLICATION IN THE Federal service line replacement or service line exceedance, a pitcher filter tracking and Register] and submit it to the primacy material identification at sites with lines maintenance system, a procedure for agency in accordance with § 141.90. characterized as unknown. The updated customers to flush service lines and (2) A water system shall use the inventory shall be submitted to the State premise plumbing of particulate lead, information on lead and galvanized on an annual basis. and a funding strategy for conducting steel that it is required to collect under (5) Service lines listed as unknown in lead service line replacements. § 141.42(d) of this part when conducting the initial inventory or the updated (c) Operating procedures for replacing the inventory of service lines in its inventory in paragraph (a)(4) of this lead goosenecks, pigtails, or connectors. distribution system for the initial section must be counted as lead service (1) The water system must replace any inventory under paragraph (a)(1) of this lines for purposes of calculating lead lead gooseneck, pigtail, or connector it section. The water system shall also service line replacement rates as well as owns when encountered during review the sources of information listed for issuing targeted public education to emergency repairs or planned water below to identify service line materials consumers served by a lead or unknown system infrastructure work. for the initial inventory. In addition, the service line. (2) The water system must offer to water system shall seek to collect such (i) These service lines must be replace a customer-owned lead information where possible in the considered lead service lines unless gooseneck, pigtail, or connector; course of its normal operations (e.g., they are demonstrated to be non-lead by however, the water system is not checking service line materials when records or physical examination. required to bear the cost of replacement reading water meters or performing (ii) Service lines of unknown material of the customer-owned parts. maintenance activities): shall not be used for Tier 1 sampling (3) The water system is not required (i) All plumbing codes, permits, and sites. to replace a customer-owned lead records in the files of the building (iii) When a service line initially gooseneck, pigtail, or connector if the department(s) which indicate the listed as a lead service line on an customer objects to its replacement. service line materials used to connect inventory is later determined to be non- (4) The replacement of a lead water system- and customer-owned lead, the water system must update its gooseneck, pigtail, or connector does structures to the distribution system. inventory and shall subtract it from the not count for the purposes of meeting

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61756 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

the requirements for goal-based or (2) Any water system that replaces the post the information at a conspicuous mandatory lead service line portion of the lead service line it owns location instead of providing individual replacements, in accordance with due to an emergency repair, must notification to all residents. paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(2) of this provide notice and risk mitigation (ii) The water system must provide section, respectively. measures to the customer served by the information about service line flushing (5) Upon replacement of any lead service line within 24 hours. The in accordance with § 141.84(b). gooseneck, pigtail, or connector that is water system must provide notification (iii) The water system must provide attached to a lead service line, the water and risk mitigation measure in the consumer with a pitcher filter system must follow risk mitigation accordance with (d)(1)(i)–(iv) of this certified to remove lead, three months of procedures specified in 141.85(e)(5)(ii). section. replacement cartridges, and instructions (d) Requirements for conducting lead (3) A water system must replace the for use. If the lead service line serves service line replacement that may result lead service line it owns when it is more than one residence or non- in partial replacement. (1) Any water notified that the customer has replaced residential unit (e.g., a multi-unit system that plans to partially replace a the customer-owned portion of the lead building), the water system must lead service line (e.g., replace only the service line. When a water system is provide a pitcher filter, three months of portion of a lead service line that it notified by the customer that he or she replacement cartridges and use owns) in coordination with planned intends to replace the customer portion instructions to every residence in the infrastructure work must provide notice of the lead service line the water system building. to the owner of the lead service line, or has 45 days from the day of their (iv) The water system must take a the owner’s authorized agent, as well as notification to conduct the replacement follow up tap sample between three non-owner resident(s) served by the of the system-owned portion. The water months and six months after completion lead service line at least 45 days prior system must make a good faith effort to of any partial lead service line to the replacement. The notice must coordinate simultaneous replacement. replacement. The water system must explain that the system will replace the The water system must provide provide the results of the sample to the portion of the line it owns and offer to notification and risk mitigation measure consumer in accordance with replace the portion of the service line in accordance with (d)(1)(i)–(iv) of this § 141.85(d). not owned by the water system. The section. (f) Water systems whose 90th water system is not required to bear the (4) When a water system is notified by percentile lead level from tap samples is cost of replacement of the portion of the the customer that he or she has replaced above the trigger level but at or below lead service line not owned by the water the customer-owned portion and that the action level. Water systems whose system. replacement has occurred within the (i) The water system must provide previous 3 months, the water system 90th percentile lead level from tap notification explaining that consumers must replace its portion within 45 days samples taken pursuant to § 141.86 is may experience a temporary increase of from the day of their notification. The above the lead trigger level but at or lead levels in their drinking water due water system must provide notification below the lead action level must to the replacement, information about and risk mitigation measures in conduct goal-based lead service line the health effects of lead, and actions accordance with (d)(1)(i)–(iv) of this replacement. consumers can take to minimize their section. (1) Within six months following exposure to lead in drinking water. In (5) When a water system is notified by completion of the initial invention, instances where multi-family dwellings the customer that he or she has replaced pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, are served by the lead service line to be the customer-owned portion and the water systems serving over 10,000 partially replaced, the water system may replacement has occurred more than persons must determine a goal rate at elect to post the information at a three months in the past, the water which it will replace lead service lines conspicuous location instead of system is not required to complete the after their 90th percentile lead level providing individual notification to all lead service line replacement of the exceeds of the trigger level but is below residents. system-owned portion. the lead action level. This lead service (ii) The water system must provide (e) Requirements for conducting full line replacement goal rate must be information about service line flushing lead service line replacement. (1) Any approved by the State pursuant to (b) of in accordance with § 141.84(b). water system that conducts a full lead this section. (iii) The water system must provide service line replacement (e.g., replace (2) Water systems must apply the goal the consumer with a pitcher filter both the portion of a lead service line replacement rate to the initial number of certified to remove lead, three months of owned by the customer and by the water lead service lines, including service replacement cartridges, and instructions system) must provide notice to the lines of unknown material, in the water for use. If the lead service line serves owner of the lead service line, or the system’s LSL inventory. If the water more than one residence or non- owner’s authorized agent, as well as system at any time determines a service residential unit (e.g., a multi-unit non-owned resident(s) served by the line of unknown material is non-lead, building), the water system must lead service line within 24 hours of the the water system may subtract it from provide a pitcher filter, three months of replacement. the initial number of lead service lines replacement cartridges and use (i) The water system must provide used for calculating the lead service line instructions to every residence in the notification explaining that consumers replacement rate. building. may experience a temporary increase of (3) Lead service line replacement (iv) The water system must take a lead levels in their drinking water due must be conducted in accordance with follow up tap sample between three to the replacement, information about the requirements of paragraphs (d) or (e) months and six months after completion the health effects of lead, and actions of this section. of any partial lead service line consumers can take to minimize their (4) Only full lead service line replacement. The water system must exposure to lead in drinking water. In replacements count towards a water provide the results of the sample to the instances where multi-family dwellings system’s annual replacement goal. consumer in accordance with are served by the lead service line to be Partial lead service line replacements do § 141.85(d). replaced, the water system may elect to not count towards the goal.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:43 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61757

(5) The water system must provide the requirements of paragraphs (c) or (d) feasible. The State shall make this notification to customers with lead of this section. determination in writing and notify the service lines as required in § 141.85(f). (3) Only full lead service line system of its finding within six months (6) Any water system that fails to meet replacements count towards a water after the system is required to begin lead its lead service line replacement goal system’s mandatory replacement rate. service line replacement based on must: Partial lead service line replacements do monitoring referenced in paragraph (f) (i) Conduct public outreach activities not count towards the mandatory of this section. pursuant to § 141.85(g) until either the replacement rate. (h) State reporting to demonstrate water system meets its replacement (4) Water systems must conduct compliance. To demonstrate compliance goal, or tap sampling shows the 90th notification to customers with lead with paragraphs (a) through (f) of this percentile of lead is below the trigger service lines as required in § 141.85(f). section, a system shall report to the level for two consecutive monitoring (5) Community water systems serving State the information specified in periods. 10,000 or fewer persons may elect to § 141.90(e). (ii) Recommence its goal-based lead conduct a corrosion control treatment or ■ 8. Amend § 141.85 by: service line replacement program point-of-use filter compliance approach ■ a. Revising the introductory text, as described in section § 141.93 instead pursuant to this paragraph if the 90th paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii)(B), and of lead service line replacement. Non- percentile lead value anytime thereafter (b)(2)(ii)(B)(1); transient non-community water systems ■ exceeds the lead trigger level. b. Adding paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B)(7) may elect to conduct a corrosion control (7) The first year of lead service line and removing paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C); treatment, point-of-use filter compliance ■ replacement shall begin on the first day c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and approach, or choose a replacement of following the end of the monitoring (4) ; and lead-bearing plumbing approach, as ■ period in which the lead action level d. Adding paragraphs (e), (f), and (g). described in section § 141.93. The revisions and additions read as was exceeded. If monitoring is required (6) A water system may cease follows: annually or less frequently, the end of mandatory lead service line replacement the monitoring period is September 30 when its lead 90th percentile level, § 141.85 Public education and of the calendar year in which the calculated under § 141.80(c)(4), is at or supplemental monitoring requirements. sampling occurs. If the State has below the lead action level during each All water systems must deliver a established an alternate monitoring of four consecutive monitoring periods. consumer notice of lead tap water period, then the end of the monitoring If first draw tap samples collected in monitoring results to persons served by period will be the last day of that any such system thereafter exceed the the water system at sites that are tested, period. lead action level, the system shall as specified in paragraph (d) of this (8) Pursuant to the procedures in recommence mandatory lead service section. A water system with lead § 142.19, the EPA Regional line replacement. service lines must deliver public Administrator may review the lead (7) The water system may cease education materials to persons with a service line replacement goal rate mandatory lead service line replacement lead service line as specified in determination made by a State under if it obtains refusal to conduct full lead paragraph (e) and (f) of this section. All paragraph § 141.84(b) of this section and service line replacement from every water systems must conduct annual issue a Federal goal-based lead service customer in its distribution area served outreach to healthcare providers and line replacement rate determination by a lead service line on the customer’s caregivers as outlined in section (g) of where the Regional Administrator finds portion. If the water system exceeds the this section. A water system that that a higher goal-based lead service line action level again, it must reach out to exceeds the lead action level based on replacement rate is feasible for a water any customers served by a lead service tap water samples collected in system. line where there has been a change in accordance with § 141.86 shall deliver (g) Lead service line replacement for residents with an offer to replace the the public education materials water systems that exceed the lead customer-owned portion. The water contained in paragraph (a) of this action level in tap samples. Water system is not required to bear the cost section and in accordance with the systems that exceed the lead action level of replacement of the customer-owned requirements in paragraph (b) of this in tap samples taken pursuant to lead service line. section. Water systems that exceed the § 141.86 must replace full lead service (8) The first year of lead service line lead action level must sample the tap lines at a minimum annual rate. replacement shall begin on the first day water of any customer who requests it (1) Water systems must annually following the end of the monitoring in accordance with paragraph (c) of this replace three percent of the initial period in which lead action level was section. number of lead service lines in the exceeded under paragraph (a) of this (a) * * * inventory, including service lines of section. If monitoring is required (1) * * * unknown material at time of the action annually or less frequently, the end of (ii) Health effects of lead. Exposure to level exceedance. The water system the monitoring period is September 30 lead can cause serious health effects in must meet the replacement rate with of the calendar year in which the all age groups. Infants and children who full lead service line replacements but is sampling occurs. If the State has drink water containing lead could have not required to bear the cost of removal established an alternate monitoring decreases in IQ and attention span and of the portion of the lead service line it period, then the end of the monitoring increases in learning and behavior does not own. If the water system later period will be the last day of that problems. Lead exposure among women determines a service line of unknown period. who are pregnant increases prenatal material is non-lead, the water system (9) The State shall require a system to risks. Lead exposure among women who may subtract it from the initial number replace lead service lines on a shorter later become pregnant has similar risks of lead service lines used for calculating schedule than that required by this if lead stored in the mother’s bones is the lead service line replacement rate. section, taking into account the number released during pregnancy. Recent (2) Lead service line replacement of lead service lines in the system, science suggests that adults who drink must be conducted in accordance with where a shorter replacement schedule is water containing lead have increased

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61758 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

risks of heart disease, high blood notification within 30 days of to remove lead, instructions to use the pressure, kidney or nervous system completion of the lead service line filter, and three months of filter problems. inventory required under § 141.84 and replacement cartridges. * * * * * repeat the notification on an annual (iv) The water system must comply (b) * * * basis until the customer no longer has with the requirements of paragraphs (2) * * * a lead service line. For new customers, (e)(5) of this section before the (ii) * * * water systems shall provide the notice consumer’s water is turned back on after (B) * * * at the time of service initiation. it has been shut off by the water system. (1) Schools, child care facilities and (3) Content. (i) Consumers with a (f) Notification of exceedance of the school boards. confirmed lead service line. The notice lead trigger level. (1) All water systems * * * * * must include a statement that the with lead service lines that exceed the (7) Obstetricians-Gynecologists and consumer’s service line is lead, an lead trigger level of 0.010 mg/L must Midwives. explanation of the health effects of lead, provide customers that have a lead (d) Notification of results. (1) steps consumers can take to reduce service line information regarding the Reporting requirement. All water exposure to lead in drinking water, water system’s goal-based lead service systems must provide a notice of the information about opportunities to line replacement program and individual tap results from lead tap replace lead service lines and opportunities for replacement of the water monitoring carried out under the information about programs that lead service line. requirements of § 141.86 to the persons provide innovative financing solutions (2) Timing. Waters Systems shall send to assist consumers with replacement of served by the water system at the notification within 30 days of the end of their portion of a lead service line, and specific sampling site from which the the monitoring period in which the a statement that the water system is sample was taken (e.g., the occupants of trigger level exceedance occurred. Water required to replace its portion of a lead the residence where the tap was tested). systems must repeat the notification service line when the consumer notifies (2) Timing of notification. A water annually until the results of sampling them they are replacing their owned system must provide the consumer conducted under § 141.86 is at or below portion of the lead service line. notice as soon as practical, in the lead trigger level. (ii) Customers with a service line of (3) Delivery. The notice must be accordance to the following timeframes: unknown material. The notice must provided to persons served by a lead (i) For individual samples that do not include a statement that the customer’s service line, either by mail or by another exceed the lead action level, no later service line is of unknown material that method approved by the State. than 30 days after the water system may be lead, an explanation of the (g) Outreach activities for failure to learns of the tap monitoring results. health effects of lead, steps customers meet the lead service line replacement (ii) For individual samples that can take to reduce exposure to lead in goal. (1) In the first year that a water exceed the lead action level, no later drinking water and information about system that does not meet its annual than 24 hours after the water system opportunities to verify the material of lead service line replacement goal as learns of the tap monitoring results. the service line. required under § 141.84, it must * * * * * (4) Delivery. The notice must be conduct one outreach activity from the (4) Delivery. (i) For lead tap sample provided to persons served by a lead following list in the following year until results that do not exceed the lead service line or service line of unknown the water system meets it replacement action level of 0.015 mg/L, the water material, either by mail or by another goal or until tap sampling shows that systems must provide consumer notice method approved by the primacy the 90th percentile for lead is at or to persons served at the tap that was agency. below the trigger level of 0.010 mg/L. tested, either by mail or by another (5) Notification due to a disturbance Any water system that thereafter method approved by the State. For of a lead service line. (i) Water systems continues to fail to meet its lead service example, upon approval by the State, a that cause disturbance to a lead service line replacement goal must conduct two non-transient non-community water line that results in the water being shut outreach activities per year from the system could post the results on a off, and without conducting a partial or following list: bulletin board in the facility to allow full lead service line replacement, must (i) Conduct social media campaign. users to review the information. The provide the consumer with information (ii) Contact organizations representing system must provide the notice to about the potential for elevated lead in plumbers and contractors by mail to consumers, including customers at taps drinking water a result of the provide information about lead in where sampling was conducted. disturbance as well as a flushing drinking water including health effects, (ii) For tap sample results that exceed procedure to remove particulate lead. sources of lead, and the importance of the lead action level of 0.015 mg/L, the (ii) If the disturbance of a lead service using lead free plumbing materials. water systems must provide consumer line results from the replacement of the (iii) Send certified mail to customers notice to consumers served at the tap water meter or gooseneck, pigtail, or with a lead service line to inform them that was tested electronically or by connector, the water system must about the water system’s goal-based lead phone or another method approved by comply with the requirements in service line replacement program and the State. paragraph (e)(5)(i) of this section as well opportunities for replacement of the (e) Notification of lead service line. (1) as provide the consumer with a pitcher lead service line. Notification requirements. All water filter certified to remove lead, (iv) Conduct a town hall meeting or systems with lead service lines must instructions to use the filter, and three participate in a community event to provide notification to all consumers months of filter replacement cartridges. provide information about its lead with a lead service line or a service line (iii) A water system that conducts a service line replacement program and of unknown material informing them partial or full lead service line distribute public education materials. they have a lead service line or a service replacement must comply with the (v) Visit targeted customers to discuss line of unknown material. requirements in paragraph (e)(5)(i) of the lead service line replacement (2) Timing of notification. A water this section as well as provide the program and opportunities for system must provide the initial consumer with a pitcher filter certified replacement.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61759

(vi) In the case where all lead service shall use the information on lead service multiple family residences that are line customers refuse to participate in lines that is required to be collected representative of sites throughout the the lead service line replacement under § 141.84(a) to identify potential distribution system. For the purpose of program, obtain a signed letter from lead service line sampling sites. When this paragraph, a representative site is a each customer stating such refusal. an evaluation of the information site in which the plumbing materials (h) Public education to local and State collected pursuant to § 141.42(d) and used at that site would be commonly health agencies. (1) All water systems 141.84(a) is insufficient to locate the found at other sites served by the water shall provide public education materials requisite number of lead and copper system. that meet the content requirements of sampling sites that meet the targeting (7) The sampling sites selected for a paragraph (a)(1) of this section. criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, non-transient non-community water (2) Timing. Water systems must send the water system shall review the system (‘‘Tier 1 sampling sites’’) shall public education materials no later than sources of information listed below to consist of buildings that are served by January 15 of each calendar year. identify a sufficient number of sampling a lead service line. Service lines of (3) Delivery. Water systems shall send sites. In addition, the system shall seek unknown material must not be used as public education materials or provide to collect such information where Tier 1 sampling sites. public education by mail or by another possible in the course of its normal (8) A non-transient non-community method approved by the State. operations (e.g., checking service line water system with insufficient Tier 1 ■ 9. Amend § 141.86 by: materials when reading water meters or sites that meet the targeting criteria in ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and performing maintenance activities): paragraph (a)(7) of this section shall (b)(2); (i) All plumbing codes, permits, and complete its sampling pool with ‘‘Tier 3 ■ b. Reserving paragraph (b)(3); records in the files of the building sampling sites,’’ consisting of sampling ■ c. Revising paragraphs (d) and (e); department(s) that indicate the sites that contain copper pipes with lead ■ d. Revising the heading of paragraph plumbing materials that are installed solder. (f); and within publicly and privately-owned (9) A non-transient non-community ■ e. Adding paragraphs (h) and (i). structures connected to the distribution water system with insufficient Tier 1 The revisions and additions read as system; and Tier 3 sampling sites shall complete follows: (ii) All inspections and records of the its sampling pool with ‘‘Tier 4 sampling distribution system that indicate the sites,’’ consisting of sampling sites that § 141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead material composition of the service are representative of sites throughout and copper in tap water. connections that connect a structure to the distribution system. For the purpose (a) Sample site location. (1) By the the distribution system; and of this paragraph, a representative site is applicable date for commencement of (iii) All existing water quality a site in which the plumbing materials monitoring under paragraph (d)(1) of information, which includes the results used at that site would be commonly this section, each water system shall of all prior analyses of the system or found at other sites served by the water complete a lead service line inventory of individual structures connected to the system. its distribution system and identify a system, indicating locations that may be (10) Any water system whose pool of targeted sampling sites that meet particularly susceptible to high lead or distribution system contains lead the requirements of this section, and copper concentrations. service lines shall collect all samples for which is sufficiently large enough to (3) The sampling sites selected for a monitoring under this section from sites ensure that the water system can collect community water system’s sampling served by a lead service line. A water the number of lead and copper tap pool (‘‘Tier 1 sampling sites’’) shall system that cannot identify a sufficient samples required in paragraph (c) of this consist of single-family structures that number of sampling sites served by lead section. Water systems with lead service are served by a lead service line. When service lines shall still collect samples lines or service lines of unknown multiple-family residences comprise at from every site served by a lead service material must re-evaluate the tap least 20 percent of the structures served line, and collect the remaining samples sampling locations based on a lead by a water system, the system may in accordance with tiering requirements service line inventory conducted under include these types of structures in its under (a)(2)(iii) of this section. § 141.84(a), which must be updated Tier 1 sampling pool, if served by a lead (b) Sample collection methods. (1) All annually thereafter, including service line. Service lines of unknown tap samples for lead and copper identifying any changes to the sampling material must not be used as Tier 1 collected in accordance with this locations. Sites may not include faucets sampling sites. subpart, with the exception of samples that have point-of-use (POU) or point-of- (4) Any community water system with collected under paragraph (b)(5) and entry (POE) treatment devices designed insufficient Tier 1 sampling sites shall paragraph (h) of this section, shall be to remove inorganic contaminants, complete its sampling pool with ‘‘Tier 2 first draw samples. except for systems monitoring under sampling sites,’’ consisting of buildings, (2) Each first-draw tap sample for lead § 141.93 (Small System Compliance including multiple-family residences and copper shall be one liter in volume Flexibility). Lead and copper sampling that are served by a lead service line. and have stood motionless in the results for systems monitoring under (5) Any community water system with plumbing system of each sampling site 141.93(c)(3) and (d)(3) may not be used insufficient Tier 1 and Tier 2 sampling for at least six hours. Bottles used to for the purposes of meeting the criteria sites shall complete its sampling pool collect these samples shall be wide- for reduced monitoring specified in with ‘‘Tier 3 sampling sites,’’ consisting mouth one-liter sample bottles. First- (d)(4) of this section. of single-family structures that contain draw samples from residential housing (2) A water system shall use the copper pipes with lead solder. shall be collected from the cold-water information on lead, copper, and (6) A community water system with kitchen tap or bathroom sink tap. First- galvanized steel that is required to be insufficient Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 draw samples from a nonresidential collected under § 141.42(d) (special sampling sites shall complete its building shall be one liter in volume monitoring for corrosivity sampling pool with ‘‘Tier 4 sampling and collected at an interior tap from characteristics) when conducting a sites,’’ consisting of single-family which water is typically drawn for materials evaluation. A water system structures or buildings, including consumption. Non-first-draw samples

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61760 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

collected in lieu of first-draw samples copper action level shall begin the next level in three annual monitoring periods pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this annual monitoring period on January 1 may reduce monitoring in accordance section shall be one liter in volume and of the year following the effective date with paragraph (d)(4) of this section. shall be collected at an interior tap from of this section. Samples shall be (ii) Any small or medium size system which water is typically drawn for analyzed for lead on an annual basis. which exceeded the lead trigger level for consumption. First-draw samples may Samples shall be analyzed for copper on which the State has specified water be collected by the system or the system a triennial basis. Systems that do not quality parameter values for optimal may allow residents to collect first-draw exceed the lead trigger level in three corrosion control treatment shall samples after instructing the residents of annual monitoring periods may reduce continue to monitor every six months the sampling procedures specified in monitoring in accordance with until the system meets the lead and this paragraph. Sampling instructions paragraph (d)(4) of this section. copper action levels for two consecutive provided to customers shall not include (D) Systems without lead service lines 6-month monitoring periods. Systems instructions for aerator removal and that do not exceed the lead trigger level that do not exceed the lead and copper cleaning or flushing of taps prior to the and the copper action level shall begin action levels, but exceed the lead trigger start of the minimum six-hour the next triennial monitoring period level shall monitor annually at the stagnation period. To avoid problems of within three calendar years of the standard number of sites listed in residents handling nitric acid, previous round. paragraph (c) of this section. Systems acidification of first-draw samples may (2) Monitoring after installation of that do not exceed the lead trigger level be done up to 14 days after the sample initial or re-optimized corrosion control and copper action level in three annual is collected. After acidification to re- treatment and installation of source monitoring periods may reduce solubilize the metals, the sample must water treatment. (i) Any water system monitoring in accordance with stand in the original container for the that installs or re-optimizes corrosion paragraph (d)(4) of this section. time specified in the approved EPA control treatment shall continue to (4) Reduced Monitoring based on 90th method before the sample can be monitor for lead and copper every six percentile lead levels. (i) (A) A small or analyzed. If a system allows residents to months until the State specifies water medium-size system that meets the lead perform sampling, the system may not quality parameter values for optimal trigger level and copper action level challenge, based on alleged errors in corrosion control. under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section sample collection, the accuracy of (ii) Any system that re-optimizes may reduce the frequency of sampling sampling results. corrosion control treatment as a result of to annual monitoring. This monitoring * * * * * exceeding the lead trigger level shall shall begin in the calendar year (d) Timing of monitoring (1) Initial monitor annually for lead. Samples immediately following the end of the tap sampling. (i) All water systems with shall be analyzed for copper on a second consecutive 6-month monitoring lead service lines deemed optimized triennial basis. Small and medium-size period. under § 141.81(b)(3) and systems that systems for which the State did not (B) A small or medium-size water did not conduct monitoring that meets specify water quality control parameters system that meets the lead trigger level the requirements of this section prior to under § 141.82 that meet the lead trigger and copper action level under paragraph the compliance date of this section must level in three annual monitoring periods (d)(1)(ii)(D) of this section may reduce begin the first six-month monitoring may reduce monitoring in accordance the number of samples in accordance period on January 1 in the year with paragraph (d)(4) of this section. with paragraph (c) of this section and following the compliance date of this (iii) Any system that installs source reduce the sampling frequency to section. water treatment pursuant to triennial monitoring. This monitoring (ii) Systems that conducted § 141.83(a)(3) shall monitor every six shall begin during the calendar year monitoring that meets the requirements months until the system meets the lead three years after the monitoring of this section prior to the effective date and copper action levels for two conducted under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(D) of this section shall conduct the next consecutive six-month monitoring of this section. A small or medium round of monitoring on the following periods. Systems that meet the lead and system collecting fewer than five schedules based on the results of that copper action levels, but not the lead samples as specified in paragraph (c) of monitoring: trigger level for two consecutive 6- this section that meets the lead trigger (A) Systems that exceed the action month monitoring periods may reduce level and copper action level under levels for lead or copper shall begin the monitoring in accordance with paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(D) of this section first six-month monitoring period on paragraph (d)(4) of this section. may reduce the sampling frequency to January 1 in the year following the (3) Monitoring after State specifies triennial monitoring. In no case may the effective date of this section. water quality parameter values for system reduce the number of samples (B) Systems that exceed the lead optimal corrosion control treatment. (i) below the minimum of one sample per trigger level and meet the lead and After the State specifies the values for available tap. This monitoring shall copper action levels shall begin the first water quality control parameters under begin during the calendar year three annual monitoring period on January 1 § 141.82(f), all large and any small or years after the monitoring conducted in the year following the effective date medium size systems that exceeded an under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(D) of this of this section. Samples shall be action level shall continue to monitor section. analyzed for lead on an annual basis. every six months until the system does (C) Any small or medium-size system Samples shall be analyzed for copper on not exceed the lead and copper action without corrosion control treatment that a triennial basis. Systems without levels for two consecutive 6-month exceeds the lead trigger level, but meets corrosion control treatment that meet monitoring periods. Systems that do not copper action level, shall collect the the lead trigger level in three annual exceed the lead and copper action standard number of samples on an monitoring periods may reduce levels, but exceed the lead trigger level annual basis. This sampling shall begin monitoring in accordance with (>10 mg/L) shall monitor annually at the in the calendar year following the paragraph (d)(4) of this section. standard number of sites listed in (c) of monitoring conducted under paragraph (C) Lead service line systems that do this section. Systems that do not exceed (d)(1)(i) or (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section. A not exceed the lead trigger level and the lead trigger level and copper action small or medium system collecting

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61761

fewer than five samples as specified in (B) Any water system that exceeds the paragraph (a)(ii)(D) of this section. A paragraph (c) of this section that meets lead trigger level but meets the lead and small or medium system collecting the lead trigger level and copper action copper action levels and maintains the fewer than five samples as specified in level under paragraph (d)(1)(i) or range of values for the water quality paragraph (c) of this section that meets (d)(1)(ii)(D) of this section shall collect parameters reflecting optimal corrosion the lead trigger level and copper action the standard number of samples on an control treatment specified by the State level under paragraph (a)(ii)(D) of this annual basis. In no case may the system under § 141.82(f) during each of two section may reduce the sampling reduce the number of samples below the consecutive six-month monitoring frequency to triennial monitoring. In no minimum of one sample per available periods may reduce the monitoring case may the system reduce the number tap. This sampling shall begin in the frequency at the standard number of of samples below the minimum of one calendar year following the monitoring sites to annual monitoring. This sample per available tap. This conducted under paragraph (d)(1)(i) or sampling shall begin in the calendar monitoring must begin during the (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section. year immediately following the end of calendar year three years after the (D) Any small or medium-size system the second consecutive 6-month monitoring conducted under paragraph with corrosion control treatment that monitoring period. The State shall (a)(ii)(D) of this section. exceeds the lead trigger level but meets review monitoring, treatment, and other (iv) A water system that reduces the the lead and copper action levels and is relevant information submitted by the frequency of sampling shall collect not required by the State to make water system in accordance to § 141.90 these samples from representative sites changes to the corrosion control and shall notify the system in writing included in the pool of targeted treatment as a result of the re- when it determines the system is sampling sites identified in paragraph optimization assessment under § 141.82, eligible to commence reduced (a) of this section. Systems monitoring shall collect the standard number of monitoring pursuant to this paragraph. annually or less frequently shall samples on an annual basis. This The State shall review, and where conduct the lead and copper tap sampling shall begin in the calendar appropriate, revise its determination sampling during the months of June, year following the monitoring when the system submits new July, August, or September unless the conducted under paragraph (d)(1)(i) or monitoring or treatment data, or when State has approved a different (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section. A small or other data relevant to the frequency of monitoring period in accordance with medium system collecting fewer than monitoring becomes available. paragraph (d)(iv)(A) of this section. five samples as specified in paragraph (iii) (A) A small or medium-size water (A) The State at its discretion may (c) of this section that meets the lead system that meets the lead trigger level approve a different period for trigger level and copper action level and copper action level under paragraph conducting the lead and copper tap under paragraph (a)(ii)(D) of this section (d)(4)(i)(D) of this section may reduce sampling for systems collecting samples shall collect the standard number of the number of samples in accordance at a reduced frequency. Such a period samples on an annual basis. In no case with paragraph (c) of this section and shall be no longer than four consecutive may the system reduce the number of reduce the monitoring frequency to months and must represent a time of samples below the minimum of one triennial monitoring. This sampling normal operation where the highest sample per available tap. This should begin during the calendar year levels of lead are most likely to occur. monitoring shall begin in the calendar three years after the monitoring For a non-transient non-community year following the monitoring conducted under paragraph (d)(ii)(D) of water system that does not operate conducted under paragraph (d)(1)(i) or this section. A small or medium system during the months of June through (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section. collecting fewer than five samples as September and for which the period of (ii) (A) Any water system that meets specified in paragraph (c) of this section normal operation where the highest the lead trigger level and copper action that meets the lead trigger level and levels of lead are most likely to occur is level and maintains the range of values copper action level under paragraph not known, the State shall designate a for the water quality parameters for (d)(ii)(D) of this section may reduce the period that represents normal operation optimal corrosion control treatment monitoring frequency to triennial for the system. This monitoring shall specified by the State under § 141.82(f) monitoring. This monitoring should begin during the period approved or during each of two consecutive six- begin during the calendar year three designated by the State in the calendar month monitoring periods may reduce years after the monitoring conducted year immediately following the end of the sampling frequency for the standard under paragraph (d)(ii)(D) of this the second 6-month monitoring period number of samples to annual section. In no case may the system for systems initiating annual monitoring monitoring. This sampling shall begin reduce the number of samples below the and during the 3-year period following in the calendar year immediately minimum of one sample per available the end of the third consecutive year of following the end of the second tap. This sampling should begin during annual monitoring for systems initiating consecutive six-month monitoring the calendar year three years after the triennial monitoring. period. The State shall review monitoring conducted under paragraph (B) Systems monitoring annually that monitoring, treatment, and other (a)(ii)(D) of this section. have been collecting samples during the relevant information submitted by the (B) Any small or medium-size system months of June through September and water system in accordance to § 141.90 monitoring under § 141.86(d)(4)(i)(A) or that receive State approval to alter their and shall notify the system in writing (B) that meets the lead trigger level and monitoring period under paragraph when it determines the system is the copper action level in three (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section must collect eligible to commence reduced consecutive rounds of annual their next round of samples during a monitoring pursuant to this paragraph. monitoring may reduce the number of time period that ends no later than 21 The State shall review, and where samples in accordance with paragraph months after the previous round of appropriate, revise its determination (c) of this section and reduce the sampling. Systems monitoring when the system submits new sampling frequency to triennial triennially that have been collecting monitoring or treatment data, or when monitoring. This sampling should begin samples during the month of June other data relevant to the frequency of during the calendar year three years through September and receive State tap sampling becomes available. after the monitoring conducted under approval to alter their sampling

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61762 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

collection period as per paragraph it exceeded the action level. Any such has completed two subsequent 6-month (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section must collect system may resume annual monitoring rounds of monitoring that meet the their next round of samples during a for lead and copper and discontinue criteria of paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(A) of this time period that ends no later than 45 water quality parameter monitoring in section and the system has received months after the previous monitoring accordance with § 141.87(b), (c) or (d) written approval from the State that it period. Subsequent monitoring must be (as appropriate) after it has completed is appropriate to resume reduced conducted annually or triennially, as two subsequent consecutive 6-month monitoring on an annual frequency. required by this section. Small systems rounds of monitoring that meet the This monitoring shall begin during the with waivers, granted pursuant to criteria of (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section, and calendar year immediately following the paragraph (g) of this section that have may resume triennial monitoring for end of the second consecutive 6-month been collecting samples during the lead and copper at the reduced number monitoring period. months of June through September and of sites after it demonstrates through (ii) The system may resume triennial receive State approval to alter their subsequent rounds of monitoring that it monitoring for lead and copper at the monitoring period as per paragraph meets the criteria of either paragraph tap at the reduced number of sites after (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section must collect (d)(4)(iii)(B) or (d)(4)(v) of this section. it demonstrates through subsequent their next round of samples before the (3) A small or medium-size system rounds of monitoring that it meets the end of the 9-year period. subject to reduced triennial monitoring criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or (v) Any water system that that exceeds the lead trigger level shall (d)(4)(v) of this section and the system demonstrates for two consecutive 6- resume sampling in accordance with has received written approval from the month monitoring periods that its 90th (d)(4)(ii)(B) of this section and collect State that it is appropriate to resume percentile lead level, calculated under the number of samples specified for triennial monitoring. § 141.80(c)(4), is less than or equal to standard monitoring under paragraph (iii) The system may reduce the 0.005 mg/L and the 90th percentile (c) of this section. If required by the number of water quality parameter tap copper level, calculated under State, such a system shall also conduct water samples required in accordance § 141.80(c)(4), is less than or equal to water quality parameter monitoring in with § 141.87(e)(1) and the frequency 0.65 mg/L may reduce the number of accordance with § 141.87(b), (c) or (d) with which it collects such samples in samples in accordance with paragraph (as appropriate) during the monitoring accordance with § 141.87(e)(2). Such a (c) of this section and reduce the period in which it exceeded the action system may not resume triennial frequency of monitoring to triennial level. Any such system may resume monitoring for water quality parameters monitoring. triennial monitoring for lead and copper at the tap until it demonstrates, in (vi)(A)(1) A small or medium-size and discontinue water quality parameter accordance with the requirements of water system on reduced triennial monitoring in accordance with § 141.87(e)(2), that it has re-qualified for monitoring that exceeds the lead or § 141.87(b), (c) or (d) (as appropriate) triennial monitoring. copper action level shall resume after it demonstrates through (2) Any water system subject to the monitoring in accordance with subsequent rounds of monitoring that it reduced annual monitoring frequency paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section and meets the criteria of either paragraph that fails to meet the lead or copper collect the number of samples specified (d)(4)(iii) or (d)(4)(v) of this section. action level during any four-month for standard monitoring under (B)(1) Any water system subject to the monitoring period or fails to operate at paragraph (c) of this section. Such a reduced triennial monitoring frequency or above the minimum value or within system shall also conduct water quality that fails to meet the lead or copper the range of values for the water quality parameter monitoring in accordance action level during any four-month parameters specified by the State under with § 141.87(b), (c) or (d) (as monitoring period or fails to operate at § 141.82(f) for more than nine days in appropriate) during the monitoring or above the minimum value or within any 6-month monitoring period period in which it exceeded the action the range of values for the water quality specified in § 141.87(d) shall conduct level. Any such water system may parameters specified by the State under tap water monitoring for lead and resume annual monitoring for lead and § 141.82(f) for more than nine days in copper at the frequency specified in copper and discontinue water quality any 6-month monitoring period paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section, and parameter monitoring in accordance specified in § 141.87(d) shall conduct shall resume sampling for water quality with § 141.87(b), (c) or (d) (as tap water monitoring for lead and parameters in accordance with appropriate) after it has completed two copper at the frequency specified in § 141.87(d). This standard monitoring consecutive 6-month rounds of paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section, shall begin no later than the 6-month monitoring that meet the criteria of collect the number of samples specified period beginning January 1 of the (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section, and may for standard monitoring under calendar year following the lead action resume triennial monitoring for lead paragraph (c) of this section, and shall level exceedance or water quality and copper at the reduced number of resume sampling for water quality parameter excursion. Such a system sites after it demonstrates through parameters in accordance with may resume reduced monitoring for subsequent rounds of monitoring that it § 141.87(d). This standard tap water lead and copper at the tap and for water meets the criteria of either paragraph monitoring shall begin no later than the quality parameters within the (d)(4)(iii)(B) or (d)(4)(v) of this section. 6-month period beginning January 1 of distribution system under the following (2) A small or medium-size water the calendar year following the lead conditions: system subject to annual monitoring action level exceedance or water quality (i) The system may resume annual that exceeds the lead or copper action parameter excursion. Such a system monitoring for lead and copper after it level shall resume sampling in may resume reduced monitoring for has completed two subsequent 6-month accordance with paragraph (d)(3)(i) of lead and copper at the tap and for water rounds of monitoring that meet the this section. Such a system shall also quality parameters within the criteria of paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(A) of this conduct water quality parameter distribution system under the following section and the system has received monitoring in accordance with conditions: written approval from the State that it § 141.87(b), (c) or (d) (as appropriate) (i) The system may resume annual is appropriate to resume reduced during the monitoring period in which monitoring for lead and copper after it monitoring on an annual frequency.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61763

This sampling shall begin during the § 141.87(e)(2), that it has re-qualified for percentile calculation. All water calendar year immediately following the triennial monitoring. systems shall make available to the end of the second consecutive 6-month (iii) Any water system subject to a public the results of the tap water monitoring period. reduced monitoring frequency under monitoring used to make the 90th (ii) The system may resume triennial paragraph (d)(4) of this section shall percentile calculation under monitoring for lead and copper at the notify the State in writing in accordance § 141.80(c)(4). Water systems shall not tap at the reduced number of sites after with § 141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming be required to list the addresses of the it demonstrates through subsequent long-term change in treatment or sites where the tap samples were rounds of monitoring that it meets the addition of a new source as described in collected. Large systems shall make criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or that section. The State must review and available the monitoring results in a (d)(4)(v) of this section and the system approve the addition of a new source or digital format. Small and medium-size has received written approval from the long-term change in water treatment systems shall make available the State that it is appropriate to resume before it is implemented by the water monitoring results in either a written or triennial monitoring. system. The State may require the digital format. (iii) The system may reduce the system to resume sampling in * * * * * number of water quality parameter tap accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this ■ 11. Revise § 141.87 to read as follows: water samples required in accordance section and collect the number of with § 141.87(e)(1) and the frequency samples specified for standard § 141.87 Monitoring requirements for with which it collects such samples in monitoring under paragraph (c) of this water quality parameters. accordance with § 141.87(e)(2). Such a section or take other appropriate steps All large water systems, and all small- system may not resume triennial such as increased water quality and medium-size water systems that monitoring for water quality parameters parameter monitoring, or re-evaluation exceed the lead or copper action level, at the tap until it demonstrates, in of corrosion control treatment given the and all small- and medium-size water accordance with the requirements of potentially different water quality systems with corrosion control § 141.87(e)(2), that it has qualified for considerations. treatment that exceed the lead trigger triennial monitoring. (e) Additional monitoring by systems. level shall monitor water quality (3) Any water system subject to the The results of any monitoring parameters in addition to lead and reduced triennial monitoring frequency conducted in addition to the minimum copper in accordance with this section. that exceeds the lead trigger level during requirements of this section (such as The requirements of this section are any four-month monitoring period shall customer-requested sampling) shall be summarized in the table at the end of conduct tap water sampling for lead and considered by the system and the State this section. copper at the frequency specified in in making any determinations (i.e., (a) General requirements. (1) Sample paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(B) of this section, calculating the 90th percentile lead or collection methods. (i) Tap samples collect the number of samples specified copper level) under this subpart. Lead shall be representative of water quality for standard monitoring under service line water systems that are throughout the distribution system, paragraph (c) of this section, and shall unable to collect the minimum number taking into account the number of resume sampling for water quality of samples from Tier 1 or Tier 2 sites persons served, the different sources of parameters in accordance with shall calculate the 90th percentile using water, the different treatment methods § 141.87(d). This standard tap water data from all the lead service lines sites employed by the system, and seasonal monitoring shall begin no later than the and the highest values from lower tier variability. Tap sampling under this 6-month period beginning January 1 of sites to meet the specified minimum section is not required to be conducted the calendar year following the lead number of sites. Data from additional at taps targeted for lead and copper trigger level exceedance or water quality lower tier sites shall be submitted to the sampling under § 141.86(a). parameter excursion. Such a system State but shall not be used in the 90th Note to paragraph (a)(1)(i): Systems may resume reduced monitoring for percentile calculation. Customer- may find it convenient to conduct tap lead and copper at the tap and for water requested samples from known lead sampling for water quality parameters at quality parameters within the service line sites shall be included in sites used for coliform sampling under distribution system under the following the 90th percentile calculation when § 141.21 in this chapter. conditions: they meet the requirements of paragraph (ii) Samples collected at the entry (i) The system may resume triennial (b) of this section. point(s) to the distribution system shall monitoring for lead and copper at the (f) Invalidation of lead and copper tap be from locations representative of each tap at the reduced number of sites after samples collected under § 141.86(d). source after treatment. If a system draws it demonstrates through subsequent *** water from more than one source and rounds of monitoring that it meets the * * * * * the sources are combined before criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or (h) Follow-up samples for ‘‘find-and- distribution, the system must sample at (d)(4)(v) of this section and the system fix’’ under § 141.82(j). Systems shall an entry point to the distribution system has received written approval from the collect a follow-up sample at any site during periods of normal operating State that it is appropriate to resume that exceeds the action level within 30 conditions (i.e., when water is triennial monitoring. days of receiving the sample results. representative of all sources being used). (ii) The system may reduce the These follow-up samples may use (2) Number of samples. (i) Systems number of water quality parameter tap different sample volumes or different shall collect two tap samples for water samples required in accordance sample collection procedures to assess applicable water quality parameters with § 141.87(e)(1) and the frequency the source of elevated lead. Samples during each monitoring period specified with which it collects such samples in collected under this section shall be under paragraphs (b) through (e) of this accordance with § 141.87(e)(2). Such a submitted to the State but shall not be section from the following minimum system may not resume triennial included in the 90th percentile number of sites. Systems that add sites monitoring for water quality parameters calculation. as a result of the ‘‘find-and-fix’’ at the tap until it demonstrates, in (i) Public availability of tap requirements in § 141.82(j) shall collect accordance with the requirements of monitoring results used in the 90th tap samples for applicable water quality

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61764 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

parameters during each monitoring parameters as specified in paragraph orthophosphate or silica (whichever is period under paragraphs (c) through (e) (b)(1) of this section, at taps and at each applicable). of this section and shall sample from entry point to the distribution system (iii) Any groundwater system can that adjusted minimum number of sites. during each 6-month monitoring period limit entry point sampling described in specified in § 141.86(d)(1). All small paragraph (c)(2) of this section to those TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(2)(i) and medium-size systems with entry points that are representative of corrosion control shall measure the water quality and treatment conditions Minimum applicable water quality parameters at throughout the system. If water from number of the locations specified below during untreated groundwater sources mixes System size sites for (number people served) water quality each 6-month monitoring period with water from treated groundwater parameters specified in § 141.86(d)(1) during which sources, the system must monitor for the system exceeds the lead trigger level water quality parameters both at 100,000 ...... 25 or copper action level. representative entry points receiving 10,001–100,000 ...... 10 (i) At taps: treatment and representative entry 3,301–10,000 ...... 3 (A) pH; points receiving no treatment. Prior to 501–3,300 ...... 2 (B) Alkalinity; the start of any monitoring under this 101–500 ...... 1 (C) Orthophosphate, when an paragraph, the water system shall ≤100 ...... 1 inhibitor containing an orthophosphate provide to the State, written information compound is used; identifying the selected entry points and (ii)(A) Except as provided in (D) Silica, when an inhibitor documentation, including information paragraph (c)(2) of this section, water containing a silicate compound is used; on seasonal variability, sufficient to systems without corrosion control (ii) At each entry point to the demonstrate that the sites are treatment shall collect two samples for distribution system, all of the applicable representative of water quality and each applicable water quality parameter parameters listed in paragraph (b)(2) of treatment conditions throughout the at each entry point to the distribution this section. system. system during each monitoring period (c) Monitoring after installation of (2) States have the discretion to specified in paragraph (b) of this optimal corrosion control or re- require small and medium-size systems section. During each monitoring period optimized corrosion control treatment. that exceed the lead trigger level but not specified in paragraphs (c) through (e) of (1) Any large water system that re- the lead and copper action levels to this section, water systems shall collect optimizes corrosion control treatment conduct water quality parameter one sample for each applicable water pursuant to § 141.81(d)(5)(i) and any monitoring as described in paragraph quality parameter at each entry point to small or medium-size water system that (c)(ii) of this section or the State can the distribution system. exceeds the lead or copper action level develop its own water quality control (B) During each monitoring period and re-optimizes corrosion control parameter monitoring structure for these specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) treatment pursuant to § 141.81(d)(5)(ii) systems. of the section, water systems with shall measure the water quality (d) Monitoring after State specifies corrosion control treatment shall parameters at the locations and water quality parameter values for continue to collect one sample for each frequencies specified in paragraph optimal corrosion control. (1) After the applicable water quality parameter at (c)(1)(i) of this section, during each 6- State specifies the values for applicable each entry point to the distribution month monitoring period specified in water quality parameters reflecting system no less frequently than once § 141.86(d)(2)(i). Any small or medium- optimal corrosion control treatment every two weeks. size system which installs optimal under § 141.87(f), all large systems shall (b) Initial sampling for water systems corrosion control treatment shall measure the applicable water quality without corrosion control treatment. (1) conduct such monitoring during each 6- parameters in accordance with Water systems without corrosion control month monitoring period specified in paragraph (c) of this section and treatment shall measure the applicable § 141.86(d)(2)(i). determine compliance with the water quality parameters at the locations (i) At taps, two samples for: requirements of § 141.82(g) every six specified below during each 6-month (A) pH; months with the first 6-month period to monitoring period specified in (B) Alkalinity; begin on either January 1 or July 1, § 141.86(d)(1), during which the water (C) Orthophosphate, when an whichever comes first, after the State system exceeds the lead or copper inhibitor containing an orthophosphate specifies the optimal values under action level, and continue until the compound is used; § 141.82(f). Any small or medium-size water system meets the lead and copper (D) Silica, when an inhibitor water system that exceeded an action action levels for two consecutive 6- containing a silicate compound is used; level shall conduct such monitoring month monitoring periods. (ii) Except as provided in paragraph until the water system meets the lead (i) At taps: (c)(3) of this section, at each entry point and copper action levels and the (A) pH; to the distribution system, at least one optimal water quality control (B) Alkalinity; sample no less frequently than every parameters in two consecutive 6-month (C) Orthophosphate, when an two weeks (biweekly) for: monitoring periods under inhibitor containing an orthophosphate (A) pH; § 141.86(d)(3)(i) and this paragraph. For compound is used; (B) When alkalinity is adjusted as part any such small and medium-size system (D) Silica, when an inhibitor of optimal corrosion control, a reading that is subject to a reduced monitoring containing a silicate compound is used; of the dosage rate of the chemical used frequency pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4) at (ii) At each entry point to the to adjust alkalinity, and the alkalinity the time of the action level exceedance, distribution system all of the applicable concentration; and the start of the applicable 6-month parameters listed in paragraph (b)(1) of (C) When a corrosion inhibitor is used monitoring period under this paragraph this section. as part of optimal corrosion control, a shall coincide with the start of the (2) All large water systems shall reading of the dosage rate of the applicable monitoring period under measure the applicable water quality inhibitor used, and the concentration of § 141.86(d)(4). Compliance with State-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61765

designated optimal water quality treatment specified by the State under State in making any determinations (i.e., parameter values shall be determined as § 141.82(f) and meets the lead trigger determining concentrations of water specified under § 141.82(g). level during three consecutive years of quality parameters) under this section or (2) Any small or medium-size system annual monitoring under this paragraph § 141.82. that exceeds the lead trigger level, but may reduce the frequency with which it (g) Additional sites added from Find- not the lead and copper action levels for collects the number of tap samples for and-Fix. Any water system that adds which the State has set optimal water applicable water quality parameters water quality parameter sites through quality control parameters shall monitor specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this the ‘‘find-and-fix’’ provisions pursuant according to the structure in paragraph section from annually to every three to § 141.82(j) shall add those sites to the (c)(ii) of this section, until the system no years. This sampling begins no later minimum number of sites specified longer exceeds the lead trigger level in than the third calendar year following under paragraphs (a) through (e) of this three consecutive annual monitoring the end of the monitoring period in section. periods. States have the discretion to which the third consecutive year of ■ 12. Amend § 141.88 by: continue to require these systems to monitoring occurs. ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (b), monitor optimal water quality control (ii) A water system may reduce the paragraph (d) introductory text, parameters. frequency with which it collects tap paragraph (d)(1) introductory text, (e) Reduced monitoring. (1) Any large samples for applicable water quality paragraph (e)(1) introductory and water system that maintains the range of parameters specified in paragraph (e)(1) paragraph (e)(1)(i); ■ values for the water quality parameters of this section to every three years if it b. Removing and reserving paragraph reflecting optimal corrosion control demonstrates during two consecutive (e)(1)(ii); ■ treatment specified by the State under monitoring periods that its tap water c. Revising paragraph (e)(2); and ■ d. Removing and reserving paragraph § 141.82(f) and does not exceed the lead lead level at the 90th percentile is less (e)(2)(ii). trigger level during each of two than or equal to the PQL for lead The revisions read as follows: consecutive 6-month monitoring specified in § 141.89(a)(1)(ii), that its tap periods under paragraph (d) of this water copper level at the 90th percentile § 141.88 Monitoring requirements for lead section shall continue monitoring at the is less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L in and copper in source water. § 141.80(c)(3), and that it also has entry point(s) to the distribution system (a) * * * maintained the range of values for the as specified in paragraph (c)(ii) of this (1) * * * section. Such system may collect two water quality parameters reflecting (i) Groundwater systems shall take a tap samples for applicable water quality optimal corrosion control treatment minimum of one sample at every entry parameters from the following reduced specified by the State under § 141.82(f). point to the distribution system after number of sites during each 6-month Monitoring conducted every three years any application of treatment or in the shall be done no later than every third monitoring period. distribution system at a point which is calendar year. representative of each source after (3) A water system that conducts TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (e)(1) sampling annually shall collect these treatment (hereafter called a sampling point). The system shall take one Reduced samples evenly throughout the year so as to reflect seasonal variability. sample at the same sampling point minimum unless conditions make another System size number of (4) Any water system subject to the (number of people served) sites for reduced monitoring frequency that fails sampling point more representative of water quality to operate at or above the minimum each source or treatment plant. parameters value or within the range of values for * * * * * (b) Monitoring frequency after system 100,000 ...... 10 the water quality parameters specified 10,001–100,000 ...... 7 by the State in § 141.82(f) for more than exceeds tap water action level. Any 3,301–10,000 ...... 3 nine days in any 6-month period system which exceeds the lead or 501–3,300 ...... 2 specified in § 141.82(g) shall resume copper action level at the tap for the 101–500 ...... 1 distribution system tap water sampling first time or for the first time after a ≤100 ...... 1 in accordance with the number and change in source or source water frequency requirements in paragraph (d) treatment required under § 141.83(b)(2) (2)(i) Any water system that maintains of this section. Such a system may shall collect one source water sample the range of values for the water quality resume annual monitoring for water from each entry point to the distribution parameters reflecting optimal corrosion quality parameters at the tap at the system no later than six months after the control treatment specified by the State reduced number of sites specified in end of the monitoring period during under § 141.82(f) and does not exceed paragraph (e)(1) of this section after it which the lead or copper action level the lead trigger level during three has completed two subsequent was exceeded. For monitoring periods consecutive years of monitoring may consecutive 6-month rounds of that are annual or less frequent, the end reduce the frequency with which it monitoring that meet the criteria of that of the monitoring period is September collects the number of tap samples for paragraph and/or may resume triennial 30 of the calendar year in which the applicable water quality parameters monitoring for water quality parameters sampling occurs, or if the State has specified in this paragraph (e)(1) of this at the tap at the reduced number of sites established an alternate monitoring section, from every six months to after it demonstrates through period, the last day of that period. If the annually. This sampling begins during subsequent rounds of monitoring that it State determines that source water the calendar year immediately following meets the criteria of either paragraph treatment is not required under the end of the monitoring period in (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this section. § 141.83(b)(2), the system is not required which the third consecutive year of 6- (f) Additional monitoring by systems. to conduct additional source water month monitoring occurs. Any water The results of any monitoring monitoring unless directed by the State. system that maintains the range of conducted in addition to the minimum A system subject to discontinued source values for the water quality parameters requirements of this section shall be water monitoring under this paragraph, reflecting optimal corrosion control considered by the water system and the shall notify the State in writing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61766 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

pursuant to § 141.90(a)(3) of the (1) Analyses for alkalinity, system was unable to meet the addition of a new source. orthophosphate, pH, and silica may be minimum number of sites in § 141.86(c) (1) The State may waive additional performed by any person acceptable to with sites meeting the criteria under source water monitoring under the the State. Analyses under this section § 141.86(a)(7) with the inventory following conditions: for lead and copper shall only be developed under § 141.84(a). (i) The water system has already conducted by laboratories that have (iv) The 90th percentile lead and conducted source water monitoring been certified by EPA or the State. To copper concentrations measured from following a previous action level obtain certification to conduct analyses among all lead and copper tap water exceedance; for lead and copper, laboratories must: samples collected during each (ii) The State has determined that * * * * * monitoring period (calculated in source water treatment is not required; (iii) Achieve method detection limit accordance with § 141.80(c)(4) or and for lead of 0.001 mg/L according to the (c)(4)(ii)), unless the State calculates the (iii) The system has not added any procedures in Appendix B of part 136 water system’s 90th percentile lead and new water sources. of this title. copper levels under paragraph (h) of (2) [Reserved]. * * * * * this section; * * * * * ■ 14. Revise § 141.90 to read as follows: (v) The water system shall identify (d) Monitoring frequency after State any site which was not sampled during specifies maximum permissible source § 141.90 Reporting Requirements. previous monitoring periods, and water levels. (1) A system shall monitor All water systems shall report all of include an explanation of why sampling at the frequency specified in paragraphs the following information to the State in sites have changed; (d)(1) and (2) of this section, in cases accordance with this section. (vi) The results of all tap samples for where the State specifies maximum (a) Reporting requirements for tap pH, and where applicable, alkalinity, permissible source water levels under water monitoring for lead and copper orthophosphate, or silica collected § 141.83(b)(4). and for water quality parameter under § 141.87(b) through (e); monitoring except for small systems (vii) The results of all samples * * * * * using the point-of-use compliance collected at the entry point(s) to the (e) * * * flexibility option. (1) Except as provided distribution system for applicable water (1) A water system using only in paragraph (a)(1)(viii) of this section, quality parameters under § 141.87(b) groundwater may reduce the monitoring a water system shall report the through (e); frequency for lead and copper in source information specified in paragraphs (viii) A water system shall report the water to once during each nine-year (a)(1)(i) through (ix) of this section, for results of all water quality parameter compliance cycle (as that term is all tap water samples specified in samples collected under § 141.87(c) defined in § 141.2) provided that the § 141.86 and for all water quality through (f) during each 6-month samples are collected no later than parameter samples specified in § 141.87 monitoring period specified in every ninth calendar year and if the within the first 10 days following the § 141.87(d) within the first 10 days system meets the following criteria: end of each applicable monitoring following the end of the monitoring (i) The system demonstrates that period specified in §§ 141.86 and 141.87 period unless the State has specified a finished drinking water entering the (i.e., every six months, annually, every more frequent reporting requirement. distribution system has been maintained three years, or every nine years). For (ix) A copy of the tap sampling below the maximum permissible lead monitoring periods with a duration less protocol provided to residents or those and copper concentrations specified by than six months, the end of the sampling, to verify that pre-stagnation the State in 141.83(b)(4) during at least monitoring period is the last date flushing, aerator cleaning or removal three consecutive compliance periods samples can be collected during that and the use of narrow-necked collection under section (d)(1) of this section. period as specified in §§ 141.86 and bottles were not included as (ii) [Reserved]. 141.87. recommendations. (2) A water system using surface (i) The results of all tap samples for (2) For a non-transient non- water (or a combination of surface water lead and copper including the location community water system, or a and groundwater) may reduce the of each site and the criteria under community water system meeting the monitoring frequency in paragraph § 141.86(a)(3) through (8), and/or (9), criteria of § 141.85(b)(7), that does not (d)(1) of this section to once during each under which the site was selected for have enough taps that can provide first- 9-year compliance cycle (as that term is the water system’s sampling pool; draw samples, the water system must defined in § 141.2 of this chapter) (ii) Documentation for each tap water either: provided that the samples are collected lead or copper sample for which the (i) Provide written documentation to no later than every ninth calendar year water system requests invalidation the State identifying standing times and and if the system meets the following pursuant to § 141.86(f)(2); locations for enough non-first-draw criteria: (iii) For lead service line systems, samples to make up its sampling pool (i) * * * documentation of sampling pools with under § 141.86(b)(5) by the start of the (ii) [Reserved]. insufficient number of lead service line first applicable monitoring period under * * * * * sites to meet the minimum number of § 141.86(d) unless the State has waived ■ 13. Amend § 141.89 by revising sites criterion in § 141.86(c). prior State approval of non-first-draw paragraph (a) introductory text, (A) Community water systems shall sample sites selected by the water paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and document why the system was unable to system pursuant to § 141.86(b)(5); or paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as follows: meet the minimum number of sites in (ii) If the State has waived prior § 141.86(c) with sites meeting the approval of non-first-draw sample sites § 141.89 Analytical methods. criteria under § 141.86(a)(3) or (4) with selected by the water system, identify, (a) Analyses for lead, copper, pH, the inventory developed under in writing, each site that did not meet alkalinity, orthophosphate, and silica § 141.84(a). the 6-hour minimum stagnation time shall be conducted in accordance with (B) Non-transient, non-community and the length of stagnation time for methods in 141.23(k)(1). water systems shall document why the that particular substitute sample

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61767

collected pursuant to § 141.86(b)(5) and action, if any, the water system plans to within 24 months after the State include this information with the lead remove these materials. designated the treatment. and copper tap sample results required (iv) Reserved. (e) Lead service line inventory and to be submitted pursuant to paragraph (5) Each groundwater system that replacement reporting requirements. (a)(1)(i) of this section. limits water quality parameter Water systems shall report the following (3) At a time specified by the State, or monitoring to a subset of entry points information to the State to demonstrate if no specific time is designated by the under § 141.87(c)(3) shall provide, by compliance with the requirements of State, then as early as possible prior to the commencement of such monitoring, § 141.84: the addition of a new source or any written correspondence to the State that (1) No later than 12 months after the long-term change in water treatment, a identifies the selected entry points and end of a monitoring period in which a water system shall submit written includes information sufficient to water system exceeds the lead action documentation to the State describing demonstrate that the sites are level in sampling referred to in the change or addition referred to in representative of water quality and § 141.84(f), the water system must § 141.86(d)(4). The State must review treatment conditions throughout the submit written documentation to the and approve the addition of a new water system. State of the material evaluation source or long-term change in treatment (b) Source water monitoring reporting conducted as required in § 141.84(a), before it is implemented by the water requirements. (1) A water system shall identify the initial number of lead system. Examples of long-term report the sampling results for all source service lines in its distribution system at treatment changes include the addition water samples collected in accordance the time the water system exceeds the of a new treatment process or with § 141.88 within the first 10 days lead action level, and provide the water modification of an existing treatment following the end of each source water system’s schedule for annually process. Examples of modifications monitoring period (i.e., annually, per replacing at least 3 percent of the initial include switching secondary compliance period, per compliance number of lead service lines in its disinfectants, switching coagulants (e.g., cycle) specified in § 141.88. distribution system. alum to ferric chloride), and switching (2) With the exception of the first (2) No later than 12 months after the corrosion inhibitor products (e.g., round of source water sampling end of a monitoring period in which a orthophosphate to blended phosphate). conducted pursuant to § 141.88(b), the water system exceeds the lead action Long-term changes can include dose water system shall specify any site level in sampling referred to in changes to existing chemicals if the which was not sampled during previous § 141.84(f), and every 12 months water system is planning long-term monitoring periods and include an thereafter, the water system shall certify changes to its finished water pH or explanation of why the sampling point to the State in writing that the water residual inhibitor concentration. Long- has changed. system has: term treatment changes would not (c) Corrosion control treatment (i) Replaced in the previous 12 include chemical dose fluctuations reporting requirements. By the months at least 3 percent of the initial associated with daily raw water quality applicable dates under § 141.81, water lead service lines (or a greater number changes. (4) Any small water system applying systems shall report the following of lines specified by the State under for a monitoring waiver under information: § 141.84(f)(10)) in its distribution § 141.86(g), or subject to a waiver (1) For water systems demonstrating system, granted pursuant to § 141.86(g)(3), shall that they have already optimized (ii) Conducted consumer notification provide the following information to the corrosion control, information required as specified in § 141.84(e). State in writing by the specified in § 141.81(b)(2) or (3). (iii) Additionally, the water system deadline: (2) For water systems required to must certify to the State that it delivered (i) By the start of the first applicable reoptimize corrosion control, their public education materials to the monitoring period in § 141.86(d), any recommendation regarding optimal affected consumers as specified in small water system applying for a corrosion control treatment under § 141.85(a) and the notification of lead monitoring waiver shall provide the § 141.82(a). service line materials as specified in documentation required to demonstrate (3) For water systems required to § 141.85(e). that it meets the waiver criteria of evaluate the effectiveness of corrosion (3) The annual letter submitted to the §§ 141.86(g)(1) and (2). control treatments under § 141.82(c), the State under paragraph (e)(2) of this (ii) No later than nine years after the information required by that paragraph. section shall contain the following monitoring previously conducted (4) For water systems required to information: pursuant to § 141.86(g)(2) or install optimal corrosion control (i) The number of lead service lines § 141.86(g)(4)(i), each small water designated by the State under scheduled to be replaced during the system desiring to maintain its § 141.82(d), a letter certifying that the previous year of the water system’s monitoring waiver shall provide the water system has completed installing replacement schedule; information required by that treatment. (ii) The location of each lead service §§ 141.86(g)(4)(i) and (ii). (d) Source water treatment reporting line replaced, and total number replaced (iii) No later than 60 days after it requirements. By the applicable dates in during the previous year of the water becomes aware that it is no longer free § 141.83, water systems shall provide system’s replacement schedule; of lead-containing and/or copper- the following information to the State: (iii) The certification that the water containing material, as appropriate, (1) If required under § 141.83(b)(1), system has notified the resident(s) each small water system with a their recommendation regarding source served by the lead service line at least monitoring waiver shall provide written water treatment; 45 days prior to the planned lead notification to the State, setting forth the (2) For water systems required to service line replacement or within 24 circumstances resulting in the lead- install source water treatment under hours of an emergency full or partial containing and/or copper-containing § 141.83(b)(2), a letter certifying that the replacement; materials being introduced into the water system has completed installing (iv) The certification that the water water system and what corrective the treatment designated by the State system delivered lead service line

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61768 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

information materials in § 141.85(e) to certify to the State in writing that the fix’’ pursuant to §§ 141.86(h) and the affected consumers; and water system has conducted customer 141.87(g). (v) The certification that results of outreach as specified in § 141.85(g). (h) Reporting of 90th percentile lead samples collected between three months (f) Public education program and copper concentrations where the and six months after the date of a full reporting requirements. (1) Any water State calculates a water system’s 90th or partial lead service line replacement system that is subject to the public percentile concentrations. A water were provided to the customer in education requirements in § 141.85 system is not required to report the 90th accordance with the timeframes in shall, within 10 days after the end of percentile lead and copper 141.85(d)(2). Mailed notices post- each period in which the water system concentrations measured from among marked within three business days of is required to perform public education all lead and copper tap water samples receiving the results shall be considered in accordance with § 141.85(b), send collected during each monitoring ‘‘on time.’’ written documentation to the State that period, as required by paragraph (4) [Reserved]. contains: (a)(1)(iv) of this section if: (5) No later than the compliance date (i) A demonstration that the water (1) The State has previously notified of the rule, the water system must system has delivered the public the water system that it will calculate submit to the State an inventory of lead education materials that meet the the water system’s 90th percentile lead service lines as required in § 141.84(a), content requirements in § 141.85(a) and and copper concentrations, based on the and every 12 months thereafter, any the delivery requirements in § 141.85(b); lead and copper tap results submitted water system that has lead service lines and pursuant to paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this must submit to the State an updated (ii) A list of all the newspapers, radio section, and has specified a date before inventory that includes the number of stations, television stations, and the end of the applicable monitoring lead service lines remaining in the facilities and organizations to which the period by which the water system must distribution system as required in system delivered public education provide the results of lead and copper § 141.84(a). materials during the period in which the tap water samples; (2) The water system has provided the (i) Any water system that contains a system was required to perform public following information to the State by the lead service line in their distribution education tasks. date specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this system must submit to the State, as (2) Unless required by the State, a specified in section § 141.84(b) a lead section: water system that previously has (i) The results of all tap samples for service line replacement plan at the submitted the information required by same time the lead service line lead and copper including the location paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section need of each site and the criteria under inventory is submitted. not resubmit the information required (ii) Any water system that contains a § 141.86(a)(3) through (8) and/or (9), by paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section, as lead service line in their distribution under which the site was selected for long as there have been no changes in system or a service line of unknown the water system’s sampling pool, the distribution list and the water material must certify to the State pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this system certifies that the public annually that it conducted consumer section; and education materials were distributed to notification as specified in § 141.85(e). (ii) An identification of sampling sites (iii) Any water system that contains a the same list submitted previously. utilized during the current monitoring lead service line in their distribution (3) No later than three months period that were not sampled during system or a service line of unknown following the end of the monitoring previous monitoring periods, and an material must certify to the State period, each water system must mail a explanation why sampling sites have annually that it delivered lead service sample copy of the consumer changed; and line information materials to the notification of tap results to the State (3) The State has provided the results affected consumers as specified in along with a certification that the of the 90th percentile lead and copper § 141.85(e). notification has been distributed in a calculations, in writing, to the water (6) No later than 12 months after the manner consistent with the system before the end of the monitoring end of a monitoring period in which a requirements of § 141.85(d). period. water system exceeds the lead trigger (4) Annually on July 1, a (i) Reporting requirements for a level but not the lead action level in demonstration that the water system community water system’s public sampling referred to in § 141.84(e) has delivered annual notification to education and sampling in schools and replaced lead service lines at the annual customers with a lead service line or child care facilities. (1) A community goal rate. In addition, every 12 months service line of unknown material in water system shall send a report to the thereafter, the water system shall certify accordance with § 141.85(e). State by July 1 of each year for the to the State in writing that the water (5) Annually on July 1, a previous calendar year’s activity. The system has: demonstration that the water conducted report must include the following: (i) Replaced in the previous 12 an outreach activity in accordance with (i) Certification that it made a good months, at least enough of the initial § 141.85(g) when failing to meet the lead faith effort to identify schools and child lead service lines to meet the annual service line replacement goal as care facilities in accordance with goal-based rate set by the State under specified in § 141.84(f). § 141.92(a). The good faith effort may § 141.84(d)(1) in its distribution system; (g) Reporting of additional monitoring include reviewing customer records and (ii) Conducted consumer notification data. Any water system which collects requesting lists of schools and child care as specified in § 141.85(f); sampling data in addition to that facilities from the primacy agency or (iii) Additionally, the water system required by this subpart shall report the other licensing agency. A water system must certify to the State that it delivered results to the State within the first 10 that certifies that no schools or child the notification of lead service line days following the end of the applicable care facilities are served by the water materials as specified in § 141.85(b); and monitoring period under §§ 141.86, system is not required to include (iv) A water system that does not meet 141.87 and 141.88 during which the information in paragraph (i)(1)(ii) its annual service line replacement goal samples are collected. This includes the through (i)(1)(iii) of this section in the as required under § 141.84(f) shall monitoring data pertaining to ‘‘find and report.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61769

(ii) Certification that the water system the facility, including information about until all schools and child care facilities has completed the notification and testing for lead in schools and child care identified under paragraph (a) of this sampling requirements of §§ 141.86 and facilities (EPA’s 3Ts for Reducing Lead section have been sampled or have 141.92 at a minimum of 20 percent of in Drinking Water Toolkit, EPA–815–B– declined to participate. schools and child care facilities; 18–007 or subsequent EPA guidance), (2) A water system shall continue to (A) The number of schools and child and; collect samples from at least 20 percent care facilities served by the water (iii) Instructions for identifying of school and child care facilities in its system; outlets for sampling and preparing for a distribution system each year thereafter. (B) The number of schools and child sampling event 30 days prior to the (3) A water system shall conduct care facilities sampled in the calendar event. monitoring at all schools and child care year; (3) The water system must include facilities at least once every five years. (C) The number of schools and child documentation in the proposed (4) The water system must include care facilities that have refused reporting requirement in § 141.90(i) if a documentation in the report required in sampling; school or child care facility refuses § 141.90(i) if a school or child care (D) Information pertaining to attempts entry or otherwise declines to facility refuses entry or otherwise to gain entry for sampling that were participate in the monitoring or declines to allow the system to conduct declined by the customer; and education requirements of this section. the monitoring or education (iii) Certification that sampling results (b) Monitoring for lead in schools and requirements of this section. were provided to schools, child care child care facilities. (1) A water system (d) Alternative School Sampling facilities, and local or State health shall collect five samples per school and Programs. (1) If Local or State law or departments. two samples per child care facility at regulations require schools and (iv) Certification of compliance with outlets typically used for consumption. childcare facilities to be tested, by either an alternative school and childcare The outlets shall not have point-of-use the school or the water system, in a way testing program at least as stringent (POU) devices and shall consist of the that is at least as stringent as paragraphs paragraphs (a) through (c) of § 141.92, if following locations: (a) through (c) of this section, the water applicable. (i) For schools: Two drinking water (j) Small system compliance flexibility system may execute that program to fountains, one kitchen faucet used for option using point-of-use devices. Small comply with the requirements of this food or drink preparation, one water systems and non-transient, non- section. classroom faucet, and one nurse’s office community water systems shall report (2) The water system must include faucet, as available. the results from the tap sampling documentation in the report required in (ii) For child care facilities: One required under § 141.93 and any § 141.90(i) if a school or child care drinking water fountain and one of corrective actions taken if the trigger facility refuses entry or otherwise either a kitchen faucet used for level was exceeded in that monitoring. declines to allow the system to conduct preparation of food or drink or one Small water systems shall also provide the monitoring or education classroom faucet. documentation to certify maintenance of requirements of this section. (iii) If any facility has fewer than the the point-of-use devices if requested by (e) Confirmation or revision of schools required number of outlets, the water the State. and child care facilities in inventory. A ■ 15. Add § 141.92 to subpart I to read system shall sample all outlets used for water system shall either confirm that as follows: consumption. there have been no changes to its list of (iv) If any facility does not contain the schools and child care facilities served § 141.92 Monitoring for lead in schools type of faucet listed above, the water by the system developed pursuant to and child care facilities. system shall collect a sample from § 141.92(a), or submit a revised list at All community water systems must another outlet typically used for least once every five years. conduct directed public education to consumption as identified by the (f) Notification of Results. A water schools and child care facilities served facility. system shall provide analytical results by the water system, including any (v) Samples shall be collected from as soon as practicable but no late than facilities that are consecutive water the cold water tap subject to the 30 days after receipt of the results to: systems if those schools or child care following additional requirements: (1) The school or child care facility, facilities were constructed prior to (A) Each sample for lead shall be a along with information about remedial January 1, 2014. first-draw sample; options; (a) Public Education to schools and (B) The sample must be 250 ml in (2) the local or State health child care facilities. (1) By the volume; department; and compliance date for the rule, each water (C) The water must have remained (3) the primacy agency. system shall compile a list of schools or stationary in the plumbing system of the ■ 16. Add § 141.93 to subpart I to read licensed child care facilities served by sampling site (building) for at least 8 but as follows: the system. The provisions of this no more than 18 hours; section do not apply to a school or child (D) Samples may be collected by § 141.93 Small Water System Compliance care facility that is a regulated as a either the customer, school or child care Flexibility public water system, including facility, or the water system, and; The compliance alternatives consecutive public water systems. (E) Samples shall be analyzed using described in this section apply to small (2) Each water system shall contact acidification and the corresponding community water systems serving schools or licensed child care facilities analytical methods in § 141.89. 10,000 or fewer persons or non-transient identified by the system in paragraph (a) (2) [Reserved]. non-community water systems. of this section to provide: (c) Frequency of sample collection at (a) A small community water system (i) Information about health risks from schools and child care facilities. (1) A that exceeds the lead trigger level but lead in drinking water on at least an water system shall collect samples from meets the lead and copper action levels annual basis; at least 20 percent of schools served by must evaluate compliance options in (ii) Notification that the water system the system and 20 percent of child care paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this will be conducting sampling for lead at facilities served by the system per year section and make a compliance option

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61770 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

recommendation to the State within six trigger level but meets the lead and trigger level. The system must document months of the end of the monitoring copper action levels must evaluate the problem and take corrective action period in which the exceedance compliance options in paragraphs (b)(1) at any site where the sample result occurred. A State must approve the through (4) of this section and make a exceeds the lead trigger level. recommendation or designate an compliance option recommendation to (4) Replacement of Lead-Bearing alternative from compliance options in the State within six months of the end Plumbing. A water system must replace paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this of the monitoring period in which the all plumbing that is not lead free in section within six months of the exceedance occurred. A State must accordance with Section 1417 of the recommendation by the water system. If approve the recommendation or Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended by the water system subsequently exceeds designate an alternative from the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water the lead action level it must implement compliance options in paragraphs (b)(1) Act and any future amendments the approved option. Community water through (4) of this section within six applicable at the time of replacement, systems must select from the following months of the recommendation by the including a lead service line, even if its compliance options: water system. If the water system 90th percentile is below the action level (1) Lead Service Line Replacement. A subsequently exceeds the lead action in future monitoring periods. A water water system shall implement a full lead level it must implement the approved system must have control over all service line replacement program and option. Non-transient non-community plumbing in its buildings. The replace its lead service lines on a water system must select from the replacement of all lead-bearing schedule approved by the State and following compliance options: plumbing must occur on a schedule shall complete replacement of all lead (1) Lead Service Line Replacement. A established by the State, not to exceed service lines within 15 years, even if its water system shall implement a full lead one year. 90th percentile is below the action level service line replacement program and (c) A small community water system in future monitoring periods. replace its lead service lines on a that exceeds the lead action level but (2) Corrosion Control Treatment. A schedule approved by the State and meets the copper action level must water system must install and maintain shall complete replacement of all lead evaluate according to paragraphs (c)(1) corrosion control treatment in service lines within 15 years, even if its through (3) of this section and make a accordance with § 141.82, even if its 90th percentile is at or below the action compliance option recommendation to 90th percentile is below the action level level in future monitoring periods. the State within six months of the end (2) Corrosion Control Treatment. A in future monitoring periods. Any water of the monitoring period in which the water system must install and maintain system that has corrosion control exceedance occurred. A State must corrosion control treatment in treatment installed must re-optimize as approve the recommendation or accordance with § 141.82, even if its per § 141.82(d). designate an alternative from 90th percentile is below the action level (3) Point-of-Use Devices. A water compliance options in paragraphs (c)(1) in future monitoring periods. Any water system must install, maintain, and through (3) of this section within six system that has corrosion control monitor POU devices in each household months of the recommendation by the treatment installed must re-optimize as or building, even if its 90th percentile water system. If the water system per § 141.82(e). is below the action level in future subsequently exceeds the lead action (3) Point-of-Use Devices. A water monitoring periods. level it must implement the approved (i) A community water system must system must install, maintain, and option. Community water systems must install a minimum of one POU device monitor POU devices in each household select from the following compliance (at one tap) in every household or or building, even if its 90th percentile options: building in its distribution system. is at or below the action level in future (ii) The POU device must be certified monitoring periods. (1) Lead Service Line Replacement. A by the American National Standards (i) A non-transient non-community water system shall implement full lead Institute to reduce lead in drinking water system must provide a POU service line replacement program and water, and device to every tap that is used for replace its lead service lines on a (iii) The POU device must be cooking and/or drinking. schedule approved by the State and maintained by the water system to (ii) The POU device must be certified shall complete replacement of all lead ensure continued effective filtration, by the American National Standards service lines within 15 years, even if its including but not limited to changing Institute to reduce lead in drinking 90th percentile is below the action level filter cartridges and resolving any water and: in future monitoring periods. operational issues. (iii) The POU device must be (2) Corrosion Control Treatment. A (iv) The community water system maintained by the water system to water system must install and maintain must monitor one-third of the POU ensure continued effective filtration, corrosion control treatment in devices each year and all POU devices including but not limited to changing accordance with § 141.82, even if its must be monitored within a three-year filter cartridges and resolving any 90th percentile is below the action level cycle. First-draw tap samples collected operational issues. in future monitoring periods. under this section must be taken after (iv) The non-transient non- (3) Point-of-Use Devices. A water water passes through the POU device to community water system must monitor system must install, maintain, and assess its performance. Samples should one-third of the POU devices each year monitor POU devices in each household be one-liter in volume and have had a and all POU devices must be monitored or building, even if its 90th percentile minimum 6-hour stagnation time. All within a three-year cycle. First-draw tap is below the action level in future samples must be at or below the lead samples collected under this section monitoring periods. trigger level. The system must document must be taken after water passes through (i) A community water system must the problem and take corrective action the POU device to assess its install a minimum of one POU device at any site where the sample result performance. Samples should be one- (at one tap) in every household or exceeds the lead trigger level. liter in volume and have had a building in its distribution system. (b) A non-transient non-community minimum 6-hour stagnation time. All (ii) The POU device must be certified water system that exceeds the lead samples must be at or below the lead by the American National Standards

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61771

Institute to reduce lead in drinking water system that has corrosion control § 141.153 Content of the reports water, and treatment installed must re-optimize as * * * * * (iii) The POU device must be per § 141.82(e). (d) * * * maintained by the water system to (3) Point-of-Use Devices. A water (4) * * * ensure continued effective filtration, system must install, maintain, and (vi) For lead and copper: The 90th including but not limited to changing monitor POU devices in each household percentile concentration of the most filter cartridges and resolving any or building, even if its 90th percentile recent round of sampling, the number of operational issues. is at or below the action level in future sampling sites exceeding the action (iv) The community water system monitoring periods. level, and the range of tap sampling must monitor one-third of the POU (i) A non-transient non-community results; devices each year and all POU devices water system must provide a POU must be monitored within a three-year device to every tap that is used for * * * * * cycle. First-draw tap samples collected cooking and/or drinking. ■ 18. Amend § 141.154 to revise under this section must be taken after (ii) The POU device must be certified paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows: water passes through the POU device to by the American National Standards § 141.154 Required additional health assess its performance. Samples should Institute to reduce lead in drinking information. be one-liter in volume and have had a water and: * * * * * minimum 6-hour stagnation time. All (iii) The POU device must be (d) * * * samples must be at or below the lead maintained by the water system to trigger level. The system must document ensure continued effective filtration, (1) A short informational statement the problem and take corrective action including but not limited to changing about lead in drinking water and its at any site where the sample result filter cartridges and resolving any effects on children. The statement must exceeds the lead trigger level. operational issues. include the following information: (d) A non-transient non-community (iv) The non-transient non- If present, lead can cause serious water system that exceeds the lead community water system must monitor health problems, especially for pregnant action level but does not exceed the one-third of the POU devices each year women and young children. Lead in copper action level must evaluate (1) and all POU devices must be monitored drinking water is primarily from through (4) of this section and make a within a three-year cycle. First-draw tap materials and components associated compliance recommendation to the samples collected under this section with service lines and home plumbing. State from compliance options in must be taken after water passes through [NAME OF UTILITY] is responsible for paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this the POU device to assess its providing high quality drinking water, section within six months of the end of performance. Samples should be one- but cannot control the variety of the monitoring period in which the liter in volume and have had a materials used in plumbing exceedance occurred. A State must minimum 6-hour stagnation time. All components. You share the approve the recommendation or samples must be below the lead trigger responsibility for protecting yourself designate an alternative within six level. The system must document the and your family from the lead in your months of the recommendation by the problem and take corrective action at home plumbing. You can take water system. If the water system any site where the sample result responsibility by identifying and subsequently exceeds the lead action exceeds the lead trigger level. removing lead materials within your level it must implement the approved (4) Replacement of Lead-Bearing home plumbing and taking steps to option. Non-transient non-community Plumbing. A water system must replace reduce your family’s risk. Before water systems must select from the all plumbing that is not lead free in drinking, flush your pipes for several following compliance options: accordance with section 1417 of the minutes by running your tap, taking a (1) Lead Service Line Replacement. A Safe Drinking Water Act as amended by shower, doing laundry or a load of water system shall implement full lead the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water dishes. You can also use a filter certified service line replacement program and Act and any future amendments to remove lead from drinking water. If replace its lead service lines on a applicable at the time of replacement, you are concerned about lead in your schedule approved by the State and including a lead service line, even if its water you may wish to have your water shall complete replacement of all lead 90th percentile is below the action level tested, contact [NAME OF UTILITY and service lines within 15 years, even if its in future monitoring periods. A water CONTACT INFORMATION]. 90th percentile is at or below the action system must have control over all Information on lead in drinking water, level in future monitoring periods. plumbing in its buildings. The testing methods, and steps you can take (2) Corrosion Control Treatment. A replacement of all lead-bearing to minimize exposure is available at water system must install and maintain plumbing must occur on a schedule http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead. corrosion control treatment in established by the State, not to exceed * * * * * accordance with § 141.82, even if its one year. ■ 19. Amend Appendix A to Subpart O 90th percentile is at or below the action ■ 17. Amend § 141.153 by revising of Part 141 by revising the entry for lead level in future monitoring periods. Any paragraph (d)(4)(vi) to read as follows: to read as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61772 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART O OF PART 141—REGULATED CONTAMINANTS

To convert for Contaminant Traditional MCL CCR, multiply MCL in CCR MCLG Major sources in Health effects language in mg/L by units drinking water

******* Lead ...... AL = .015 ...... 1000 AL = 15 ...... 0 Corrosion of household Exposure to lead can cause serious health ef- plumbing systems, fects in all age groups. Infants and children Erosion of natural who drink water containing lead could have deposits. decreases in IQ and attention span and in- creases in learning and behavior problems. Lead exposure among women who are pregnant increases prenatal risks. Lead ex- posure among women who later become pregnant has similar risks if lead stored in the mother’s bones is released during preg- nancy. Recent science suggests that adults who drink water containing lead have in- creased risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney or nervous system prob- lems.

*******

■ 20. Amend § 141.201 by: The additions read as follows. § 141.201 General public notification ■ a. Adding entry (a)(3)(vi) in Table 1 to requirements. § 141.201; and * * * * * ■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(3). (a) * * *

TABLE 1 TO § 141.201—VIOLATION CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING A PUBLIC NOTICE

(3) Special public notices:

******* (vi) Exceedance of the lead action level.

* * * * * accordance with the requirements of § 141.202 Tier 1 Public Notice—Form, (c) * * * § 141.31(d). manner and frequency of notice. ■ (3) A copy of the notice must also be 21. In § 141.202 amend paragraph (a) (a) * * * sent to the primacy agency and the by adding entry (10) in Table 1 to Administrator (as applicable) in § 141.202, to read as follows:

TABLE 1 TO § 141.202—VIOLATION CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING A TIER 1 PUBLIC NOTICE

******* (10) Exceedance of the Action Level for lead as specified in § 141.80(c).

* * * * * National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) under ‘‘C. Lead ■ 22. Amend Appendix A to subpart Q and Copper Rule’’ to read as follows: by adding an entry for Violations of

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141—NPDWR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTICE 1

MCL/MRDL/TT violations 2 Monitoring & testing procedure violations Contaminant Tier of public Citation Tier of public notice required notice required Citation

******* C. Lead and Copper Rule (Action Level for lead is 0.015 mg/L, for cop- per is 1.3 mg/L)

******* 2. Exceedance of the Action Level for lead ...... 1 141.80(c)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules 61773

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141—NPDWR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTICE 1— Continued

MCL/MRDL/TT violations 2 Monitoring & testing procedure violations Contaminant Tier of public Citation Tier of public notice required notice required Citation

******* 1 Violations and other situations not listed in the table (e.g., failure to prepare Consumer Confidence Reports), do not require notice unless de- termined by the primacy agency. Primacy agencies may, at their options, also require a more stringent public notice tier (e.g., Tier 1 instead of Tier 2 or Tier 2 instead of Tier 3) for specific violations and situations listed in this Appendix, as authorized under § 141.202(a) and § 141.203(a). 2 MCL—Maximum contaminant level, MRDL—Maximum residual disinfectant level, TT—Treatment technique.

* * * * * ■ 23. Amend Appendix B to subpart Q by revising the entry for contaminant ‘‘23. Lead’’ to read as follows:

APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Contaminant MCLG 1 mg/L MCL 2 mg/L Standard health effects language for public notification

*******

D. Lead and Copper Rule

23. Lead ...... zero ...... TT 13 ...... Exposure to lead can cause serious health effects in all age groups. Infants and children who drink water containing lead could have decreases in IQ and attention span and in- creases in learning and behavior problems. Lead exposure among women who are preg- nant increases prenatal risks. Lead exposure among women who later become pregnant has similar risks if lead stored in the mother’s bones is released during pregnancy. Recent science suggests that adults who drink water containing lead have increased risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney and nervous system problems.

******* 1 MCLG—Maximum contaminant level goal. 2 MCL—Maximum contaminant level. ******* 13 Action Level = 0.015 mg/L.

* * * * * replacement goal rate as well as (i) States shall report the name and mandatory full lead service line service PWS identification number: PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY line replacement rates below 3 percent; (A) Each public water system which DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS * * * * * exceeded the lead and copper action IMPLEMENTATION (xviii) Section 141.88—evaluation of levels and the date upon which the ■ 24. The authority citation for part 142 water system source water or treatment exceedance occurred; continues to read as follows: changes; * * * * * (xix) Section 141.93—identification of (ii) States shall report the PWS Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2, small water systems and non-transient 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, identification number of each public non-community water systems utilizing 300j–9, and 300j–11. water system identified in paragraphs the compliance alternatives, and the (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (F) of this section. ■ 25. Amend § 142.14 by revising compliance alternative selected by the paragraphs (d)(8)(iii) and (d)(8)(vii) and water system and the compliance option (A) For each public water system, adding paragraphs (d)(8)(xviii) through approved by the State; regardless of size, all 90th percentile (xx) to read as follows: (xx) Section 141.84(a)—completed lead levels calculated during each monitoring period specified in § 141.86 § 142.14 Records kept by States. lead service line inventories and annual updates to inventories. of this chapter, and the first and last day * * * * * of the monitoring period for which the * * * * * (d) * * * 90th percentile lead level was ■ 26. Amend § 142.15 by: (8) * * * ■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(4)(i), calculated; (iii) Section 141.82(d)—designations (b)(4)(i)(A), (b)(4)(ii), and (b)(4)(ii)(A) (B) For each public water system of optimal corrosion control treatment through (E) to read as follows; and (regardless of size), the 90th percentile and any simultaneous compliance removing paragraph (b)(4)(iii). copper level calculated during each considerations that factored into the monitoring period in which the system designation; § 142.15 Reports by States. exceeds the copper action level, and the * * * * * * * * * * first and last day of each monitoring (viii) Section 141.84(e)— (b) * * * period in which an exceedance determinations of lead service line (4) * * * occurred;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 61774 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(C) For each public water system for ■ b. Revising paragraph (o)(2)(i)(B). (o)(2)(i)(B) Treatment, including which the State has designated optimal The additions and revision to read as corrosion control treatment and water water quality parameters under follows: quality parameters as applicable, § 141.82(f) of this chapter, or which the * * * * * State has deemed to have optimized § 142.16 Special primacy requirements. ■ corrosion control under § 141.81(b)(1) or * * * * * 28. Amend § 142.19 redesignating paragraphs (b) through (f) as paragraphs (b)(3) of this chapter, the date of the (d) * * * determination and the paragraph(s) (c) through (g) and adding a new (5) Section 141.84—Establishing lead paragraph (b) to read as follows: under which the State made its service line replacement goal rates. determination, the corrosion control (6) Section 141.84—Designating § 142.19 EPA review of State treatment status of the water system, acceptable methods for determining implementation of national primary drinking and the water system’s optimal water service line material for the lead service water regulations for lead and copper. quality parameters; line inventory. * * * * * (D) For each public water system, the (7) Section 141.92—Defining a school number of lead service lines in its (b) Pursuant to the procedures in this or childcare facility and determining distribution system, including service section, the Regional Administrator may any existing State testing program is at lines of unknown material; review state determinations establishing (E) For each public water system least as stringent as the Federal a goal lead service line replacement rate required to begin replacing lead service requirements. and may issue an order establishing lines after a lead trigger level or action (8) Section 141.82—Verifying federal goal rate requirements for a level exceedance, as specified in compliance with ‘‘find-and-fix’’ public water system pursuant to § 141.84 of this chapter and the date requirements. § 141.84(b) where the Regional each system must begin replacement; (9) Section 141.88—Reviewing any Administrator finds that an alternative and change in source water or treatment and goal lead service line replacement rate * * * * * how this change may impact other is feasible. ■ 27. Amend § 142.16 by: National Primary Drinking Water * * * * * ■ a. Adding paragraphs (d)(5) through Regulations. [FR Doc. 2019–22705 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] (9); and * * * * * BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13NOP2.SGM 13NOP2 Vol. 84 Wednesday, No. 219 November 13, 2019

Part III

Department of Treasury

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Parts 1, 3, 5, 6, et al.

Federal Reserve System

12 CFR Parts 206, 208, 211, 215, et al.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

12 CFR Parts 303, 324, 337, 347, et al. Regulatory Capital Rules; Final Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61776 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY be considered to have met the well- Supervision, [email protected], capitalized ratio requirements for (202) 898–6888; or Michael Phillips, Office of the Comptroller of the purposes of section 38 of the Federal Counsel, [email protected]; Currency Deposit Insurance Act. The final rule Supervision Branch, Legal Division, includes a two-quarter grace period Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 12 CFR Parts 1, 3, 5, 6, 23, 24, 32, 34, during which a qualifying community 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 160, and 192 banking organization that temporarily 20429. [Docket ID OCC–2018–0040] fails to meet any of the qualifying SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: criteria, including the greater than 9 RIN 1557–AE59 percent leverage ratio requirement, Table of Contents generally would still be deemed well- FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM I. Introduction capitalized so long as the banking A. Background organization maintains a leverage ratio B. Summary of the Final Rule 12 CFR Parts 206, 208, 211, 215, 217, greater than 8 percent. At the end of the II. Proposed Rule 223, 225, 238, and 251 grace period, the banking organization A. Proposed Community Bank Leverage must meet all qualifying criteria to Ratio Framework [Regulation Q; Docket No. R–1638] B. Summary of Comments remain in the community bank leverage RIN 7100–AF 29 III. Final Rule ratio framework or otherwise must A. Qualifying Criteria for the Community FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE comply with and report under the Bank Leverage Ratio Framework CORPORATION generally applicable rule. Similarly, a 1. Leverage Ratio of Greater Than 9 Percent banking organization that fails to 2. Total Consolidated Assets maintain a leverage ratio greater than 8 3. Total Off-Balance Sheet Exposures 12 CFR Parts 303, 324, 337, 347, 362, 4. Total Trading Assets and Trading 365, and 390 percent would not be permitted to use the grace period and must comply with Liabilities RIN 3064–AE91 5. Advanced Approaches Banking the capital rule’s generally applicable Organizations requirements and file the appropriate Regulatory Capital Rule: Capital B. Definition of the Leverage Ratio’s regulatory reports. Numerator and Denominator Simplification for Qualifying DATES: The final rule is effective on 1. Numerator Community Banking Organizations January 1, 2020. 2. Denominator C. Calibration of the Leverage Ratio in AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Order To Qualify for the Community Currency, Treasury; the Board of OCC: David Elkes, Risk Expert, Bank Leverage Ratio Governors of the Federal Reserve Benjamin Pegg, Risk Expert, or Jung Sup D. Ability To Opt Into and Out of the System; and the Federal Deposit Kim, Risk Specialist, Capital and Community Bank Leverage Ratio Insurance Corporation. Regulatory Policy (202) 649–6370; or Framework ACTION: Final rule. Carl Kaminski, Special Counsel, or E. Ongoing Compliance With the Daniel Perez, Senior Attorney, or Rima Community Bank Leverage Ratio SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller Kundnani, Senior Attorney, Chief Framework of the Currency, the Board of Governors 1. Meeting the Definition of a Qualifying Counsel’s Office, (202) 649–5490, for Community Banking Organization of the Federal Reserve System, and the persons who are deaf or hearing 2. Treatment of a Community Banking Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation impaired, TTY, (202) 649–5597, Office Organization That Falls Below Certain (collectively, the agencies) are adopting of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 Leverage Ratio Levels a final rule that provides for a simple 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. F. FDIC Deposit Insurance Assessments measure of capital adequacy for certain Board: Constance M. Horsley, Deputy Regulations community banking organizations, Associate Director, (202) 452–5239; Juan G. Other Affected Regulations consistent with section 201 of the Climent, Manager, (202) 872–7526; H. Effective Date of the Final Rule Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, Andrew Willis, Lead Financial IV. Regulatory Analyses A. Paperwork Reduction Act and Consumer Protection Act (final Institutions Policy Analyst, (202) 912– B. Regulatory Flexibility Act rule). Under the final rule, depository 4323, or Christopher Appel, Senior C. Plain Language institutions and depository institution Financial Institutions Policy Analyst II, D. OCC Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of holding companies that have less than (202) 973–6862, Division of Supervision 1995 $10 billion in total consolidated assets and Regulation; or Mark Buresh, Senior E. Riegle Community Development and and meet other qualifying criteria, Counsel, (202) 452–270; or Andrew Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 including a leverage ratio (equal to tier Hartlage, Counsel, (202) 452–6483, F. The Congressional Review Act 1 capital divided by average total Legal Division, Board of Governors of I. Introduction consolidated assets) of greater than 9 the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C percent, will be eligible to opt into the Streets NW, Washington, DC 20551. For A. Background community bank leverage ratio the hearing impaired only, On February 8, 2019, the Office of the framework (qualifying community Telecommunication Device for the Deaf Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the banking organizations). Qualifying (TDD), (202) 263–4869. Board of Governors of the Federal community banking organizations that FDIC: Benedetto Bosco, Chief, Capital Reserve System (Board), and the Federal elect to use the community bank Policy Section, [email protected]; Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) leverage ratio framework and that Stephanie Lorek, Senior Capital Markets (collectively, the agencies) published a maintain a leverage ratio of greater than Policy Analyst, [email protected]; Dushan notice of proposed rulemaking (the 9 percent will be considered to have Gorechan, Financial Analyst, proposed rule or proposal) 1 to satisfied the generally applicable risk- [email protected]; Kyle McCormick, implement section 201 of the Economic based and leverage capital requirements Financial Analyst, kmccormick@ Growth, Regulatory Relief, and in the agencies’ capital rules (generally fdic.gov; Capital Markets Branch, applicable rule) and, if applicable, will Division of Risk Management 1 84 FR 3062 (February 8, 2019).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61777

Consumer Protection Act (Act), and not a qualifying community banking number of changes in this final rule. In proposed to establish a community bank organization based on the banking addition, the final rule clarifies other leverage ratio for qualifying community organization’s risk profile. This important aspects of the community banking organizations as a simple determination shall be based on bank leverage ratio framework. The key alternative methodology to measure consideration of off-balance sheet changes being made to the final rule capital adequacy. The proposal was exposures, trading assets and liabilities, include the following: intended to simplify regulatory capital total notional derivatives exposures, and • Adoption of tier 1 capital, and requirements and provide material such other factors as the agencies therefore the existing leverage ratio, into regulatory compliance burden relief to determine appropriate. The Act also the community bank leverage ratio qualifying community banking specifies that the community bank framework; organizations that opt into the leverage ratio framework does not limit • Removal of the qualifying criteria community bank leverage ratio the agencies’ authority in effect as of the for mortgage servicing assets and framework. date of enactment of the Act. deferred tax assets arising from Section 201 of the Act directs the The Act directs the agencies to temporary differences; agencies to develop a community bank consult with applicable state bank • Removal of the PCA proxy levels; leverage ratio for qualifying community supervisors in carrying out section 201 and banking organizations of not less than 8 of the Act and to notify the applicable • Allowing a banking organization percent and not more than 10 percent. state bank supervisor of any qualifying that elects to use the community bank The Act provides that a qualifying community banking organization that leverage ratio framework to be community banking organization is a exceeds, or does not exceed after considered well-capitalized during the depository institution or depository previously exceeding, the community two-quarter grace period if its leverage institution holding company with total bank leverage ratio. As part of this ratio is 9 percent or less and greater than consolidated assets of less than $10 consultation process, the agencies had a 8 percent. billion that satisfies such other factors, series of discussions with state bank Under the final rule, the numerator of based on its risk profile, that the supervisors, before and after publication the community bank leverage ratio is agencies determine are appropriate. of the proposal, that helped shape key the existing measure of tier 1 capital Pursuant to section 201, a qualifying elements of the community bank used by non-advanced approaches community banking organization that leverage ratio framework in the final banking organizations.34 Numerous exceeds the community bank leverage rule. commenters described complexities that ratio level established by the agencies In response to the proposal, the would be created with the proposed shall be considered to have met: (i) The agencies received approximately 50 introduction of a new measure of generally applicable risk-based and public comment letters and capital, tangible equity, in the leverage capital requirements in the approximately 500 form letters from community bank leverage ratio agencies’ capital rules (generally depository institutions, depository framework and, therefore, the agencies applicable rule); (ii) the capital ratio institution holding companies, trade have adopted the commenters’ requirements in order to be considered associations, and other interested recommendation to use tier 1 capital. well capitalized under the agencies’ parties. Commenters generally The use of tier 1 capital also has the prompt corrective action (PCA) supported the agencies’ efforts to benefit of including the existing framework (in the case of insured simplify the regulatory capital threshold deduction approaches for depository institutions); and (iii) any requirements. However, as discussed in mortgage servicing assets (MSAs) and other applicable capital or leverage greater detail below, many commenters deferred tax assets arising from requirements. In addition, the Act indicated that certain aspects of the temporary differences (temporary directs the agencies to establish proposal were burdensome or difference DTAs) which enabled the procedures for the treatment of unnecessarily complex, and some agencies to remove the qualifying qualifying community banking commenters expressed concern that criteria related to these exposures from organizations that fall below the banking supervisors would make the the community bank leverage ratio community bank leverage ratio level proposed community bank leverage framework. Due to the adoption of tier established by the agencies.2 ratio the de facto minimum capital 1 capital, the community bank leverage Section 201 of the Act defines the requirement for community banking ratio is generally calculated in the same community bank leverage ratio as the organizations, irrespective of whether ratio of a qualifying community banking they have opted into the community 3 Under the final rule, a qualifying community organization’s tangible equity capital to bank leverage ratio framework. banking organization that elects to use the its average total consolidated assets, Commenters generally favored greater community bank leverage ratio framework will calculate its leverage ratio taking into account the both as reported on the qualifying simplicity in the community bank modifications made in relation to the capital community banking organization’s leverage ratio framework, and simplifications rule and current expected credit applicable regulatory filing. In addition, recommended the removal of the losses methodology (CECL) transitions final rule. the Act states that the agencies may proposal’s separate PCA proxy levels. See 84 FR 35234 (July 22, 2019) and 84 FR 4222 (February 14, 2019), respectively. The agencies determine that a banking organization is After reviewing the comments, the anticipate that the tier 1 capital amount used in the agencies are making several numerator of the calculation will reflect any future 2 The agencies note that, under existing PCA modifications to address commenters’ modifications made to the tier 1 capital definition requirements applicable to insured depository concerns and further simplify the applicable to non-advanced approaches banking institutions, to be considered ‘‘well capitalized’’ a organizations. See 84 FR 35234 (July 22, 2019). banking organization must demonstrate that it is not community bank leverage ratio 4 For purposes of the community bank leverage subject to any written agreement, order, capital framework while retaining the quality ratio framework, an electing banking organization is directive, or as applicable, prompt corrective action and quantity of regulatory capital in the not required to calculate tier 2 capital and therefore directive, to meet and maintain a specific capital banking system. would not be required to make any deductions that level for any capital measure. See 12 CFR would be taken from tier 2 capital or potentially tier 6.4(b)(1)(iv) (OCC); 12 CFR 208.43(b)(1)(v) (Board); B. Summary of the Final Rule 1 capital due to insufficient tier 2 capital. As part 12 CFR 324.403(b)(1)(v) (FDIC). The same legal of the final rule the agencies are amending 12 CFR requirements would continue to apply under the In response to comments received on 3.22(f) (OCC); 12 CFR 217.22(f) (Board); 12 CFR community bank leverage ratio framework. the proposal, the agencies are making a 324.22(f) (FDIC).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61778 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

manner as the generally applicable result in a reduction in the aggregate held by qualifying community banking rule’s leverage ratio: Tier 1 capital level of regulatory capital currently held organizations. Third, banking divided by average total consolidated by electing banking organizations. organizations with higher risk profiles assets minus amounts deducted from Further, incorporating into the remain subject to the generally tier 1 capital. As a result, the final rule community bank leverage ratio applicable rule to ensure that such incorporates and refers to the generally framework the existing leverage ratio banking organizations hold capital applicable rule’s leverage ratio. and the two-quarter grace period will commensurate with the risk of their Commenters also raised concerns that facilitate the transition to and from the exposures and activities.7 Fourth, the the PCA proxy levels included in the generally applicable rule. Banking agencies maintain the authority to take proposal caused unnecessary organizations opt into and out of the supervisory action under the PCA complexity in the community bank framework through their Consolidated framework and other statutes and leverage ratio framework and requested Reports of Condition and Income (Call regulations based on a banking that the framework include a grace Report) or Form FR–Y9C. organization’s capital ratios and risk period to transition back to the generally If a qualifying community banking profile. The final rule also provides applicable rule if a banking organization that has opted into the regulatory compliance burden relief as organization’s community bank leverage community bank leverage ratio the community bank leverage ratio is ratio was less than the well-capitalized framework subsequently fails to satisfy simple to apply and allows a qualifying threshold. The agencies are one or more of the qualifying criteria but community banking organization to incorporating this feedback into the continues to report a leverage ratio of avoid the burden of calculating and final rule by modifying the definition of greater than 8 percent, the banking reporting risk-based capital ratios under a ‘‘qualifying community banking organization could continue to use the the generally applicable rule. organization’’ to include the level of the community bank leverage ratio leverage ratio as a qualifying criterion. framework and be deemed to meet the II. Proposed Rule The final rule provides that to be a ‘‘well capitalized’’ capital ratio A. Proposed Community Bank Leverage ‘‘qualifying community banking requirements for a grace period of up to Ratio Framework organization,’’ a banking organization 6 two quarters. As long as the banking The agencies proposed the must not be an advanced approaches organization is able to return to community bank leverage ratio banking organization 5 and must meet compliance with all the qualifying framework as a simple alternative the following qualifying criteria: (i) A criteria within two quarters, it will methodology to measure capital leverage ratio of greater than 9 percent; continue to be deemed to meet the ‘‘well adequacy for qualifying community (ii) total consolidated assets of less than capitalized’’ ratio requirements and be banking organizations, based on the $10 billion; (iii) total off-balance sheet in compliance with the generally requirements of section 201 of the Act. exposures (excluding derivatives other applicable rule. A banking organization Under the proposal, a qualifying than sold credit derivatives and will be required to comply with the community banking organization would unconditionally cancelable generally applicable rule and file the have been defined as a depository commitments) of 25 percent or less of relevant regulatory reports if the institution or depository institution total consolidated assets; and (iv) the banking organization (i) is unable to holding company that was not an sum of total trading assets and trading restore compliance with all qualifying advanced approaches banking liabilities of 5 percent or less of total criteria during the two-quarter grace organization and that met the following consolidated assets. Consistent with period (including coming into criteria (qualifying criteria), each as section 201, the final rule provides that compliance with the greater than 9 described further below: qualifying community banking percent leverage ratio requirement), (ii) • Total consolidated assets of less organizations that opt into the reports a leverage ratio of 8 percent or than $10 billion; community bank leverage ratio less, or (iii) ceases to satisfy the • Total off-balance sheet exposures framework (electing banking qualifying criteria due to consummation (excluding derivatives other than sold organization) will be deemed to have of a merger transaction. credit derivatives and unconditionally met the ‘‘well capitalized’’ ratio The agencies believe that the final cancelable commitments) of 25 percent requirements and be in compliance with rule provides a simple framework that or less of total consolidated assets; the generally applicable rule. Such simultaneously meets safety and • Total trading assets plus trading banking organizations will not be soundness goals and responds to the liabilities of 5 percent or less of total required to calculate and report risk- concerns conveyed through comments consolidated assets; based capital ratios. received on the proposal. Additionally, • MSAs of 25 percent or less of Notably, the agencies have retained the final rule meets the policy objectives tangible equity (as defined in the the proposal’s 9 percent calibration for described in the proposal. First, the proposal); and the leverage ratio in the community community bank leverage ratio • Temporary difference DTAs of 25 bank leverage ratio framework. The framework is available to a meaningful percent or less of tangible equity. agencies believe that a 9 percent number of well-capitalized banking Under the proposal, the community calibration, in conjunction with the organizations with less than $10 billion bank leverage ratio would have been final rule’s qualifying criteria, will not in total consolidated assets. Second, the calculated as the ratio of tangible equity community bank leverage ratio to average total consolidated assets. 5 An advanced approaches banking organization requirement is calibrated to maintain Tangible equity would have been is generally defined as a firm with at least $250 billion in total consolidated assets or at least $10 the overall amount of capital currently defined as total bank equity capital or billion in total on-balance sheet foreign exposure, total holding company equity capital, as and depository institution subsidiaries of those 6 As a result of adopting the grace period applicable, prior to including minority firms. Proposed rulemakings to tailor capital and construct, the final rule does not include the interests, and excluding accumulated liquidity requirements applicable to large banking agencies’ proposed PCA proxy levels, which would organizations may result in changing the definition have allowed certain banking organizations that fell other comprehensive income (AOCI), of advanced approaches banking organization. See to a leverage ratio of 9 percent or lower to remain 83 FR 66024 (December 21, 2018) and 84 FR 24296 in the community bank leverage ratio framework 7 12 CFR 3.10(a)–(b) (OCC); 12 CFR 217.10(a)–(b) (May 24, 2019). indefinitely. (Board); 12 CFR 324.10(a)–(b) (FDIC).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61779

deferred tax assets arising from net detailed in the more comprehensive temporary difference DTA criteria. operating loss and tax credit carry discussion of the final rule, commenters Many of these commenters also forwards, goodwill, and other intangible generally supported the agencies’ efforts suggested using tier 1 capital, as assets (other than MSAs), each as of the to propose a simpler regulatory capital recently modified by the agencies in a most recent calendar quarter and framework but expressed concerns with final rule (simplifications rule),8 as the calculated in accordance with a some aspects of the proposal. numerator of the leverage ratio. Several qualifying community banking Several commenters expressed commenters noted that some of the organization’s regulatory reports. concern that calibrating the community qualifying criteria, such as the proposed Average total consolidated assets would bank leverage ratio at 9 percent is limit for MSAs, could prevent many have been calculated in a manner unnecessarily punitive and would otherwise qualifying community similar to the generally applicable rule’s disqualify too many banking banking organizations from opting into leverage ratio denominator in that organizations from being able to use the the community bank leverage ratio amounts deducted from the numerator community bank leverage ratio framework. Finally, some commenters would also have been excluded from the framework. These commenters favored suggested that the off-balance sheet denominator. Under the proposal, a calibrating the community bank criterion, as proposed, would be overly qualifying community banking leverage ratio at 8 percent. One burdensome for community banking organization could have elected to use commenter suggested calibrating the organizations to calculate and that the community bank leverage ratio community bank leverage ratio at 10 certain elements included in this framework if its community bank percent, the highest permitted by criterion should be eliminated as they leverage ratio was greater than 9 statute, because higher leverage ratios do not represent material risk to banking percent. may lower the adverse effects of crises organizations. The proposal would have permitted on U.S. GDP, which exceeds the costs After considering the comments, the an electing banking organization to that may arise from lower capital agencies have decided to modify the remain in the community bank leverage formation and lower GDP. definition of ‘‘qualifying community ratio framework even in cases where Many commenters also expressed banking organization’’ by removing the such an institution’s community bank concern that the proposed PCA proxy MSA criterion and the temporary leverage ratio subsequently fell to 9 levels would have added unnecessary difference DTA criterion. Exposures to percent or less. In this situation, the complexity to the community bank MSAs and temporary difference DTAs proposal would have continued to leverage ratio framework, and therefore will be addressed through the use of tier provide for the agencies’ supervisory recommended their elimination in the 1 capital as the numerator, which actions under PCA and other applicable final rule. Some commenters expressed requires deduction of such assets to the statutes and regulations. Specifically, concern that the agencies would not extent they exceed certain regulatory for insured depository institutions, the permit an insured depository institution thresholds, rather than the proposed use proposal would have incorporated with a community bank leverage ratio at of ‘‘tangible equity.’’ The use of tier 1 community bank leverage ratio levels as or below 9 percent to demonstrate that capital as the numerator is discussed in proxies for the following PCA it is well capitalized under the generally more detail below in this categories: Adequately capitalized, applicable rule before assigning it a PCA SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Under the undercapitalized and significantly category other than well capitalized. final rule, a qualifying banking undercapitalized. If an electing banking Other commenters indicated that some organization must not be an advanced organization had met certain of the qualifying criteria were approaches banking organization and community bank leverage ratio levels, it unnecessary (such as that for MSAs), must have: would have been considered to have overly complex to calculate (such as the • A leverage ratio of greater than 9 met the capital ratio requirements off-balance sheet exposures criterion), or percent; within the applicable corresponding did not appropriately reflect the risks of • Total consolidated assets of less PCA category and been subject to the underlying assets. than $10 billion; same restrictions that currently apply to Multiple commenters suggested that • Total off-balance sheet exposures any other insured depository institution the proposed numerator of the (excluding derivatives other than sold in the same PCA category. community bank leverage ratio should credit derivatives and unconditionally After issuing the proposal, the be based on tier 1 capital, as defined cancelable commitments) of 25 percent agencies proposed a regulatory capital under the generally applicable rule, or less of total consolidated assets, and • schedule that would have been simpler rather than on a new ‘‘tangible equity’’ Total trading assets plus trading than Schedules RC–R of the Call Report measure. Commenters expressed liabilities of 5 percent or less of total and HC–R of Form FR Y–9C for use by concern that examiners may penalize consolidated assets.9 electing banking organizations. On this banking organizations for opting into or proposed reporting schedule, the out of the framework, and that the 8 See 84 FR 35243 (July 22, 2019). The agencies also are adopting a final rule that permits banking community bank leverage ratio community bank leverage ratio could calculation would have required a organizations not subject to the advanced become the de facto minimum capital approaches capital rule to implement the banking organization to report requirement for all community banking simplifications rule in the quarter beginning significantly less information than organizations. January 1, 2020, or wait until the quarter beginning under the generally applicable rule. April 1, 2020. III. Final Rule 9 Consistent with the proposal, the agencies have B. Summary of Comments reserved the authority to disallow the use of the Collectively, the agencies received A. Qualifying Criteria for the community bank leverage ratio framework by a Community Bank Leverage Ratio depository institution or depository institution approximately 50 public comment holding company, based on the risk profile of the letters and approximately 500 form Framework banking organization. This authority is reserved letters on the proposal from depository The agencies received comments under the general reservation of authority included in the capital rule, in which the community bank institutions, depository institution requesting that they eliminate or modify leverage ratio framework would be codified. See 12 holding companies, trade associations, certain of the qualifying criteria in the CFR 3.1(d) (OCC); 12 CFR 217.1(d) (Board); 12 CFR and other interested parties. As further proposal, particularly the MSA and the Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61780 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

1. Leverage Ratio of Greater Than 9 relief rather than on size thresholds. The ratio framework than under the Percent same commenter urged the agencies to generally applicable rule. Under the proposal, a banking take into account acquisitions and to Under the proposal, total off-balance organization would have been required index applicability to incorporate sheet exposures would have been to have a community bank leverage ratio inflation or other relevant market calculated as the sum of the notional of greater than 9 percent in order to be measures. amounts of certain off-balance sheet eligible to opt into the community bank The agencies have considered the items against which banking leverage ratio framework. The final rule concerns raised with regard to the asset organizations would hold capital under 12 adopts the 9 percent calibration of the size threshold. The agencies continue to the generally applicable rule as of the community bank leverage ratio as believe that the community bank end of the most recent calendar quarter. proposed. The proposal also would have leverage ratio framework is appropriate Total off-balance sheet exposures would allowed an electing banking for most banking organizations with have included: organization to remain in the total consolidated assets of less than $10 a. The unused portions of community bank leverage ratio billion that meet the other qualifying commitments (except for framework despite having a community criteria. The agencies believe that the unconditionally cancellable bank leverage ratio which subsequently generally applicable rule is appropriate commitments); fell to 9 percent or less. As discussed for larger banking organizations and b. Self-liquidating, trade-related above, the final rule eliminates the PCA banking organizations with contingent items that arise from the proxy levels and, therefore, an electing concentrations in off-balance sheet movement of goods; banking organization will generally be exposures and trading assets and c. Transaction-related contingent required to maintain a leverage ratio of liabilities because such banking items (i.e., performance bonds, bid greater than 9 percent in order to be organizations may present risks that are bonds and warranties); eligible to use the community bank not appropriately captured by the d. Sold credit protection in the form leverage ratio framework. A two-quarter community bank leverage ratio of guarantees and credit derivatives; grace period, as discussed in further framework. The agencies recently e. Credit-enhancing representations detail below, is available for a banking finalized a rule to simplify the generally and warranties; organization that ceases to meet any of applicable rule, and have proposed to f. Off-balance sheet securitization the qualifying criteria, including a modify and tailor several of the exposures; banking organization whose leverage prudential requirements applicable to g. Letters of credit; h. Forward agreements that are not ratio falls to 9 percent or less, but is banking organizations with $100 billion 10 11 derivative contracts; and greater than 8 percent. During the grace or more in total consolidated assets. i. Securities lending and borrowing period, a banking organization may The agencies believe these revisions reflect an appropriate tailoring of transactions. continue to be treated as a qualifying Total off-balance sheet exposures community banking organization and is regulations based on asset size and other would have excluded the notional presumed to satisfy the ‘‘well risk characteristics to ensure that the amount for all derivative contracts capitalized’’ ratio requirements and be requirements remain appropriate for the except credit derivatives for sold credit in compliance with the generally risk profiles of different banking protection. As stated in the proposal, applicable rule without having to organizations while also maintaining the agencies believe that the notional calculate and report risk-based capital the safety and soundness of the banking amount for derivatives (other than credit ratios. industry. As such, the agencies are finalizing without modification the $10 derivatives for sold credit protection) is 2. Total Consolidated Assets billion in total assets size threshold. not an appropriate indicator of credit Under the proposal, a qualifying risk and could inadvertently disqualify 3. Total Off-Balance Sheet Exposures community banking organization would a banking organization from using the be required to have less than $10 billion Under the proposal, a qualifying community bank leverage ratio in total consolidated assets as of the end community banking organization would framework if the banking organization is of the most recent calendar quarter, in have been required to have total off- otherwise appropriately using accordance with the Act. Total balance sheet exposures of 25 percent or derivatives to hedge its risks. The consolidated assets would be calculated less of its total consolidated assets, as of proposed components of total off- in accordance with the reporting the end of the most recent calendar balance sheet exposures would have instructions to Schedule RC of the Call quarter. The agencies included this been generally consistent with off- Report or Schedule HC of Form FR Y– qualifying criterion in the community balance sheet items that are included in 9C, as applicable. bank leverage ratio framework because risk-weighted assets in the generally A commenter indicated that the Act the proposed community bank leverage applicable rule, except for securities places no limit on the ability of the ratio included only on-balance sheet lending and borrowing transactions. agencies to apply the community bank assets in its denominator and thus Securities lending and borrowing leverage ratio framework to institutions would not have required a qualifying transactions would have been assigned with $10 billion or more in total assets community banking organization to amounts in accordance with the and suggested that the agencies should hold capital against its off-balance sheet reporting instructions for these items in apply the community bank leverage exposures. This qualifying criterion was Schedules RC–L of the Call Report or ratio framework based on suitability for intended to reduce the likelihood that a HC–L of Form FR Y–9C, as applicable. qualifying community banking The proposed calculation of total off- 324.1(d) (FDIC). In addition, for purposes of the organization with significant off-balance balance sheet exposures would have capital rule and section 201 of the Act, the agencies sheet exposures would hold less capital been simpler than under the generally have reserved the authority to take action under under the community bank leverage applicable rule, which requires that off- other provisions of law, including action to address unsafe or unsound practices or conditions, deficient balance sheet exposures be converted to capital levels, or violations of law or regulation. See 10 See 84 FR 35243 (July 22, 2019). 12 CFR 3.1(b) (OCC); 12 CFR 217.1(b) (Board); 12 11 See 83 FR 66024 (December 21, 2018) and 84 12 See 12 CFR 324.33 (FDIC); 12 CFR 217.33 CFR 324.1(b) (FDIC). FR 24296 (May 24, 2019). (Federal Reserve); 12 CFR 3.33 (OCC).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61781

on-balance sheet equivalents for required to be captured and reported by may provide a credit enhancement to purposes of determining capital banking organizations in Schedules RC– the FHLB. If these credit enhancements requirements. L and RC–R of the Call Report or HC– meet the definition of a credit- The agencies received several L and HC–R of Form FR Y–9C which enhancing representation and warranty comments and requests for clarification thereby permits these firms to leverage or would otherwise be considered an on the proposed limit for off-balance their existing identification, off-balance sheet securitization under sheet exposures. One commenter measurement and reporting the generally applicable rule, then the expressed concern that the process for infrastructure for these exposures. The exposure amount would be included in categorizing off-balance sheet agencies also are clarifying that banking the off-balance sheet qualifying exposures, such as off-balance sheet organizations are only required to criterion. Because these are credit risk securitizations, was overly complex, identify off-balance sheet securitizations exposures that would be assigned risk- and the commenter would prefer that to the extent that they are not already based capital under the generally the off-balance sheet filter instead captured as part of another off-balance applicable rule, inclusion in the off- identify specific transactions and sheet exposure category. For example, if balance sheet qualifying criterion is products routinely used by community a banking organization issues a credit appropriate. banks that meet the off-balance sheet enhancing representation and warranty exposure definition. Another that also meets the definition of a The agencies analyzed average off- commenter found the wording in the traditional securitization, the final rule balance sheet exposures for banking proposed rule unclear and noted that it does not require that such an exposure organizations with less than $10 billion would be beneficial for the agencies to be separately identified as an off- in total consolidated assets and reference the specific Schedule RC–L balance sheet securitization exposure observed that the vast majority of such line items that would be included in the because the exposure would already be banking organizations report off-balance 25 percent limitation for off-balance captured through the requirement to sheet exposures totaling less than 25 sheet line items. include credit enhancing percent of total consolidated assets, as Several commenters expressed representations and warranties in the of March 31, 2019. Accordingly, the concern about the inclusion of off-balance sheet qualifying criterion. agencies have determined that both the residential mortgage-related off-balance The agencies also are clarifying that definition and calibration of the total sheet items. One commenter wrote that hedging techniques related to mortgage off-balance sheet exposures qualifying the agencies should not exclude banking banking activities are generally only criterion should allow a meaningful organizations from using the community captured in the off-balance sheet number of banking organizations to use bank leverage ratio framework due to qualifying criterion to the extent such the community bank leverage ratio any mortgage origination-related exposures are treated as off-balance framework without unduly restricting hedging activity. The commenter sheet exposures and subject to credit lending practices. The criterion should expressed concern that as proposed the conversion factors under the generally help to prevent banking organizations criterion may capture certain exposures applicable rule. For this reason, typical from engaging in substantial off-balance related to routine functioning of the mortgage banking activities such as sheet activity without a commensurate mortgage market. Another commenter forward loan delivery commitments capital requirement. noted that mortgage sales to certain between banking organizations and Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs) investors, which typically are derivative 4. Total Trading Assets and Trading through the Mortgage Partnership contracts, were excluded from the off- Liabilities Finance Program could be captured by balance sheet exposure criterion in the the off-balance sheet qualifying criteria. proposal and are excluded under the Under the proposal, a qualifying A commenter suggested that FHLB final rule. Put and call options on community banking organization would advances should be eliminated from the mortgage-backed securities are also have been required to have total trading calculation because such advances are typically derivatives and excluded from assets and trading liabilities of 5 percent typically secured at a significant this criterion under the final rule. A or less of its total consolidated assets, discount relative to underlying loan contractual obligation for the future each measured as of the end of the most collateral. The commenter was purchase of a ‘‘to be announced’’ (i.e., recent calendar quarter. Total trading concerned that a banking organization when-issued) mortgage securities assets and trading liabilities would have may be disqualified from the contract, that does not meet the been calculated as the sum of those community bank leverage ratio definition of a derivative contract under exposures, in accordance with the framework due to its level of unfunded the generally applicable rule, would be reporting instructions for these items on commitments and FHLB lines of credit. captured in the off-balance sheet Schedules RC of the Call Report or HC Finally, one commenter requested qualifying criterion as it would be of Form FR–Y–9C, as applicable. A clarification on whether sales of when- considered a forward agreement under banking organization would divide the issued mortgage-backed security the generally applicable rule. In sum of its total trading assets and contracts are included in the 25 percent contrast, a contractual obligation for the trading liabilities by its total limitation, stating that these items future sale (rather than purchase) of a consolidated assets to determine its should be excluded because, in the ‘‘to be announced’’ mortgage securities percentage of total trading assets and commenter’s view, they are of lower contract, that does not meet the trading liabilities. risk. definition of a derivative contract under The agencies considered the the generally applicable rule, would not The agencies recognize the potential commenters’ concerns and have decided be captured in the off-balance sheet elevated levels of risk and complexity to finalize the off-balance sheet qualifying criterion as it would not be that can be associated with certain qualifying criterion as proposed with considered a forward agreement under trading activities. For this reason, several clarifications. The agencies are the generally applicable rule. banking organizations with significant clarifying that the off-balance sheet Banking organizations that sell trading assets and trading liabilities are qualifying criterion incorporates off- mortgages to certain FHLBs through the subject to a market risk capital balance sheet exposures currently Mortgage Partnership Finance Program requirement under the generally

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61782 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

applicable rule.13 In contrast, electing a much larger banking organization. qualifying community banking banking organizations would not be While these types of advanced organization. Several commenters required to calculate additional market approaches banking organizations may recommended the agencies instead use risk capital requirements and, as a be relatively small banking tier 1 capital for the numerator, result, the community bank leverage organizations, the agencies do not suggesting that this would not only ratio framework may not appropriately believe they share the same type of risk simplify the calculation when switching capitalize for material amounts of characteristics as non-complex between frameworks but would also trading assets and trading liabilities. In community banking organization for increase comparability across all addition, elevated levels of trading which the community bank leverage banking organizations. Commenters also activity can produce a heightened level ratio framework is appropriate. preferred to use tier 1 capital for the of earnings volatility, which has Consequently, under the final rule, an numerator in order to ensure that implications for capital adequacy. advanced approaches banking certain instruments, such as trust Therefore, the agencies do not believe it organization will not be eligible to use preferred securities (TruPS) and is appropriate to make the community the community bank leverage ratio common stock issued by bank bank leverage ratio framework available framework, regardless of its size. subsidiaries, would count as regulatory to banking organizations with material capital under the community bank B. Definitions of the Leverage Ratio’s market risk exposure. However, the leverage ratio framework, up to their Numerator and Denominator agencies do not believe that low levels current limits. Finally, several of trading activity should preclude a 1. Numerator commenters noted that use of tier 1 capital as the numerator would avoid banking organization from using the Under the proposal, the numerator of the need for revisions to state banking community bank leverage ratio the community bank leverage ratio laws that reference tier 1 capital, framework. would have been tangible equity, including but not limited to state law Based on the agencies’ analysis, the calculated as a banking organization’s vast majority of banking organizations lending limits. total bank equity capital or total holding Multiple commenters, although not with less than $10 billion in total company equity capital, as applicable, consolidated assets have total trading explicitly expressing a preference for determined in accordance with the using tier 1 capital as the numerator, did assets and trading liabilities well below reporting instructions to Schedule RC of 5 percent of their total consolidated request that certain adjustments be the Call Report or Schedule HC of Form made to the proposed definition of assets, as of March 31, 2019. The FR Y–9C, prior to including minority agencies believe that the proposed 5 tangible equity. A commenter interests, less: (i) Accumulated other recommended that cumulative preferred percent threshold will help ensure that comprehensive income (AOCI), (ii) all banking organizations that engage in stock with a stated final maturity date intangible assets (other than MSAs), and be included as an eligible component of significant trading activity are not (iii) DTAs, net of any related valuation subject to the community bank leverage tangible equity. Several commenters allowances, that arise from net operating requested that the agencies allow TruPS ratio framework. Further, this criterion loss and tax credit carryforwards, each is generally consistent with section 203 to count as tangible equity. A as of the end of the most recent calendar commenter recommended that the of the Act, which excludes a community quarter. Tangible equity would not have banking organization from proprietary agencies include common stock included minority interests (equity of a minority interest of up to 10 percent of trading restrictions if its total trading consolidated subsidiary that is not assets and trading liabilities are 5 the numerator of the community bank owned by the qualifying community leverage ratio where the subsidiary percent or less of its total consolidated banking organization) because minority assets. The agencies did not receive any holds risk-weighted assets of at least the interests do not have the same loss amount of common stock minority comment with regard to the proposed absorption capacity as other qualifying criterion for total trading interest being included. Finally, some components of tangible equity at the commenters expressed concern that the assets and trading liabilities and are consolidated banking organization level. finalizing this requirement as proposed. CECL methodology under U.S. generally The agencies received numerous accepted accounting principles could 5. Advanced Approaches Banking comments in response to the proposed impact eligibility for the community Organizations use of tangible equity as the numerator bank leverage ratio framework and of the community bank leverage ratio. Under the proposal, advanced recommended that the agencies provide Many commenters noted that banking approaches banking organizations for an ongoing adjustment to the organizations are already familiar with would not have been eligible to use the community bank leverage ratio the current tier 1 capital calculation, community bank leverage ratio numerator that approximates the and that tier 1 capital, therefore, should framework. The agencies received no incremental regulatory capital impact of be used to calculate the community comment on this requirement and CECL credit loss allowance levels over bank leverage ratio instead of tangible believe that, in general, section 201 of levels currently recorded under U.S. equity. A commenter also argued that the Act is designed to provide generally accepted accounting the burden associated with regulatory burden relief for banking principles. implementing the community bank Taking into account the concerns of organizations with less than $10 billion leverage ratio framework would exceed commenters and seeking to balance in total consolidated assets and that the reporting relief provided by reduced burden reduction with safety and have a limited risk profile. complexity. Several commenters A banking organization with less than soundness, the agencies have decided to expressed concerns that it would be too $10 billion in total consolidated assets replace the proposed tangible equity complex for a banking organization to may be subject to the advanced measure with the current calculation of switch between the calculation of approaches rules if it is a subsidiary of tier 1 capital as the numerator of the tangible equity and tier 1 capital as it community bank leverage ratio. This either opts into or out of the community change would align the final rule’s 13 12 CFR part 3, subpart F (OCC); 12 CFR part 217, subpart F (Board); 12 CFR part 324, subpart F bank leverage ratio framework or no calculation of the leverage ratio with the (FDIC). longer meets the definition of a generally applicable rule’s leverage

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61783

ratio, a calculation methodology with applicable rule. Therefore, if an electing preferred stock instruments, and which banking organizations are already banking organization has investments in minority interests includable in the familiar, and therefore would streamline the capital instruments of an numerator of the leverage ratio adoption of the community bank unconsolidated financial institution that calculation by maintaining the same leverage ratio framework. In addition, would qualify as tier 2 capital of the treatment that currently applies under the use of tier 1 capital in the electing banking organization under the the generally applicable rule’s community bank leverage ratio generally applicable rule (tier 2 calculation for tier 1 capital for non- framework will enhance comparability qualifying investments), and the advanced approaches banking among banking organizations and banking organization’s total investments organizations. remove the need for separate qualifying in the capital of unconsolidated 2. Denominator criteria for MSAs and temporary financial institutions exceed the difference DTAs, as discussed threshold for deduction, the banking Under the proposal and consistent previously. Based on the agencies’ organization is not required to deduct with the Act, the community bank analysis, for the majority of banking the tier 2 qualifying investments. leverage ratio denominator would have organizations with less than $10 billion An electing banking organization is been based on a banking organization’s in total consolidated assets, the only required to make a deduction from average total consolidated assets. proposed tangible equity and the its common equity tier 1 capital or tier Specifically, average total consolidated current tier 1 capital figures result in 1 capital if the sum of its investments assets for purposes of the denominator nearly the same amount of regulatory in the capital of an unconsolidated would have been calculated in capital. Finally, the use of tier 1 capital financial institution is in a form that accordance with the reporting as the numerator of the leverage ratio would qualify as common equity tier 1 instructions to Schedules RC–K on the allows for the incorporation of changes capital or tier 1 capital instruments of Call Report or HC–K on Form FR Y–9C, from the simplifications rule, which the electing banking organization and as applicable, less the items deducted further simplifies the tier 1 capital exceeds the threshold for deduction. from the numerator, other than AOCI. calculation by amending the treatment The agencies do not believe this is a The proposed denominator therefore of MSAs, temporary difference DTAs, common occurrence and observed that would have been similar, but not investments in capital instruments, and as of March 31, 2019, very few identical, to the denominator of the minority interests.14 community banking organizations made generally applicable rule’s leverage The agencies note that the generally a deduction from tier 2 capital. ratio. applicable rule requires deductions Therefore, the agencies believe it is The agencies received a limited from tier 2 capital related to investments appropriate to clarify this aspect of the number of comments on the proposed in capital instruments of unconsolidated tier 1 calculation for qualifying denominator for the community bank financial institutions when such community banking organizations to leverage ratio. A commenter suggested investments exceed certain limits and ensure that it can be made as simply as the agencies consider seasonality in that such deductions can affect the possible. Further, although the total assets and allow for the use of four- calculation of tier 1 capital.15 This community bank leverage ratio quarter average total consolidated assets corresponding deduction approach framework will not require qualifying for the denominator. The agencies note requires a banking organization to make community banking organizations to that the denominator as proposed would deductions from the same component of make deductions from their regulatory be average total consolidated assets as capital for which the underlying capital calculations for investments in described above, which would have instrument would qualify if it was tier 2 capital instruments issued by substantially maintained consistency issued by the banking organization other financial institutions, the agencies with the current regulatory capital itself. In addition, if a banking will continue to monitor such calculation for average total organization does not have a sufficient investments and will address, on a case- consolidated assets. Another commenter amount of a specific regulatory capital by-case basis, any instances where such asked that the agencies consider component against which to effect the activity potentially creates an unsafe or allowing a deduction from the deduction, the shortfall must be unsound practice or condition. denominator for pass-through reserve deducted from the next higher (that is, With respect to a banking balances held with the Federal Reserve more subordinated) regulatory capital organization that has not elected the System. The commenter argued that component. Without any revision to the community bank leverage ratio allowing this deduction would refine corresponding deduction approach, an framework but invests in an instrument this calculation for correspondent electing banking organization with (e.g., subordinated debt instrument) banking organizations to align more investments in tier 2 capital instruments issued by an electing banking closely their capital requirements to of other financial institutions could organization that would qualify as tier 2 their risk and would, in the have been required to apply the capital under the generally applicable commenter’s view, not unduly corresponding deduction approach rule, the investing banking organization discourage correspondent banking potentially resulting in deductions from would continue to treat the instrument organizations from assisting community tier 1 capital. Under the final rule, as tier 2 capital notwithstanding the banking organization clients with however, since the community bank electing banking organization’s capital holding proper reserve balances with leverage ratio framework does not have treatment of the instrument. the Federal Reserve System. a total capital requirement, an electing The agencies believe adoption of tier The agencies note that the leverage banking organization is neither required 1 capital, including the adjustments ratio in the generally applicable rule is to calculate tier 2 capital nor make any described above, also addresses deductions that would have been taken commenters’ concerns about the capital under the community bank leverage ratio framework, subject to existing limits. See 12 CFR from tier 2 capital under the generally 16 inclusion of TruPS, certain other 3.20(c)(3) (OCC); 12 CFR 217.20(c)(3) (Board); 12 CFR 324.20(c)(3) (FDIC). See 12 CFR 14 See 84 FR 35234 (July 22, 2019). 16 Banking organizations that are currently 3.22(c)(2)(iii)(A) (OCC); 12 CFR 217.22(c)(2)(iii)(A) 15 See 12 CFR 3.22(c)(2) (OCC); 12 CFR grandfathered and eligible to include TruPS in tier (Board); 12 CFR 324.22(c)(2)(iii)(A) (FDIC). See 12 217.22(c)(2) (Board); 12 CFR 324.22(c)(2) (FDIC). 1 capital can continue to include TruPS in tier 1 CFR 217.300(c) (Board).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61784 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

designed to be a simple, non-risk-based conservative, particularly combined The agencies estimate that, as of the on-balance sheet measure. Adjusting the with the assumption that the adoption first quarter of 2019, the vast majority of leverage ratio denominator as of CECL would, in the commenters’ banking organizations with under $10 commenters suggested would add view, reduce firms’ regulatory capital billion in total consolidated assets unnecessary complexity to the measure. levels. A commenter suggested a would meet the definition of a Therefore, the agencies are finalizing the banking organization should have the qualifying community banking leverage ratio denominator as proposed, option to phase in the impact of the day- organization and have a leverage ratio except that items deducted from the one CECL adjustment recorded in above 9 percent. Based on reported data denominator will align with the retained earnings over a five year period as of March 31, 2019, there are 5,221 deductions from tier 1 capital as the when it elects to use the community insured depository institutions with less numerator rather than from the bank leverage ratio framework to than $10 billion in total consolidated proposed tangible equity measure as the calculate regulatory capital. A few assets and 231 depository institution numerator. commenters indicated that the proposed holding companies with less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets that C. Calibration of the Leverage Ratio in community bank leverage ratio file the form FR Y–9C.17 The agencies Order To Qualify for the Community calibration would not factor in the estimate that approximately 85 percent Bank Leverage Ratio adjusted allowance for credit loss for up to 1.25 percent of risk-weighted assets, of such insured depository institutions The agencies proposed to permit a which would be permitted under the and approximately 76 percent of such qualifying community banking generally applicable rule for purposes of depository institution holding organization to elect to use the the total capital ratio, but would not be companies would qualify to use the community bank leverage ratio relevant under the community bank community bank leverage ratio framework if the organization’s leverage ratio. Finally, a commenter framework under the 9 percent community bank leverage ratio was recommended a dynamic calibration calibration and other qualifying criteria. greater than 9 percent at the time of that would vary depending on the The agencies believe the community election. A qualifying community business cycle to accommodate recovery bank leverage ratio framework in this banking organization with a community and encourage lending in a stressed final rule, including a 9 percent bank leverage ratio greater than 9 environment. calibration, meets the objectives percent would have been considered to described above. After considering the comments have met: (i) The requirements of the In February of 2019, the agencies generally applicable rule; (ii) the well- received on calibration, the agencies issued a final rule to amend the capitalized capital ratio thresholds have decided to adopt a 9 percent generally applicable rule in response to under the agencies’ PCA framework for leverage ratio as a qualifying criterion CECL (CECL transitions final rule).18 insured depository institutions or the for the community bank leverage ratio The CECL transitions final rule provides well-capitalized standards under the framework. The agencies believe that a for an optional three-year transition Board’s regulations for holding 9 percent calibration, with arrangement that will allow a banking companies, as applicable; and (iii) any complementary qualifying criteria for organization to phase in any adverse other capital or leverage requirements to asset size, off-balance sheet assets, and day-one regulatory capital effects of which the banking organization is trading assets and trading liabilities, CECL adoption on retained earnings, subject. Such qualifying community generally maintains the current level of deferred tax assets, allowance for credit banking organizations would not have regulatory capital held by electing losses, and average total consolidated been required to calculate capital ratios banking organizations and supports the assets. These day-one regulatory capital under the generally applicable rule. agencies’ goals of reducing regulatory effects will be phased in over the Additionally, to have been considered burden for as many community banking transition period on a straight line basis. well capitalized under the proposed organizations as possible. For example, Under this final rule, the leverage ratio community bank leverage ratio even though an 8 percent leverage ratio under the community bank leverage framework, and consistent with the would have allowed more banking ratio framework is generally calculated agencies’ PCA framework, a qualifying organizations to opt into the community in the same manner as the generally community banking organization must bank leverage ratio framework, the applicable rule’s leverage ratio. not have been subject to any written reduced calibration could create an Accordingly, an electing banking agreement, order, capital directive, or inappropriate incentive for some organization is also eligible to phase-in PCA directive to meet and maintain a qualifying community banking any adverse day-one regulatory capital specific capital level for any capital organizations to hold less regulatory effects of CECL adoption on retained measure. capital than they do today. Rather than earnings, DTAs, allowance for credit In general, commenters stated that the lowering the minimum community bank losses, and average total consolidated community bank leverage ratio leverage ratio from 9 percent to 8 assets. Banking organizations will retain requirement should be lowered to 8 percent, the agencies determined that it their three-year transition period percent, citing the lower end of the would be more appropriate to alleviate without reset (i.e., the transition period range of the requirement under section the potential burden associated with cannot be extended) upon passage in or 201 of the Act. Commenters indicated switching regulatory capital frameworks that such a calibration would more as capital levels fall by permitting an 17 As of March 31, 2019, there are 4,261 closely track the current well electing banking organization to have its depository institution holding companies with less capitalized thresholds under PCA and ratio drop below 9 percent temporarily than $10 billion in total consolidated assets. More than 95 percent of such holding companies are not would allow more banking (i.e., the two-quarter grace period). This subject to the capital rule because they have less organizations to be eligible to use the grace period will provide an electing than $3 billion in total consolidated assets and meet community bank leverage ratio banking organization time to either certain additional criteria to qualify for the Board’s framework. Several commenters wrote comply with the qualifying criteria or to Small Bank Holding Company and Savings and Loan Holding Company Policy Statement. See 12 that the proposed community bank prepare to comply with the generally CFR 217.1(c)(1)(ii) and (iii); 12 CFR part 225, leverage ratio requirement and applicable rule and file the appropriate appendix C; 12 CFR 238.9. qualifying criteria were excessively regulatory reports. 18 84 FR 4222 (February 14, 2019).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61785

out of the community bank leverage based on section 201 of the Act, which banking organization and could have, ratio framework. serves the purpose of removing the therefore, continued calculating and burden of calculating and reporting risk- reporting a community bank leverage D. Ability To Opt Into and Out of the based capital ratios for banking ratio to determine its compliance with Community Bank Leverage Ratio organizations that meet certain criteria. other statutes and regulations. Framework The agencies are also clarifying that a The agencies did not receive specific Under the proposal, a qualifying banking organization can opt out of the comments relating to the mechanics of community banking organization with a community bank leverage ratio the proposed grace period. One community bank leverage ratio greater framework at any time, without commenter argued that a six-month than 9 percent could have elected to use restriction, by reverting to the generally transition period would be too short for the community bank leverage ratio applicable rule and providing the banking organizations to sell MSAs, if framework at any time. Such a banking capital ratios under the generally necessary, or prepare for the different organization would have indicated its applicable rule to its appropriate treatment in the generally applicable election by completing a community regulators at the time of opting out. rule. Other commenters noted that the bank leverage ratio reporting schedule One commenter requested that the use of tier 1 capital would ease any in its Call Report or Form FR Y–9C, as rule require that banking agencies notify transition back to the risk-based capital applicable. Also, under the proposal, an state bank regulators when a state- requirements. The agencies continue to electing banking organization would chartered electing banking organization believe that this limited grace period is have been able to opt out of the opts out of the framework between appropriate to mitigate potential community bank leverage ratio reporting periods. Under the final rule, volatility in capital and associated framework and become subject to the a qualifying community banking regulatory reporting requirements based generally applicable rule by completing organization may opt into or out of the on temporary changes in a banking the associated reporting requirements community bank leverage ratio organization’s risk profile from quarter on Schedules RC–R of the Call Report or framework at any time and for any to quarter, while capturing more HC–R of Form FR Y–9C, as applicable. reason. The agencies, therefore, are not permanent changes in risk profile, and Additionally, the agencies noted in the including a mandatory notification are therefore finalizing the two-quarter proposal that an electing banking requirement in the final rule, as this grace period largely as proposed. Under organization would have been able to could discourage banking organizations the final rule, the grace period begins as opt out of the community bank leverage from electing to apply and report under of the end of the calendar quarter in ratio framework between reporting the generally applicable rule. The which the electing banking organization periods by providing the capital ratios agencies note that the Call Report and ceases to satisfy any of the qualifying under the generally applicable rule to its Form FR Y–9C are available to the criteria and will end after two appropriate regulators at the time of public and therefore additional notice is consecutive calendar quarters. For opting out. A banking organization that not necessary. example, if the electing banking opted out of the community bank As described above, a banking organization no longer meets one of the leverage ratio framework would have organization generally opts into and out qualifying criteria as of February 15, and been required to meet the qualifying of the community bank leverage ratio still does not meet the criteria as of the criteria included in the definition of a framework through its Call Report or end of that quarter, the grace period for qualifying community banking Form FR Y–9C. As a result, a banking such a banking organization will begin organization and have a community organization’s compliance with the as of the end of the quarter ending bank leverage ratio of greater than 9 community bank leverage ratio March 31. The banking organization percent to be able to opt back into the framework or the generally applicable may continue to use the community community bank leverage ratio rule will be determined based upon the bank leverage ratio framework as of June framework. capital framework it has elected in its 30, but will need to comply fully with Several commenters suggested that last filed Call Report or Form FR Y– the generally applicable rule (including the optionality aspect should be further 9C.19 the associated reporting requirements) emphasized to both bankers and agency as of September 30, unless the banking examiners. These commenters E. Ongoing Compliance With the organization once again meets all expressed concern that banking Community Bank Leverage Ratio qualifying criteria of the community organizations that do not opt in could be Framework bank leverage ratio framework, seen as outliers and could be pressured 1. Meeting the Definition of a Qualifying including a leverage ratio of greater than to raise capital and opt into the Community Banking Organization 9 percent, by that date. community bank leverage ratio Under the proposal, an electing framework, or that procedural issues Under the proposal, an electing banking organization that ceased to would make it too difficult in practice banking organization that no longer met meet the qualifying criteria as a result of for banking organizations to opt out. the proposed qualifying criteria would a business combination would have The agencies have considered the have been required, within two received no grace period and comments and are finalizing the consecutive calendar quarters, either to immediately would have been required election to use the community bank meet the qualifying criteria again or to to revert to the generally applicable rule. leverage ratio framework as proposed. demonstrate compliance with the The agencies continue to believe this Due to the adoption of tier 1 capital and generally applicable rule. During the approach is appropriate, as banking the leverage ratio into the community proposed grace period, the banking organizations would need to consider bank leverage ratio framework, the organization could have continued to be the regulatory capital implications of a agencies will update accordingly the treated as a qualifying community planned business combination and be proposed reporting changes to the Call prepared to comply with the applicable Report and Form FR Y–9C. The agencies 19 See section I in this SUPPLEMENTARY requirements. An electing banking INFORMATION for a discussion on the interaction are further clarifying that the between the effective date of the final rule and organization that expects that it would community bank leverage ratio when a banking organization elects to use the not meet the qualifying criteria as a framework is an optional framework, community bank leverage ratio framework. result of a business combination would

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61786 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

need to provide its pro forma capital that the framework should require a final rule, an electing banking ratios under the generally applicable banking organization that falls below organization that has a leverage ratio rule to its appropriate regulator as part the well-capitalized level to that is greater than 8 percent and equal of its merger application, if applicable, immediately begin reporting capital to or less than 9 percent is allowed a and fully comply with the generally ratios under the generally applicable two-quarter grace period after which it applicable rule for the regulatory rule. Another commenter proposed that, must either (i) again meet all qualifying reporting period during which the instead of instituting the PCA proxy criteria or (ii) apply and report the transaction is completed. levels, the agencies should give generally applicable rule. During this qualifying banking organizations with a two-quarter period, a banking 2. Treatment of a Community Banking community bank leverage ratio between organization that is an insured Organization That Falls Below Certain 8 percent and 9 percent a two-quarter depository institution and that has a Leverage Ratio Levels grace period after which they would leverage ratio that is greater than 8 Under the proposal, an electing either need to restore their community percent would be considered to have banking organization that had a bank leverage ratio to greater than 9 met the well-capitalized capital ratio community bank leverage ratio greater percent or revert to the generally requirements for PCA purposes. An than 9 percent would have been applicable rule. electing banking organization with a considered well capitalized. In addition, The agencies also received comments leverage ratio of 8 percent or less is not an electing banking organization would in response to the proposal’s eligible for the grace period and must have been considered to have met the incorporation of community bank comply with the generally applicable minimum capital requirements under leverage ratio levels as proxies for the rule, i.e., for the quarter in which the the generally applicable rule if its adequately capitalized, banking organization reports a leverage community bank leverage ratio was 7.5 undercapitalized, and significantly ratio of 8 percent or less. An electing percent or greater.20 Under the proposal, undercapitalized PCA categories. In banking organization experiencing or an electing banking organization could general, commenters noted that the anticipating such an event would be have chosen to stop using the establishment of a new, separate PCA expected to notify its primary federal community bank leverage ratio framework within the community bank supervisory agency, which would framework and instead become subject leverage ratio framework is not respond as appropriate to the to the generally applicable rule. The necessary or required under section 201 circumstances of the banking proposal also provided an electing of the Act, expressing concern that the organization. banking organization with a declining community bank leverage ratio A commenter asked that the proposed community bank leverage ratio (e.g., framework could, in the future, function rule be revised to provide expressly that below 9 percent) with the option to as the new, de facto minimum capital for an otherwise qualifying community remain in the community bank leverage requirement, particularly if it is difficult bank that is state chartered to be ratio framework indefinitely, rather than for a banking organization to switch disqualified from using the community requiring the firm to revert to the back to the generally applicable rule. bank leverage ratio framework based on generally applicable rule. Under the Commenters also noted community criteria other than the enumerated proposal, an electing banking banking organizations’ sensitivity to qualifying criteria, such a determination organization that was an insured several restrictions that could arise if must be made jointly by (1) the bank’s depository institution and no longer the community banking organization is primary federal banking supervisory exceeded the 9 percent community bank determined to be less than well agency (either the FDIC or the Board) leverage ratio would have been subject capitalized, including restrictions on and (2) the appropriate state bank to community bank leverage ratio levels funding sources such as limits on supervisor. The agencies expect to that would serve as proxies for the brokered deposits, and the inability to continue to work closely with the state adequately capitalized, open branches or make acquisitions. bank supervisors, particularly with undercapitalized, and significantly Some commenters suggested alternative respect to institutions that are undercapitalized PCA capital calibration levels for the PCA proxy supervised jointly. However, the categories.21 levels. agencies are not revising the rule to The agencies received comments and In response to commenter concerns require a joint determination of the requests for clarification regarding both regarding the proposed PCA proxy federal supervisor and the state the proposed PCA proxy levels and the levels for electing banking organizations supervisor because such a requirement grace period for a banking organization that no longer exceed a 9 percent could prevent the federal supervisor that has a community bank leverage leverage ratio, the agencies decided not from applying the capital standards it ratio at or below 9 percent. One to incorporate the proposed PCA proxy believes to be appropriate. commenter requested that the agencies levels in the final rule. Therefore, under Finally, a commenter requested clarify when PCA consequences begin to the final rule, banking organizations that clarification that a bank that is a apply. Another commenter indicated are insured depository institutions and qualifying community bank may elect to that have a leverage ratio of greater than use the community banking 9 percent are deemed to have met the organization leverage ratio framework 20 Under the proposal, an electing banking organization that is a depository institution holding well capitalized capital ratio even if its parent holding company is company would no longer be considered well requirements for PCA purposes. Further, not a qualifying community banking capitalized if the holding company had a the agencies included the requirement organization, or vice versa. Consistent community bank leverage ratio of 9 percent or less. to have a leverage ratio greater than 9 with the proposal, a non-advanced 21 See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 5371 (establishing a capital floor for insured depository institutions and percent as a qualifying criterion in the approaches subsidiary insured depository institution holding companies); section definition of a qualifying community depository institution may opt into the 201 of the Act (requiring development of a banking organization. Consequently, the community bank leverage ratio community bank leverage ratio for which a two-quarter grace period described framework even if its parent holding depository institution exceeding that ratio would be considered to meet the requirements to be treated above also applies depending on the company is not a qualifying banking as well capitalized under PCA); 12 U.S.C. 1831o level of an electing banking organization, and vice versa. The (PCA). organization’s leverage ratio. Under the agencies do not have safety and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61787

soundness concerns with these allowances for loan and lease losses not The agencies note that firms that elect scenarios and the agencies intended to included in tier 2 capital. The final rule to be subject to the community bank allow such elections in the proposal. amends standards referencing ‘‘capital leverage ratio framework will become stock and surplus’’ (or similar items) so exempt from certain collections of F. FDIC Deposit Insurance Assessments that an electing banking organization information that are part of the agencies’ Regulations uses tier 1 capital plus allowances for regulatory capital rule. Because of The FDIC’s deposit insurance loan and lease losses (or adjusted uncertainty regarding the number of assessments regulations also would be allowance for credit losses, as firms that will elect to use the affected by the finalized community applicable). Thus, for example, for community bank leverage ratio bank leverage ratio framework. The purposes of compliance with section framework, the agencies have not FDIC is considering, and is expected to 23A of the Federal Reserve Act, the revised their estimates regarding the adopt, a separate final rule to apply the Board’s Regulation W should provide annual burden hours associated with community bank leverage ratio that for an electing banking organization such collections of information to framework to the deposit insurance ‘‘capital stock and surplus’’ means tier account for elections to use the assessment system. The separate final 1 capital plus allowances for loan and community bank leverage ratio rule amends the FDIC’s assessment lease losses (or adjusted allowance for framework. The agencies will reassess regulations to price all qualifying credit losses, as applicable). the annual burden hours associated community banks that elect to use the with these information collections once community bank leverage ratio H. Effective Date of the Final Rule there is more certainty regarding framework as small banks, and The final rule will be effective as of community bank leverage ratio continues to use the leverage ratio to January 1, 2020, and banking elections. determine assessment rates for organizations can utilize the community The final rule will also require established small banks. The separate bank leverage ratio framework for changes to the Consolidated Reports of final rule additionally clarifies that an purposes of filing their Call Report or Condition and Income (Call Reports) electing bank that meets the definition Form FR Y–9C, as applicable, for the (FFIEC 031, FFIEC 041, and FFIEC 051) of a custodial bank will have no change first quarter for 2020 (i.e., as of March and the Consolidated Financial to its custodial bank deduction or 31, 2020). A banking organization’s Statements for Holding Companies (FR reporting items required to calculate the compliance with capital requirements Y–9C; OMB No. 7100–0128 (Board)), deduction, and makes technical for a quarter prior to the final rule’s which will be addressed in one or more amendments to ensure that the effective date shall be determined separate Federal Register notices. assessment regulations continue to according to the agencies’ generally B. Regulatory Flexibility Act reference the PCA regulations for the applicable rule until the institution has definitions of capital categories used in filed their Call Report Form or FR Y–9C, OCC: The Regulatory Flexibility Act the deposit insurance assessment as applicable, for the first quarter of (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires an system. Because the leverage ratio in 2020 and has indicated whether or not agency either to provide a final this final rule is the same leverage ratio it has elected the community bank regulatory flexibility analysis with a currently being used for assessment leverage ratio framework. final rule for which a general notice of purposes, the separate final rule does proposed rulemaking is required or to not modify the FDIC’s assessment IV. Regulatory Analyses certify that the final rule will not have methodology. The FDIC does not expect A. Paperwork Reduction Act a significant economic impact on a that any changes to its deposit insurance substantial number of small entities. The agencies’ capital rule contains assessment regulations pursuant to this The U.S. Small Business Administration ‘‘collections of information’’ within the separate final rule will have a material (SBA) establishes size standards that meaning of the Paperwork Reduction impact on aggregate assessment revenue define which entities are small Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– or on rates paid by individual businesses for purposes of the RFA.23 institutions. 3521). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the agencies proposed rule. OMB filed comments requesting that G. Other Affected Regulations may not conduct or sponsor, and the the agencies examine public comment in response Under the final rule, the community respondent is not required to respond to the proposed rule and describe in the supporting bank leverage ratio framework to, an information collection unless it statement of its next collection any public comments received regarding the collection as well incorporates tier 1 capital. Therefore, displays a currently-valid Office of as why (or why it did not) incorporate the Federal banking regulations outside of Management and Budget (OMB) control commenter’s recommendation. In addition, OMB the regulatory capital rule (non-capital number. The OMB control number for requested that the OCC and the FDIC note the rules) can continue to reference tier 1 the OCC is 1557–0318, Board is 7100– convergence of the agencies on the single methodology. The agencies received no comments capital. The final rule amends standards 0313, and FDIC is 3064–0153. The on the information collection requirements. Since referencing total capital so that an information collections that are part of the proposed rule stage, the agencies have electing banking organization uses tier 1 the agencies’ capital rule will not be conformed their respective methodologies in a capital instead of total capital. The final affected by this final rule and therefore separate final rulemaking titled, Regulatory Capital Rule: Implementation and Transition of the Current rule amends standards referencing risk- no final submissions will be made by Expected Credit Losses Methodology for Allowances weighted assets so that an electing the FDIC or OCC to OMB under section and Related Adjustments to the Regulatory Capital banking organization uses average total 3507(d) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) Rule and Conforming Amendments to Other consolidated assets (i.e., the and section 1320.11 of the OMB’s Regulations, 84 FR 4222 (February 14, 2019), and the FDIC and OCC have had their submissions denominator of the leverage ratio) implementing regulations (5 CFR 1320) approved through OMB. As a result, the agencies’ 22 instead of risk-weighted assets. in connection with this rulemaking. information collections related to the regulatory In addition, certain of the agencies’ capital rules are currently aligned and therefore no non-capital rules refer to ‘‘capital stock 22 The OCC and FDIC submitted their information submission will be made to OMB. collections to OMB at the proposed rule stage. 23 U.S. SBA, Table of Small Business Size and surplus’’ (or similar items) which is However, these submissions were done solely in an Standards Matched to North American Industry generally defined as tier 1 capital and effort to apply a conforming methodology for Classification System Codes, available at https:// tier 2 capital plus the amount of calculating the burden estimates and not due to the Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61788 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

Under regulations issued by the SBA, their capital reporting procedures and of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the size standard to be considered a reports.27 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (RFA). In the IRFA, small business for banking entities Banks that elect to use the community the Board requested comment on the subject to the proposed rule is $600 bank leverage ratio framework will have effect of the proposed rule on small million or less in consolidated assets.24 to make updates to their capital entities and on any significant Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this analysis is reporting procedures and reports. Banks alternatives that would reduce the not required if an agency certifies that will also have to make updates to regulatory burden on small entities. The the rule will not have a significant existing policies and procedures to Board did not receive any comments on economic impact on a substantial ensure compliance with regulations that the IRFA. The RFA requires an agency number of small entities and publishes will be affected by the final rule (e.g., to prepare a final regulatory flexibility its certification and a brief explanatory lending limits). The total impact analysis (FRFA) unless the agency statement in the Federal Register along associated with the final rule is the certifies that the rule will not, if with its rule. estimated annual tax benefit minus the promulgated, have a significant Pursuant to the RFA, the OCC compliance costs of modifying policies economic impact on a substantial specifically considers (a) whether the and procedures. The OCC estimates that number of small entities. In accordance final rule is likely to impact a each institution will spend no more with section 3(a) of the RFA, the Board substantial number of small entities; than 160 hours to modify their policies has reviewed the final regulation. Based and (b) whether the economic impact on and procedures. To estimate costs, the on its analysis, and for the reasons a substantial number of small entities is OCC uses a compensation rate of $114 stated below, the Board certifies that the significant. To measure whether a rule per hour.28 Therefore, the OCC rule will not have a significant would have a ‘‘significant economic estimates the cost per institution will economic impact on a substantial impact,’’ the OCC focuses on the not exceed $18,240 (160 hours × $114 number of small entities. potential costs of the rule on OCC- per hour). Under regulations issued by the Small supervised small entities, consistent In general, the OCC classifies the Business Administration, a small entity with guidance on the RFA published by economic impact of expected cost (to includes a bank, bank holding company, the Office of Advocacy of the SBA.25 As comply with a rule) on an individual or savings and loan holding company of December 31, 2017, the OCC bank as significant if the total estimated with assets of $600 million or less and supervised approximately 898 small monetized costs in one year are greater trust companies with total assets of $41.5 million or less (small banking entities.26 than (1) 5 percent of the bank’s total organization).29 On average since the Although the minimum required annual salaries and benefits or (2) 2.5 percent of the bank’s total annual non- second quarter of 2018, there were capital under the community bank approximately 2,976 small bank holding leverage ratio framework will, in most interest expense. Based on the above criteria, the estimated cost of the rule companies, 133 small savings and loan cases, be greater than that required for holding companies, and 555 small state the generally applicable risk-based and could impose a significant economic impact at 19 of the 898 small entities if member banks. leverage capital requirements, banks are As discussed, the Board is issuing this not required to opt into the community they all elected to opt into the community bank leverage ratio final rule to provide a simple measure bank leverage ratio framework. In of capital adequacy for certain addition, banks that do elect to use the framework. The OCC uses 5 percent to determine a substantial number of small community banking organizations. community bank leverage ratio Under the final rule, depository framework may, at any time, stop using entities. Approximately 2 percent (19/ 898 = 2.1%) of small entities could be institutions and depository institution the community bank leverage ratio holding companies that have less than framework. Accordingly, the final rule significantly impacted by the rule, which is not a substantial number of $10 billion in total consolidated assets does not represent a regulatory increase and meet other qualifying criteria, in minimum regulatory capital small entities. Therefore, the OCC certifies that the including a leverage ratio (equal to tier requirements, and the primary cost to 1 capital divided by average total institutions for implementing the final final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial consolidated assets) of greater than 9 rule will be administrative costs percent, will be eligible to opt into the associated with required updates to number of OCC-supervised small entities. community bank leverage ratio Board: An initial regulatory flexibility framework and, as a result, will not be www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_ _ analysis (IRFA) was included in the required to calculate the risk-based Standards Table.pdf. capital ratios under the generally 24 See 13 CFR 121.201. proposal in accordance with section 3(a) 30 25 See ‘‘A Guide for Government Agencies; How applicable capital rule. to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act,’’ pp. 27 The agencies intend to separately seek 18–20 (Aug. 2017), available at https:// comment on the proposed changes to regulatory 29 See 13 CFR 121.201. Effective August 19, 2019, www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/How-to- filings for qualifying community banking the Small Business Administration revised the size Comply-with-the-RFA-WEB.pdf. organizations that elect to use the community bank standards for banking organizations to $600 million 26 The OCC bases its estimate of the number of leverage ratio framework. in assets from $550 million in assets. 84 FR 34261 small entities on the SBA’s size thresholds for 28 To estimate wages, the OCC reviewed May (July 18, 2019). commercial banks and savings institutions, and 2018 data for wages (by industry and occupation) 30 In general, the Board’s capital rule only applies trust companies, which are $600 million and $41.5 from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for to bank holding companies and savings and loan million, respectively. Consistent with the General credit intermediation and related activities holding companies that are not subject to the Principles of Affiliation 13 CFR 121.103(a), the OCC excluding non-depository credit intermediaries Board’s Small Bank Holding Company and Savings counts the assets of affiliated financial institutions (NAICS 5220A1). To estimate compensation costs and Loan Holding Company Policy Statement, when determining if the OCC should classify an associated with the rule, the OCC uses $114 per which applies to bank holding companies and OCC-supervised institution a small entity. The OCC hour, which is based on the average of the 90th savings and loan holding companies with less than uses December 31, 2017, to determine size because percentile for nine occupations adjusted for $3 billion in total assets that also meet certain a ‘‘financial institution’s assets are determined by inflation (2.8 percent as of Q1 2019, according to additional criteria. Very few bank holding averaging the assets reported on its four quarterly the BLS), plus an additional 33.2 percent for companies and savings and loan holding companies financial statements for the preceding year.’’ See benefits (based on the percent of total compensation that are small entities would be impacted by the footnote 8 of the U.S. Small Business allocated to benefits as of Q4 2018 for NAICS 522: final rule because very few such entities are subject Administration’s Table of Size Standards. Credit intermediation and related activities). to the Board’s capital rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61789

Although the final rule would provide that effects in excess of these thresholds framework, as delineated above in some direct reduction in compliance typically represent significant effects for Section III.A.35 burden associated with the capital rule, FDIC-supervised institutions. Adoption of the community bank much of that reduction of compliance For the reasons described below, the leverage ratio framework is voluntary so burden would be achieved through a FDIC believes that the final rule will not it is uncertain how many small, FDIC- separate notice to amend the regulatory have a significant economic impact on supervised entities that qualify will choose to adopt. Each qualifying entity reports associated with the capital rule. a substantial number of small entities. must weigh the benefits of not being The Board does not expect that the final Nevertheless, the FDIC has conducted subject to risk-based capital rule will result in a material change in and is providing a final regulatory requirements against the costs of the level of capital maintained by small flexibility analysis. banking organizations because (i) the adhering to the higher leverage ratio framework is optional and (ii) a 1. The Need for, and Objectives of, the requirements under the community substantial majority of small banking Rule bank leverage ratio framework. As of organizations maintain capital in excess March 2019, 237 (9 percent of) small, of both the generally applicable capital The policy objective of the proposed FDIC-supervised institutions would rule and the threshold established under rule is to conform the FDIC’s regulations experience a net decrease in required the final rule. A small number of firms to the statutory language established by capital holdings as a result of qualifying may face reduced capital requirements the Act. On May 24, 2018, the Act for and adopting the community bank due to electing to use the community amended provisions in the Dodd-Frank leverage ratio framework. For purposes bank leverage ratio framework rather Wall Street Reform and Consumer of this analysis, the FDIC assumes that than the existing risk-based and leverage Protection Act 33 as well as certain other these 237 small, FDIC-supervised capital ratio framework. For example, statutes administered by the agencies.34 institutions would adopt the community the Board estimates that 454 small state Section 201 of the Act, titled ‘‘Capital bank leverage ratio framework and member banks would be eligible for the Simplification for Qualifying therefore be affected by the final rule. In community bank leverage ratio Community Banks,’’ directs the agencies order to assess the maximum potential framework and that 4 of these small to develop a community bank leverage effects of the proposed rule, this state member may face less stringent ratio (community bank leverage ratio) of analysis also calculates the expected capital requirements as a result. The not less than 8 percent and not more effects assuming that all 2,297 small, Board does not expect the rule to have than 10 percent for qualifying FDIC-supervised institutions that a significant economic impact on a community banks. The Act defines a qualify would adopt the community substantial number of small entities. qualifying community banking bank leverage ratio framework. FDIC: The RFA generally requires organization as a depository institution 5. A Description of the Projected that, in connection with a final or depository institution holding Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other rulemaking, an agency prepare and company with total consolidated assets Compliance Requirements of the Rule make available for public comment a of less than $10 billion. final regulatory flexibility analysis This analysis considers benefits and 2. The Significant Issues Raised by the describing the impact of the proposed costs relative to a pre-statutory baseline Public Comments in Response to the rule on small entities.31 However, a in which qualifying institutions must Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis regulatory flexibility analysis is not maintain a tier 1 leverage ratio of five required if the agency certifies that the No significant issues were raised by percent, a tier 1 risk-based capital ratio final rule will not have a significant the public comments in response to the of eight percent, a common equity tier economic impact on a substantial initial regulatory flexibility analysis. 1 ratio of 6.5 percent and a total capital number of small entities. The SBA has ratio of 10 percent in order to be defined ‘‘small entities’’ to include 3. Response of the Agency to Any deemed well capitalized for purposes of banking organizations with total assets Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel Prompt Corrective Action. Pursuant to of less than or equal to $600 million that for Advocacy of the Small Business the capital conservation buffer that is are independently owned and operated Administration in Response to the part of the Basel III rule, institutions or owned by a holding company with Proposed Rule must also maintain an additional 0.5 less than or equal to $600 million in percentage points of risk-weighted No comments were filed by the Chief total assets.32 Generally, the FDIC assets above the risk-based well- Counsel for Advocacy of the Small considers a significant effect to be a capitalized thresholds to avoid potential quantified effect in excess of 5 percent Business Administration in response to limitations on dividends and other the proposed rule. of total annual salaries and benefits per capital distributions.36 Under the final institution, or 2.5 percent of total non- 4. A Description of and an Estimate of rule, in contrast, qualifying institutions interest expenses. The FDIC believes the Number of Small Entities to Which would have the option to operate under the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation a 9 percent community bank leverage 31 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. of Why No Such Estimate Is Available ratio framework and not be subject to 32 The SBA defines a small banking organization risk-based capital requirements. as having $600 million or less in assets, where an As of March 31, 2019, the FDIC As previously discussed, 241 (9 organization’s ‘‘assets are determined by averaging the assets reported on its four quarterly financial supervised 3,465 institutions, of which percent of) small, FDIC-supervised statements for the preceding year.’’ See 13 CFR 2,705 are considered small entities for institutions would experience a net 121.201 (as amended, by 84 FR 34261, effective the purposes of RFA. Of these FDIC- decrease in required capital holdings as August 19, 2019). In its determination, the ‘‘SBA supervised small entities, 2,297 (85 counts the receipts, employees, or other measure of size of the concern whose size is at issue and all percent) meet or exceed the 35 Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income of its domestic and foreign affiliates.’’ See 13 CFR qualifications for adopting the for the quarter ending March 31, 2019. 121.103. Following these regulations, the FDIC uses community bank leverage ratio 36 With the additional capital conservation buffer a covered entity’s affiliated and acquired assets, requirements, the pre-statute baseline risk-based averaged over the preceding four quarters, to capital thresholds are 7 percent for common equity determine whether the covered entity is ‘‘small’’ for 33 Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376. tier 1 capital, 8.5 percent for tier 1 capital, and 10.5 the purposes of RFA. 34 Public Law 115–174, 132 Stat. 1296. percent for total capital.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61790 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

a result of qualifying for and adopting analysis calculates the expected institutions. Depository institutions also the community bank leverage ratio economic effect to each bank by may benefit from reduced reporting framework. For purposes of this multiplying 1 percent of the bank’s loan costs because by being able to employ analysis, the FDIC assumes that these balances by its net interest margin. those resources in ways the institution 241 small, FDIC-supervised institutions Under these assumptions, as of March believes is more beneficial. The FDIC would adopt the community bank 2019, only six banks would experience does not have a reasonable basis for leverage ratio framework and therefore an annual increase in net interest quantifying the compliance cost savings be affected by the final rule. In order to income that is significant (i.e., greater associated with the rule, but does not assess the maximum potential effects of than 2.5 percent of their total believe they will be significant for a the proposed rule, this analysis also noninterest income over the previous substantial number of small entities. calculates the expected effects assuming four quarters or 5 percent of their total The quantified economic effects are that all 2,277 small, FDIC-supervised salaries and benefits paid over the expected to be significant for less than institutions that qualify would adopt the previous four quarters). The estimated half of a percent of small, FDIC- community bank leverage ratio aggregate increase in net interest income supervised institutions covered by this framework. totals approximately $600,000. The six rule. Even assuming broad adoption No bank will be compelled to raise banks would comprise only less than rates and an increase in lending by all capital under the community bank 0.3 percent of the 2,705 small entities adopting institutions, the quantified leverage ratio framework since the covered by this rule. These effects are economic effects are only significant for framework is optional. Moreover, as of not significant for a substantial number less than half of a percent of small, March 2019, the 2,277 qualifying small, of small entities. FDIC-supervised institutions. FDIC-supervised institutions held As an estimate of the maximum aggregate tier 1 capital in excess of 12 potential effects of the rule, the analysis 6. A Description of the Steps the Agency percent of their average assets—well in alternately assumes that all of the 2,297 Has Taken To Minimize the Significant excess of both the 5 percent required by qualifying small FDIC-supervised banks Economic Impact on Small Entities the generally applicable leverage ratio that could adopt the framework choose As described above, the FDIC does not rules and the 9 percent threshold in the to do so, and that all increase their loan believe this rule will have a significant community bank leverage ratio balances by 1 percent and earn their economic impact on a substantial framework. Some of the 241 small, current net interest margin on the new number of small entities. Further, since FDIC-supervised banks whose capital loans. This analysis results in twelve the election of the community bank requirements would be reduced under banks experiencing an annual increase leverage ratio is voluntary, the impacts the community bank leverage ratio in net interest income that is significant are expected to be beneficial for framework might choose to reduce their (i.e., greater than 2.5 percent of their institutions that adopt it. capital. However, these 241 banks also total noninterest income over the The agencies considered alternative held aggregate tier 1 capital in excess of previous four quarters or 5 percent of calibrations, such as 8 percent. As 12 percent of their average assets, their total salaries and benefits paid discussed in Section III.C however, the suggesting that most of them already over the previous four quarters). The agencies believe that a 9 percent have the ability to operate with less twelve banks comprise less than 0.54 calibration, with complementary capital but have chosen not to. Given percent of the 2,705 small entities qualifying criteria for asset size, off- these facts, the FDIC does not believe covered by this rule. Thus, the plausible balance sheet assets, and trading assets that adopting banks will change their high-end effects are still not significant and liabilities, should generally leverage capital ratios significantly in for a substantial number of small maintain the current level of regulatory response to this rule. entities. capital held by electing banking It is possible that the elimination of Although the preceding assumptions organizations while maintaining the risk-based capital requirements by and analysis indicate that the rule is quality and quantity of regulatory banks that choose to adopt the rule unlikely to have significant economic capital in the banking system consistent would increase their incentives to hold effects on a substantial number of small, with the agencies’ safety-and-soundness higher-weighted assets, such as loans. FDIC-supervised institutions, the extent goals, while also supporting the To provide a high-end estimate of the of the rule’s effects on capital and assets agencies’ goals of reducing regulatory economic effect for RFA purposes, this are uncertain. Therefore, the FDIC burden for as many community banking analysis will assume that every adopting believes, but does not certify, that the organizations as possible. For example, bank responds to the rule by final rule will not have a significant even though an 8 percent leverage ratio permanently increasing its loan economic impact on a substantial would allow more banking balances by 1 percent. number of small entities. organizations to opt into the community The analysis estimates the annual There are other non-quantified bank leverage ratio framework it could economic effect of a 1 percent economic effects resulting from the incentivize a large number of qualifying permanent increase in loan balances at adoption of the community bank community banking organizations to adopting banks by multiplying the leverage ratio framework, such as hold less regulatory capital than they do increase by the net interest margin simplicity benefits and compliance cost- today. currently being earned by each bank.37 savings from not having to comply with For each of the 237 banks that would risk-based capital requirements going C. Plain Language experience a reduction in capital forward. Utilizing the community bank Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach- requirements under the community leverage ratio framework is expected to Bliley Act 38 requires the Federal bank leverage ratio framework, this reduce reporting costs for small entities. banking agencies to use plain language Opting into the community bank in all proposed and final rules 37 Defined as the annualized net interest income leverage ratio framework would enable published after January 1, 2000. The as a percent of average earning assets, as reported institutions to eliminate the reporting of on schedule RI. For reference, the average net agencies have sought to present the final interest margin was 3.9 percent for small, FDIC- many line items in schedule RC–R of insured institutions, for the quarter ending March their Call Reports, resulting in a 38 Public Law 106–102, section 722, 113 Stat. 31, 2019. reduction in reporting costs for 1338, 1471 (1999).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61791

rule in a simple and straightforward F. The Congressional Review Act 12 CFR Part 24 manner, and did not receive any Community development, Credit, comments on the use of plain language. For purposes of Congressional Review Act, the OMB makes a determination as Investments, Low and moderate income D. OCC Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to whether a final rule constitutes a housing, National banks, Reporting and of 1995 ‘‘major’’ rule.41 If a rule is deemed a recordkeeping requirements, Rural ‘‘major rule’’ by the Office of areas, Small businesses. The OCC analyzed the final rule Management and Budget (OMB), the 12 CFR Part 32 under the factors set forth in the Congressional Review Act generally Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 provides that the rule may not take National banks, Reporting and (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this effect until at least 60 days following its recordkeeping requirements. analysis, the OCC considered whether publication.42 the proposed rule includes a Federal 12 CFR Part 34 The Congressional Review Act defines mandate that may result in the Mortgages, National banks, Reporting expenditure by State, local, and Tribal a ‘‘major rule’’ as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of and recordkeeping requirements. governments, in the aggregate, or by the Information and Regulatory Affairs of private sector, of $100 million or more 12 CFR Part 160 the OMB finds has resulted in or is in any one year (adjusted for inflation). likely to result in (A) an annual effect Consumer protection, Investments, Because the rule does not specifically on the economy of $100,000,000 or Manufactured homes, Mortgages, require banks to modify their policies more; (B) a major increase in costs or Reporting and recordkeeping and procedures, the OCC has prices for consumers, individual requirements, Savings associations, determined that there are no industries, Federal, State, or local Securities. expenditures for the purposes of UMRA. government agencies or geographic Therefore, the OCC concludes that the 12 CFR Part 192 regions, or (C) significant adverse effects final rule will not result in an on competition, employment, Reporting and recordkeeping expenditure of $100 million or more investment, productivity, innovation, or requirements, Savings associations, annually by state, local, and tribal on the ability of United States-based Securities. governments, or by the private sector. enterprises to compete with foreign- 12 CFR Part 206 E. Riegle Community Development and based enterprises in domestic and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 export markets.43 The OMB has Banks, Banking, Interbank liability, determined that the final rule is not a Lending limits, Savings associations. Pursuant to section 302(a) of the ‘‘major rule’’ within the meaning of the 12 CFR Part 208 Riegle Community Development and Congressional Review Act. As required Regulatory Improvement Act by the Congressional Review Act, the Confidential business information, (RCDRIA),39 in determining the effective agencies will submit the final rule and Crime, Currency, Federal Reserve date and administrative compliance other appropriate reports to Congress System, Mortgages, Reporting and requirements for new regulations that and the Government Accountability recordkeeping requirements, Securities. impose additional reporting, disclosure, Office for review. 12 CFR Part 211 or other requirements on insured List of Subjects depository institutions (IDIs), each Exports, Federal Reserve System, Federal banking agency must consider, 12 CFR Part 1 Foreign banking, Holding companies, consistent with principles of safety and Investments, Reporting and soundness and the public interest, any Banks, Banking, National banks, recordkeeping requirements. administrative burdens that such Reporting and recordkeeping regulations would place on depository requirements, Securities. 12 CFR Part 215 institutions, including small depository 12 CFR Part 3 Credit, Penalties, Reporting and institutions, and customers of recordkeeping requirements. depository institutions, as well as the Administrative practice and benefits of such regulations. In addition, procedure, Federal Reserve System, 12 CFR Part 217 section 302(b) of RCDRIA requires new National banks, Reporting and Administrative practice and regulations and amendments to recordkeeping requirements. procedure, Banks, Banking, Holding regulations that impose additional 12 CFR Part 5 companies, Reporting and reporting, disclosures, or other new recordkeeping requirements, Securities. requirements on IDIs generally to take Administrative practice and effect on the first day of a calendar procedure, National banks, Reporting 12 CFR Part 223 quarter that begins on or after the date and recordkeeping requirements, Banks, Banking, Federal Reserve on which the regulations are published Securities. System. in final form.40 12 CFR Part 6 12 CFR Part 225 The Federal banking agencies considered the administrative burdens Federal Reserve System, National Administrative practice and and benefits of the rule and its elective banks. procedure, Banks, Banking, Federal Reserve System, Holding companies, framework in determining its effective 12 CFR Part 23 date and administrative compliance Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. As such, the final rule National banks. requirements, Securities. will be effective on January 1, 2020. 12 CFR Part 238 41 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. 39 12 U.S.C. 4802(a). 42 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3). Savings and loan holding companies 40 12 U.S.C. 4802. 43 5 U.S.C. 804(2). (Regulation LL).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61792 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

12 CFR Part 251 Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1 et seq., 24 institutions, a supplementary leverage (Seventh), and 93a. Administrative practice and ratio of 3 percent. procedure, Banks, Banking, ■ 2. Section 1.2 is amended by revising (vi) For Federal savings associations, Concentration limit, Federal Reserve paragraph (a) to read as follows: a tangible capital ratio of 1.5 percent. (2) A qualifying community banking System, Holding companies, Reporting § 1.2 Definitions. and recordkeeping requirements, organization (as defined in § 3.12), that Securities. (a) Capital and surplus means: is subject to the community bank (1) For qualifying community banking leverage ratio framework (as defined in 12 CFR Part 303 organizations that have elected to use § 3.12), is considered to have met the Administrative practice and the community bank leverage ratio minimum capital requirements in this procedure, Bank deposit insurance, framework, as set forth under the OCC’s paragraph (a). Banks, Banking, Reporting and Capital Adequacy Standards at part 3 of * * * * * recordkeeping requirements, State non- this chapter: ■ 6. Add section 3.12 to read as follows: member banks, Savings associations. (i) A qualifying community banking organization’s tier 1 capital, as used § 3.12 Community bank leverage ratio 12 CFR Part 324 under § 3.12 of this chapter; plus framework. Administrative practice and (ii) A qualifying community banking (a) Community bank leverage ratio procedure, Banks, Banking, Capital organization’s allowances for loan and framework. (1) Notwithstanding any adequacy, Reporting and recordkeeping lease losses as reported in the bank’s other provision in this part, a qualifying requirements, State non-member banks, Consolidated Report of Condition and community banking organization that Savings associations. Income (Call Report); or has made an election to use the (2) For all other banks: community bank leverage ratio 12 CFR Part 337 (i) A bank’s tier 1 and tier 2 capital framework under paragraph (a)(3) of this Banks, Banking, Reporting and calculated under the OCC’s risk-based section shall be considered to have met recordkeeping requirements, Securities. capital standards set forth in part 3 of the minimum capital requirements 12 CFR Part 347 this chapter, as applicable (or under § 3.10, the capital ratio comparable capital guidelines of the requirements for the well capitalized Authority delegations (Government appropriate Federal banking agency), as capital category under § 6.4(b)(1) of this agencies), Bank deposit insurance, reported in the bank’s Call Report; plus chapter, and any other capital or Banks, Banking, Credit, Foreign (ii) The balance of a bank’s leverage requirements to which the banking, Investments, Reporting and allowances for loan and lease losses not qualifying community banking recordkeeping requirements, U.S. included in the bank’s tier 2 capital, for organization is subject, if it has a Investments abroad. purposes of the calculation of risk-based leverage ratio greater than 9 percent. 12 CFR Part 362 capital described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) (2) For purposes of this section, a of this section, as reported in the bank’s qualifying community banking Administrative practice and Call Report. organization means a national bank or procedure, Authority delegations Federal savings association that is not (Government agencies), Bank deposit * * * * * an advanced approaches national bank insurance, Banks, Banking, Investments, PART 3—CAPITAL ADEQUACY or Federal savings association and that Reporting and recordkeeping STANDARDS satisfies all of the following criteria: requirements. (i) Has a leverage ratio of greater than 12 CFR Part 365 ■ 3. The authority citation for part 3 9 percent; continues to read as follows: Banks, Banking, Mortgages. (ii) Has total consolidated assets of Authority: 12 U.S.C. 93a, 161, 1462, 1462a, less than $10 billion, calculated in 12 CFR Part 390 1463, 1464, 1818, 1828(n), 1828 note, 1831n accordance with the reporting Administrative practice and note, 1835, 3907, 3909, and 5412(b)(2)(B). instructions to the Call Report as of the end of the most recent calendar quarter; procedure, Advertising, Aged, Civil § 3.2 [Amended] rights, Conflict of interests, Credit, (iii) Has off-balance sheet exposures Crime, Equal employment opportunity, ■ 4. Section 3.2 is amended by of 25 percent or less of its total Fair housing, Government employees, removing the first definition of ‘‘Non- consolidated assets as of the end of the Individuals with disabilities, Reporting significant investment in the capital of most recent calendar quarter, calculated and recordkeeping requirements, an unconsolidated financial as the sum of the notional amounts of Savings associations. institution’’. the exposures listed in paragraphs ■ 5. Section 3.10 is amended by revising (a)(2)(iii)(A) through (I) of this section, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY paragraph (a) to read as follows: divided by total consolidated assets, Office of the Comptroller of the each as of the end of the most recent Currency § 3.10 Minimum capital requirements. calendar quarter: (a) Minimum capital requirements. (1) (A) The unused portion of 12 CFR Chapter I A national bank or Federal savings commitments (except for Authority and Issuance association must maintain the following unconditionally cancellable For the reasons stated in the joint minimum capital ratios: commitments); preamble, chapter I of title 12 of the (i) A common equity tier 1 capital (B) Self-liquidating, trade-related Code of Federal Regulations is amended ratio of 4.5 percent. contingent items that arise from the as follows: (ii) A tier 1 capital ratio of 6 percent. movement of goods; (iii) A total capital ratio of 8 percent. (C) Transaction-related contingent PART 1—INVESTMENT SECURITIES (iv) A leverage ratio of 4 percent. items, including performance bonds, bid (v) For advanced approaches national bonds, warranties, and performance ■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 banks or Federal savings associations or, standby letters of credit; continues to read as follows: for Category III OCC-regulated (D) Sold credit protection through

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61793

(1) Guarantees; and community banking organization, the requirements under § 3.10(a)(1) and (2) Credit derivatives; national bank or Federal savings must report the required capital (E) Credit-enhancing representations association has two reporting periods measures under § 3.10(a)(1) for the and warranties; under its Call Report (grace period) to quarter in which it reports a leverage (F) Securities lent and borrowed, either satisfy the requirements to be a ratio of 8 percent or less. calculated in accordance with the qualifying community banking ■ 7. Section 3.22 is amended by revising reporting instructions to the Call Report; organization or to comply with paragraph (f) to read as follows: (G) Financial standby letters of credit; § 3.10(a)(1) and report the required (H) Forward agreements that are not capital measures under § 3.10(a)(1) on § 3.22 Regulatory capital adjustments and derivative contracts; and its Call Report. deductions. (I) Off-balance sheet securitization (2) The grace period begins as of the * * * * * exposures; and end of the calendar quarter in which the (f) Insufficient amounts of a specific (iv) Has total trading assets plus national bank or Federal savings regulatory capital component to effect trading liabilities, calculated in association ceases to satisfy the criteria deductions. Under the corresponding accordance with the reporting to be a qualifying community banking deduction approach, if a national bank instructions to the Call Report of 5 organization provided in paragraph or Federal savings association does not percent or less of the national bank’s or (a)(2) of this section. The grace period have a sufficient amount of a specific Federal savings association’s total ends on the last day of the second component of capital to effect the consolidated assets, each as of the end consecutive calendar quarter following required deduction after completing the of the most recent calendar quarter. the beginning of the grace period. deductions required under paragraph (3)(i) A qualifying community (3) During the grace period, the (d) of this section, the national bank or banking organization may elect to use national bank or Federal savings Federal savings association must deduct the community bank leverage ratio association continues to be treated as a the shortfall from the next higher (that framework if it makes an opt-in election qualifying community banking is, more subordinated) component of under this paragraph (a)(3). organization for the purpose of this part regulatory capital. Notwithstanding any (ii) For purposes of this paragraph and must continue calculating and other provision of this section, a (a)(3), a qualifying community banking reporting its leverage ratio under this qualifying community banking organization makes an election to use section unless the national bank or organization (as defined in § 3.12) that the community bank leverage ratio Federal savings association has opted has elected to use the community bank framework by completing the applicable out of using the community bank leverage ratio framework pursuant to reporting requirements of its Call leverage ratio framework under § 3.12 is not required to deduct any Report. paragraph (a)(3) of this section. shortfall of tier 2 capital from its (iii)(A) A qualifying community (4) During the grace period, the additional tier 1 capital or common banking organization that has elected to qualifying community banking equity tier 1 capital. use the community bank leverage ratio organization continues to be considered * * * * * framework may opt out of the to have met the minimum capital community bank leverage ratio requirements under § 3.10(a)(1), the PART 5—RULES, POLICIES, AND framework by completing the applicable capital ratio requirements for the well PROCEDURES FOR CORPORATE risk-based and leverage ratio reporting capitalized capital category under ACTIVITIES requirements necessary to demonstrate § 6.4(b)(1)(i)(A) through (D) of this compliance with § 3.10(a)(1) in its Call chapter, and any other capital or ■ 8. The authority citation for part 5 Report or by otherwise providing this leverage requirements to which the continues to read as follows: information to the OCC. qualifying community banking Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1 et seq., 24a, 93a, (B) A qualifying community banking organization is subject, and must 215a–2, 215a–3, 481, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 2901 organization that opts out of the continue calculating and reporting its et seq., 3907, and 5412(b)(2)(B). leverage ratio under this section. community bank leverage ratio ■ 9. Section 5.3 is amended by revising (5) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(1) framework pursuant to paragraph paragraph (e) to read as follows: (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section must comply through (4) of this section, a national with § 3.10(a)(1) immediately. bank or Federal savings association that § 5.3 Definitions. (b) Calculation of the leverage ratio. A no longer meets the definition of a * * * * * qualifying community banking qualifying community banking (e) Capital and surplus means: organization’s leverage ratio is organization as a result of a merger or (1) For qualifying community banking calculated in accordance with acquisition has no grace period and organizations that have elected to use § 3.10(b)(4), except that a qualifying immediately ceases to be a qualifying the community bank leverage ratio community banking organization is not community banking organization. Such framework, as set forth under the OCC’s required to: a national bank or Federal savings Capital Adequacy Standards at part 3 of (1) Make adjustments and deductions association must comply with the this chapter: from tier 2 capital for purposes of minimum capital requirements under (i) A qualifying community banking § 3.22(c); or § 3.10(a)(1) and must report the required organization’s tier 1 capital, as used (2) Calculate and deduct from tier 1 capital measures under § 3.10(a)(1) for under § 3.12 of this chapter; plus capital an amount resulting from the quarter in which it ceases to be a (ii) A qualifying community banking insufficient tier 2 capital under § 3.22(f). qualifying community banking organization’s allowances for loan and (c) Treatment when ceasing to meet organization. lease losses or allowance for credit the qualifying community banking (6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(1) losses, as applicable, as reported in the organization requirements. (1) Except as through (4) of this section, a national national bank’s or Federal savings provided in paragraphs (c)(5) and (6) of bank or Federal savings association that association’s Consolidated Report of this section, if a national bank or has a leverage ratio of 8 percent or less Condition and Income (Call Report); or Federal savings association ceases to does not have a grace period and must (2) For all other national banks and meet the definition of a qualifying comply with the minimum capital Federal savings associations:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61794 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

(i) A national bank’s or Federal § 5.58 Pass-through investments by a (1)(i) Well capitalized if: savings association’s tier 1 and tier 2 Federal savings association. (A) Total Risk-Based Capital Measure: capital calculated under the OCC’s risk- * * * * * The national bank or Federal savings based capital standards set forth in part (h) * * * association has a total risk-based capital 3 of this chapter, as applicable, as (2) The Federal savings association is ratio of 10.0 percent or greater; reported in the bank’s or savings not investing more than 10 percent of its (B) Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Measure: association’s Consolidated Reports of total capital (or, in the case of a Federal The national bank or Federal savings Condition and Income (Call Reports) savings association that is a qualifying association has a tier 1 risk-based filed under 12 U.S.C. 161 or 12 U.S.C. community banking organization that capital ratio of 8.0 percent or greater; 1464(v), respectively; plus has elected to use the community bank (C) Common Equity Tier 1 Capital (ii) The balance of the national bank’s leverage ratio framework, 10 percent of Measure: The national bank or Federal or Federal savings association’s its tier 1 capital, as used under § 3.12 of savings association has a common allowances for loan and lease losses not this chapter) in one company; equity tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of included in the institution’s tier 2 * * * * * 6.5 percent or greater; capital, for purposes of the calculation (D) Leverage Measure: of risk-based capital reported in the PART 6—PROMPT CORRECTIVE (1) The national bank or Federal institution’s Call Reports, described in ACTION savings association has a leverage ratio paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section. of 5.0 percent or greater; and ■ 12. The authority citation for part 6 * * * * * (2) With respect to a national bank or continues to read as follows: ■ 10. Section 5.37 is amended by Federal savings association that is a revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as Authority: 12 U.S.C. 93a, 1831o, subsidiary of a U.S. top-tier bank 5412(b)(2)(B). follows: holding company that has more than ■ 13. Section 6.4 is amended by: $700 billion in total assets as reported § 5.37 Investment in national bank or ■ a. Revising the section heading; on the company’s most recent Federal savings association premises. ■ b. Removing paragraph (b); Consolidated Financial Statement for * * * * * ■ c. Redesignating paragraph (c) as Bank Holding Companies (Form FR Y– (c) * * * paragraph (b); 9C) or more than $10 trillion in assets ■ (3) Capital and surplus means: d. Revising newly designated under custody as reported on the (i) For qualifying community banking paragraph (b) introductory text and company’s most recent Banking organizations that have elected to use paragraph (b)(1); and ■ Organization Systemic Risk Report the community bank leverage ratio e. Redesignating paragraphs (d) and (Form FR Y–15), on January 1, 2018, framework, as set forth under the OCC’s (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d), and thereafter, the national bank or Capital Adequacy Standards at part 3 of respectively. Federal savings association has a this chapter: The revisions read as set forth below. (A) A qualifying community banking supplementary leverage ratio of 6.0 organization’s tier 1 capital, as used § 6.4 Capital measures and capital percent or greater; and categories. under § 3.12 of this chapter; plus (E) The national bank or Federal (B) A qualifying community banking (a) Capital measures. (1) For purposes savings association is not subject to any organization’s allowances for loan and of section 38 of the FDI Act and this written agreement, order or capital lease losses or allowance for credit part, the relevant capital measures shall directive, or prompt corrective action losses, as applicable, as reported in the be: directive issued by the OCC pursuant to national bank’s or Federal savings (i) Total Risk-Based Capital Measure: section 8 of the FDI Act, the association’s Call Report; or the total risk-based capital ratio; International Lending Supervision Act (ii) For all other national banks and (ii) Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Measure: of 1983 (12 U.S.C. 3907), the Home Federal savings associations: the tier 1 risk-based capital ratio; Owners’ Loan Act (12 U.S.C. (A) A national bank’s or Federal (iii) Common Equity Tier 1 Capital 1464(t)(6)(A)(ii)), or section 38 of the savings association’s tier 1 and tier 2 Measure: The common equity tier 1 risk- FDI Act, or any regulation thereunder, capital calculated under part 3 of this based capital ratio; to meet and maintain a specific capital chapter, as applicable, as reported in the (iv) The Leverage Measure: level for any capital measure. (A) The leverage ratio; and (ii) Qualifying community banking national bank’s or Federal savings (B) With respect to an advanced organization: A qualifying community association’s Consolidated Reports of approaches national bank or advanced banking organization, as defined under Condition and Income (Call Reports) approaches Federal savings association, § 3.12 of this chapter, that has elected to filed under 12 U.S.C. 161 or 12 U.S.C. on January 1, 2018, and thereafter, the use the community bank leverage ratio 1464(v), respectively; plus supplementary leverage ratio; and (B) The balance of a national bank’s (2) For a qualifying community framework under § 3.12 of this chapter, or Federal savings association’s banking organization (as defined in shall be considered to have met the allowances for loan and lease losses not § 3.12 of this chapter), that has elected capital ratio requirements for the well included in the bank’s or savings to use the community bank leverage capitalized capital category in paragraph association’s tier 2 capital, for purposes ratio framework (as defined in § 3.12 of (b)(1)(i) (A) through (D) of this section. of the calculation of risk-based capital this chapter), the leverage ratio * * * * * described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) of calculated in accordance with § 3.12(b) PART 23—LEASING this section, as reported in the national of this chapter is used to determine the bank’s or Federal savings association’s well capitalized capital category under Call Reports filed under 12 U.S.C. 161 ■ 14. The authority citation for part 23 paragraph (b)(1)(i) (A) through (D) of continues to read as follows: or 1464(v), respectively. this section. * * * * * (b) Capital categories. For purposes of Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1 et seq., 24(Seventh), ■ 11. Section 5.58 is amended by section 38 of the FDI Act and this part, 24(Tenth), and 93a. revising paragraph (h)(2) to read as a national bank or Federal savings ■ 15. Section 23.2 is amended by follows: association shall be deemed to be: revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61795

§ 23.2 Definitions. capital standards set forth in part 3 of Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1 et seq., 25b, 29, 93a, * * * * * this chapter, as applicable, as reported 371, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1465, 1701j–3, (b) Capital and surplus means: in the bank’s Consolidated Reports of 1828(o), 3331 et seq., 5101 et seq., and 5412(b)(2)(B) and 15 U.S.C. 1639h. (1) For qualifying community banking Condition and Income (Call Report) as organizations that have elected to use filed under 12 U.S.C. 161; plus ■ 21. Section 34.81 is amended by the community bank leverage ratio (ii) The balance of a bank’s adding a definition for ‘‘Capital and framework, as set forth under the OCC’s allowances for loan and lease losses not surplus’’ in alphabetical order to read as Capital Adequacy Standards at part 3 of included in the bank’s tier 2 capital, for follows: purposes of the calculation of risk-based this chapter: § 34.81 Definitions. (i) A qualifying community banking capital described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) organization’s tier 1 capital, as used of this section, as reported in the bank’s Capital and surplus means: under § 3.12 of this chapter; plus. Call Report as filed under 12 U.S.C. 161. (1) For qualifying community banking organizations that have elected to use (ii) A qualifying community banking * * * * * organization’s allowances for loan and the community bank leverage ratio lease losses or allowance for credit PART 32—LENDING LIMITS framework, as set forth under the OCC’s losses, as applicable, as reported in the Capital Adequacy Standards at part 3 of ■ national bank’s Call Report; or 18. The authority citation for part 32 this chapter: (i) A qualifying community banking (2) For all other national banks: continues to read as follows: organization’s tier 1 capital, as used (i) A bank’s tier 1 and tier 2 capital Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1 et seq., 12 U.S.C. 84, under § 3.12 of this chapter; plus calculated under the OCC’s risk-based 93a, 1462a, 1463, 1464(u), 5412(b)(2)(B), and (ii) A qualifying community banking capital standards set forth in part 3 of 15 U.S.C. 1639h. organization’s allowances for loan and this chapter, as applicable, as reported ■ 19. Section 32.2 is amended by lease losses, or allowance for credit in the bank’s Consolidated Reports of revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: losses, as applicable, as reported in the Condition and Income (Call Report) national bank’s Call Report; or filed under 12 U.S.C. 161; plus § 32.2 Definitions. * * * * * (2) For all other national banks: (ii) The balance of a bank’s (i) A bank’s tier 1 and tier 2 capital allowances for loan and lease losses not (c) Capital and surplus means— (1) For qualifying community banking calculated under the OCC’s risk-based included in the bank’s Tier 2 capital, for capital standards set forth in part 3 of purposes of the calculation of risk-based organizations that have elected to use the community bank leverage ratio this chapter, as applicable, as reported capital described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) in the bank’s Call Report; plus of this section, as reported in the bank’s framework, as set forth under the OCC’s Capital Adequacy Standards at part 3 of (ii) The balance of a bank’s Consolidated Report of Condition and allowances for loan and lease losses, or Income filed under 12 U.S.C. 161. this chapter: (i) A qualifying community banking allowance for credit losses, as * * * * * organization’s tier 1 capital, as used applicable, not included in the bank’s tier 2 capital, for purposes of the PART 24—COMMUNITY AND under § 3.12 of this chapter; plus (ii) A qualifying community banking calculation of risk-based capital ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENTITIES, described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT organization’s allowances for loan and lease losses or allowance for credit section, as reported in the bank’s Call PROJECTS, AND OTHER PUBLIC Report. WELFARE INVESTMENTS losses, as applicable, as reported in the national bank’s or Federal savings * * * * * ■ 16. The authority citation for part 24 association’s Call Report; or PART 160—LENDING AND continues to read as follows: (2) For all other national banks and Federal savings associations: INVESTMENT Authority: 12 U.S.C. 24(Eleventh), 93a, 481 (i) A national bank’s or savings and 1818. ■ association’s tier 1 and tier 2 capital 22. The authority citation for part 160 ■ 17. Section 24.2 is amended by calculated under the risk-based capital continues to read as follows: revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: standards applicable to the institution Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, as reported in the bank’s or savings 1467a, 1701j–3, 1828, 3803, 3806, § 24.2 Definitions. association’s Consolidated Reports of 5412(b)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. 4106. * * * * * Condition and Income (Call Report); ■ 23. Section 160.3 is amended by (b) Capital and surplus means: plus adding a definition for ‘‘total capital’’ in (1) For qualifying community banking (ii) The balance of a national bank’s alphabetical order to read as follows: organizations that have elected to use or Federal savings association’s the community bank leverage ratio allowances for loan and lease losses not § 160.3 Definitions. framework, as set forth under the OCC’s included in the bank’s or savings * * * * * Capital Adequacy Standards at part 3 of association’s tier 2 capital, for purposes Total capital means: this chapter: of the calculation of risk-based capital (1) For a qualifying community (i) A qualifying community banking described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this banking organization that has elected to organization’s tier 1 capital, as used section, as reported in the national use the community bank leverage ratio under § 3.12 of this chapter; plus bank’s or savings association’s Call framework, as set forth under the OCC’s (ii) A qualifying community banking Report. Capital Adequacy Standards at part 3 of organization’s allowances for loan and * * * * * this chapter, total capital refers to the lease losses or allowance for credit qualifying community banking losses, as applicable, as reported in the PART 34—REAL ESTATE LENDING organization’s tier 1 capital, as used national bank’s Call Report; or AND APPRAISALS under § 3.12(b)(2) of this chapter; (2) For all other national banks: (2) For all other Federal savings (i) A bank’s tier 1 and tier 2 capital ■ 20. The authority citation for part 34 associations, total capital means the calculated under the OCC’s risk-based continues to read as follows: sum of tier 1 capital and tier 2 capital,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61796 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

as calculated under part 3 of this Tier 2 capital as calculated under the § 208.43 Capital measures and capital chapter. standards of that country. For an category definitions. insured branch of a foreign bank (a) Capital measures. (1) For purposes PART 192—CONVERSIONS FROM organized under the laws of a country of section 38 of the FDI Act and this MUTUAL TO STOCK FORM that does not subscribe to the principles subpart, the relevant capital measures of the Basel Capital Accord (Accord), are: ■ 24. The authority citation for part 192 ‘‘total capital’’ means total Tier 1 and (i) Total Risk-Based Capital Measure: continues to read as follows: Tier 2 capital as calculated under the The total risk-based capital ratio; Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, provisions of the Accord. (ii) Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Measure: 1467a, 2901, 5412(b)(2)(B); 15 U.S.C. 78c, * * * * * The tier 1 risk-based capital ratio; 78l, 78m, 78n, 78w. (iii) Common Equity Tier 1 Capital ■ 28. Section 206.5 is amended by ■ Measure: The common equity tier 1 risk- 25. Section 192.500 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as adding (a)(3)(iii)to read as follows: based capital ratio; and follows: (iv) Leverage Measure: § 192.500 What management stock benefit § 206.5 Capital levels of correspondents. (A) The leverage ratio; and plans may I implement? (a) * * * (B) With respect to an advanced (a) * * * (4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(1) approaches bank, on January 1, 2018, (3) * * * through (3) of this section, a qualifying and thereafter, the supplementary (iii) For a qualifying community community banking organization (as leverage ratio. banking organization that has elected to defined in § 217.12 of this chapter) that (C) With respect to any bank that is a use the community bank leverage ratio is subject to the community bank subsidiary (as defined in § 217.2 of this framework, as set forth under the OCC’s leverage ratio (as defined in § 217.12 of chapter) of a global systemically Capital Adequacy Standards at part 3 of this chapter) is considered to have met important BHC, on Jan. 1, 2018, and this chapter, the term tangible capital, as the minimum capital requirements in thereafter, the supplementary leverage it is used in this paragraph (a)(3), refers this paragraph (a). ratio. to the qualifying community banking (2) For a qualifying community organization’s tier 1 capital, as used * * * * * banking organization (as defined in under § 3.12 of this chapter. PART 208—MEMBERSHIP OF STATE § 217.12 of this chapter), that has * * * * * BANKING INSTITUTIONS IN THE elected to use the community bank leverage ratio framework (as defined in FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM (REGULATION H) § 217.12 of this chapter), the leverage 12 CFR Chapter II ratio calculated in accordance with Authority and Issuance ■ 29. The authority citation for part 208 § 217.12(b) of this chapter is used to is revised to read as follows: determine the well capitalized capital For the reasons set forth in the Authority: 12 U.S.C. 24, 36, 92a, 93a, category under paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) preamble, chapter II of title 12 of the through (D) of this section. Code of Federal Regulations is amended 248(a), 248(c), 321–338a, 371d, 461, 481–486, 601, 611, 1814, 1816, 1817(a)(3), 1817(a)(12), (b) Capital categories. For purposes of as set forth below: 1818, 1820(d)(9), 1833(j), 1828(o), 1831, section 38 of the FDI Act and this 1831o, 1831p–1, 1831r–1, 1831w, 1831x, subpart, a member bank is deemed to PART 206—LIMITATIONS ON 1835a, 1882, 2901–2907, 3105, 3310, 3331– be: INTERBANK LIABILITIES 3351, 3905–3909, 5371, and 5371 note; 15 (1)(i) ‘‘Well capitalized’’ if: (REGULATION F) U.S.C. 78b, 78I(b), 78l(i), 780–4(c)(5), 78q, (A) Total Risk-Based Capital Measure: 78q–1, 78w, 1681s, 1681w, 6801, and 6805; ■ 26. The authority citation for part 206 The bank has a total risk-based capital 31 U.S.C. 5318; 42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, ratio of 10.0 percent or greater; and continues to read as follows: 4104b, 4106, and 4128. (B) Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Measure: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 371b–2. ■ 30. Section 208.2 is amended by The bank has a tier 1 risk-based capital ■ 27. Section 206.2 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(3) to read as ratio of 8.0 percent or greater; and revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: follows: (C) Common Equity Tier 1 Capital Measure: The bank has a common § 208.2 Definitions. § 206.2 Definitions. equity tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of * * * * * * * * * * 6.5 percent or greater; and (g) Total capital means the total of a (d) * * * (D) Leverage Measure: bank’s Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital under (3) For a qualifying community (1) The bank has a leverage ratio of 5.0 the risk-based capital guidelines banking organization (as defined in percent or greater; and provided by the bank’s primary federal § 217.12 of this chapter) that is subject (2) Beginning on January 1, 2018, with supervisor. For a qualifying community to the community bank leverage ratio respect to any bank that is a subsidiary banking organization (as defined in framework (as defined in § 217.12 of of a global systemically important BHC § 217.12 of this chapter) that is subject this chapter), capital stock and surplus under the definition of ‘‘subsidiary’’ in to the community bank leverage ratio means the bank’s Tier 1 capital (as § 217.2 of this chapter, the bank has a framework (as defined in § 217.12 of defined in § 217.2 of this chapter and supplementary leverage ratio of 6.0 this chapter), total capital means the calculated in accordance with percent or greater; and bank’s Tier 1 capital (as defined in § 217.12(b) of this chapter) plus (E) The bank is not subject to any § 217.2 of this chapter and calculated in allowance for loan and lease losses or written agreement, order, capital accordance with § 217.12(b) of this adjusted allowance for credit losses, as directive, or prompt corrective action chapter). For an insured branch of a applicable. directive issued by the Board pursuant foreign bank organized under the laws * * * * * to section 8 of the FDI Act, the of a country that subscribes to the ■ 31. Section 208.43 is amended by International Lending Supervision Act principles of the Basel Capital Accord, revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read of 1983 (12 U.S.C. 3907), or section 38 ‘‘total capital’’ means total Tier 1 and as follows: of the FDI Act, or any regulation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61797

thereunder, to meet and maintain a (x) Tier 1 capital has the same § 217.10 Minimum capital requirements. specific capital level for any capital meaning as provided in § 217.2 of this (a) Minimum capital requirements. (1) measure. chapter. A qualifying community A Board-regulated institution must (ii) A qualifying community banking banking organization (as defined in maintain the following minimum organization, as defined in § 217.12 of § 217.12 of this chapter) that is subject capital ratios: this chapter, that has elected to use the to the community bank leverage ratio (i) A common equity tier 1 capital community bank leverage ratio framework (as defined in § 217.12 of ratio of 4.5 percent. framework under § 217.12 of this this chapter), calculates its tier 1 capital (ii) A tier 1 capital ratio of 6 percent. chapter, shall be considered to have met in accordance with § 217.12(b) of this (iii) A total capital ratio of 8 percent. the capital ratio requirements for the chapter. (iv) A leverage ratio of 4 percent. well capitalized capital category in * * * * * (v) For advanced approaches Board- paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) through (D) of this regulated institutions or, for Category III section. § 211.9 [Amended] Board-regulated institutions, a * * * * * ■ 35. Section 211.9 is amended by supplementary leverage ratio of 3 percent. PART 211—INTERNATIONAL redesignating footnote 5 to paragraph (a) as footnote 1 to paragraph (a). (2) A qualifying community banking BANKING OPERATIONS organization (as defined in § 217.12), (REGULATION K) PART 215—LOANS TO EXECUTIVE that is subject to the community bank ■ 32. The authority citation for part 211 OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND leverage ratio framework (as defined continues to read as follows: PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS OF § 217.12), is considered to have met the MEMBER BANKS (REGULATION O) minimum capital requirements in this Authority: 12 U.S.C. 221 et seq., 1818, paragraph (a) of this section. 1835a, 1841 et seq., 3101 et seq., 3901 et seq., and 5101 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 1681s, 1681w, ■ 36. The authority citation for part 215 * * * * * 6801 and 6805. continues to read as follows: ■ 40. Section 217.12 is added as to read ■ 33. In part 211, remove the words Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(a), 375a(10), as follows: 375b(9) and (10), 1468, 1817(k), 5412; and ‘‘Capital Adequacy Guidelines’’ § 217.12 Community bank leverage ratio Pub. L. 102–242, 105 Stat. 2236 (1991). wherever they appear and add in their framework. place the words ‘‘capital rule’’. ■ 37. Section 215.2 is amended by (a) Community bank leverage ratio ■ 34. Section 211.2 is amended by adding paragraph (i)(3) to read as framework. (1) Notwithstanding any revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (x) to follows: other provision in this part, a qualifying read as follows: community banking organization that § 215.2 Definitions. § 211.2 Definitions. has made an election to use the * * * * * * * * * * community bank leverage ratio (b) Capital and surplus means, unless (i) * * * framework under paragraph (a)(3) of this otherwise provided in this part: (3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (i)(1) section shall be considered to have met (1) For organizations subject to the and (2) of this section, for a member the minimum capital requirements capital rule: bank that is a qualifying community under § 217.10, the capital ratio (i) Tier 1 and tier 2 capital included banking organization (as defined in requirements for the well capitalized in an organization’s risk-based capital § 217.12 of this chapter) that is subject capital category under § 208.43(b)(1) of (under the capital rule); and to the community bank leverage ratio this chapter, and any other capital or (ii) The balance of allowance for loan framework (as defined in § 217.12 of leverage requirements to which the and lease losses or adjusted allowance this chapter), unimpaired capital and qualifying community banking for credit losses, as applicable, not unimpaired surplus equals Tier 1 organization is subject, if it has a included in an organization’s tier 2 capital (as defined in § 217.12 of this leverage ratio greater than 9 percent. capital for calculation of risk-based chapter and calculated in accordance (2) For purposes of this section, a capital, based on the organization’s most with § 217.12(b) of this chapter) plus qualifying community banking recent consolidated Report of Condition allowances for loan and lease losses or organization means a Board-regulated and Income. adjusted allowance for credit losses, as institution that is not an advanced (iii) For qualifying community applicable. approaches Board-regulated institution banking organizations (as defined in and that satisfies all of the following * * * * * § 217.12 of this chapter) that are subject criteria: to the community bank leverage ratio PART 217—CAPITAL ADEQUACY OF (i) Has a leverage ratio of greater than framework (as defined in § 217.12 of BANKING HOLDING COMPANIES, 9 percent; this chapter), tier 1 capital (as defined SAVINGS AND LOAN HOLDING (ii) Has total consolidated assets of in § 217.2 of this chapter and calculated COMPANIES, AND STATE MEMBER less than $10 billion, calculated in in accordance with § 217.12(b) of this BANKS (REGULATION Q) accordance with the reporting chapter) plus allowances for loan and instructions to the Call Report or to lease losses or adjusted allowance for ■ 38. The authority citation for part 217 Form FR Y–9C, as applicable, as of the credit losses, as applicable. is revised to read as follows: end of the most recent calendar quarter; (2) For all other organizations, paid-in (iii) Has off-balance sheet exposures and unimpaired capital and surplus, Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(a), 321–338a, of 25 percent or less of its total and includes undivided profits but does 481–486, 1462a, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831n, consolidated assets as of the end of the not include the proceeds of capital notes 1831o, 1831p–l, 1831w, 1835, 1844(b), 1851, 3904, 3906–3909, 4808, 5365, 5368, 5371, most recent calendar quarter, calculated or debentures. and 5371 note. as the sum of the notional amounts of (c) Capital rule means part 217 of this the exposures listed in paragraphs chapter. ■ 39. Section 217.10 is amended by (a)(2)(iii)(A) through (I) of this section, * * * * * revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: divided by total consolidated assets,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61798 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

each as of the end of the most recent § 217.10(b)(4), except that a qualifying grace period and immediately ceases to calendar quarter: community banking organization is not be a qualifying community banking (A) The unused portion of required to: organization. Such a Board-regulated commitments (except for (1) Make adjustments and deductions institution must comply with the unconditionally cancellable from tier 2 capital for purposes of minimum capital requirements under commitments); § 217.22(c); or § 217.10(a)(1) and must report the (B) Self-liquidating, trade-related (2) Calculate and deduct from tier 1 required capital measures under contingent items that arise from the capital an amount resulting from § 217.10(a)(1) for the quarter in which it movement of goods; insufficient tier 2 capital under ceases to be a qualifying community (C) Transaction-related contingent § 217.22(f). banking organization. items, including performance bonds, bid (c) Treatment when ceasing to meet bonds, warranties, and performance the qualifying community banking (6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(1) standby letters of credit; organization requirements. (1) Except as through (4) of this section, a Board- (D) Sold credit protection through provided in paragraphs (c)(5) and (6) of regulated institution that has a leverage guarantees and credit derivatives; this section, if an Board-regulated ratio of 8 percent or less does not have (E) Credit-enhancing representations institution ceases to meet the definition a grace period and must comply with and warranties; of a qualifying community banking the minimum capital requirements (F) Securities lent and borrowed, organization, the Board-regulated under § 217.10(a)(1) and must report the calculated in accordance with the institution has two reporting periods required capital measures under reporting instructions to the Call Report under its Call Report or Form FR Y–9C, § 217.10(a)(1) for the quarter in which it or to Form FR Y–9C, as applicable; as applicable (grace period) either to reports a leverage ratio of 8 percent or (G) Financial standby letters of credit; satisfy the requirements to be a less. (H) Forward agreements that are not qualifying community banking ■ 41. Section 217.22 is amended by derivative contracts; and organization or to comply with revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: (I) Off-balance sheet securitization § 217.10(a)(1) and report the required exposures; and capital measures under § 217.10(a)(1) on § 217.22 Regulatory capital adjustments (iv) Has total trading assets and its Call Report or its Form FR Y–9C, as and deductions. trading liabilities, calculated in applicable. * * * * * accordance with the reporting (2) The grace period begins as of the instructions to the Call Report or to end of the calendar quarter in which the (f) Insufficient amounts of a specific Form FR Y–9C, as applicable, of 5 Board-regulated institution ceases to regulatory capital component to effect percent or less of the Board-regulated satisfy the criteria to be a qualifying deductions. Under the corresponding institution’s total consolidated assets, community banking organization deduction approach, if a Board- each as of the end of the most recent provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this regulated institution does not have a calendar quarter. section. The grace period ends on the sufficient amount of a specific (3)(i) A qualifying community last day of the second consecutive component of capital to effect the banking organization may elect to use calendar quarter following the required deduction after completing the the community bank leverage ratio beginning of the grace period. deductions required under paragraph framework if it makes an opt-in election (3) During the grace period, the Board- (d) of this section, the Board-regulated under this paragraph (a)(3). regulated institution continues to be institution must deduct the shortfall (ii) For purposes of this paragraph treated as a qualifying community from the next higher (that is, more (a)(3), a qualifying community banking banking organization for the purpose of subordinated) component of regulatory organization makes an election to use this part and must continue calculating capital. Notwithstanding any other the community bank leverage ratio and reporting its leverage ratio under provision of this section, a qualifying framework by completing the applicable this section unless the Board-regulated community banking organization (as reporting requirements of its Call Report institution has opted out of using the defined in § 217.12) that has elected to or of its Form FR Y–9C, as applicable. community bank leverage ratio use the community bank leverage ratio (iii)(A) A qualifying community framework under paragraph (a)(3) of this framework pursuant to § 217.12 is not banking organization that has elected to section. required to deduct any shortfall of tier use the community bank leverage ratio (4) During the grace period, the 2 capital from its additional tier 1 framework may opt out of the qualifying community banking capital or common equity tier 1 capital. community bank leverage ratio organization continues to be considered framework by completing the applicable to have met the minimum capital * * * * * risk-based and leverage ratio reporting requirements under § 217.10(a)(1), the PART 223—TRANSACTIONS requirements necessary to demonstrate capital ratio requirements for the well BETWEEN MEMBER BANKS AND compliance with § 217.10(a)(1) in its capitalized capital category under THEIR AFFILIATES (REGULATION W) Call Report or its Form FR Y–9C, as § 208.43(b)(1)(i)(A) through (D) of this applicable, or by otherwise providing chapter, and any other capital or ■ the information to the Board. leverage requirements to which the 42. The authority citation for part 223 (B) A qualifying community banking qualifying community banking continues to read as follows: organization that opts out of the organization is subject, and must Authority: 12 U.S.C. 371c(b)(1)(E), community bank leverage ratio continue calculating and reporting its (b)(2)(A), and (f), 371c–1(e), 1828(j), 1468(a), framework pursuant to paragraph leverage ratio under this section. and section 312(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section must comply (5) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(1) Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection with § 217.10(a)(1) immediately. through (4) of this section, a Board- Act (12 U.S.C. 5412). (b) Calculation of the leverage ratio. A regulated institution that no longer qualifying community banking meets the definition of a qualifying ■ 43. Section 223.3 is amended by organization’s leverage ratio is community banking organization as a adding paragraph (d)(4) to read as calculated in accordance with result of a merger or acquisition has no follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61799

§ 223.3 What are the meanings of the other organization (as defined in § 217.12 of of the most recent quarter showing terms used in sections 23A and 23B and this chapter) that is subject to the credit and debit adjustments that reflect this part? community bank leverage ratio the proposed transaction, consolidated * * * * * framework (as defined in § 217.12 of pro forma leverage ratio (as calculated (d) * * * this chapter) is well capitalized if it under § 217.12 of this chapter) for the (4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (d)(1) satisfies the requirements of paragraph acquiring bank holding company as of through (3) of this section, for a (r)(1)(iii) of this section. the most recent quarter, and a qualifying community banking (ii) A depository institution that is a description of the purchase price and organization (as defined in § 217.12 of qualifying community banking the terms and sources of funding for the this chapter) that is subject to the organization (as defined in § 217.12 of transaction; community bank leverage ratio this chapter) that is subject to the * * * * * framework (as defined in § 217.12 of community bank leverage ratio (vii)(A) For each insured depository this chapter), capital stock and surplus framework (as defined in § 217.12 of institution (that is not a qualifying equals tier 1 capital (as defined in this chapter) is well capitalized. community banking organization (as § 217.12 of this chapter and calculated * * * * * defined in § 217.12 of this chapter) that in accordance with § 217.12(b) of this ■ 46. Section 225.14 is amended by: is subject to the community bank chapter) plus allowances for loan and ■ a. Redesignating footnote 3 to leverage ratio framework (as defined in lease losses or adjusted allowance for paragraph (a)(1)(ii) as footnote 1 to § 217.12 of this chapter)) whose Tier 1 credit losses, as applicable. paragraph (a)(1)(ii); capital, total capital, total assets or risk- * * * * * ■ b. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(v)(A), weighted assets change as a result of the (a)(1)(vii), and (c)(6)(i)(A) and (B); and PART 225—BANK HOLDING transaction, the total risk-weighted ■ c. Adding paragraphs (c)(6)(iii) and (f). assets, total assets, Tier 1 capital and COMPANIES AND CHANGE IN BANK The revisions and additions read as CONTROL (REGULATION Y) total capital of the institution on a pro follows: forma basis; and ■ 44. The authority citation for part 225 § 225.14 Expedited action for certain bank (B) For each insured depository continues to read as follows: acquisitions by well-run bank holding institution that is a qualifying Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(13), 1818, companies. community banking organization (as 1828(o), 1831i, 1831p–1, 1843(c)(8), 1844(b), (a) * * * defined in § 217.12 of this chapter) that 1972(1), 3106, 3108, 3310, 3331–3351, 3906, (1) * * * is subject to the community bank 3907, and 3909; 15 U.S.C. 1681s, 1681w, (v)(A) If the bank holding company is leverage ratio framework (as defined in 6801 and 6805. not a qualifying community banking § 217.12 of this chapter), whose Tier 1 ■ 45. Section 225.2 is amended by organization (as defined in § 217.12 of capital (as defined in § 217.2 of this revising paragraph (h), redesignating this chapter) that is subject to the chapter and calculated in accordance footnote 2 to paragraph (r)(1) as footnote community bank leverage ratio with § 217.12(b) of this chapter) or total 1 to paragraph (r)(1), and adding framework (as defined in § 217.12 of assets change as a result of the paragraph (r)(4). this chapter), and: transaction, the total assets and Tier 1 The revision and addition read as (1) If the bank holding company has capital of the institution on a pro forma follows: consolidated assets of $3 billion or basis; and more, an abbreviated consolidated pro * * * * * § 225.2 Definitions. forma balance sheet as of the most (c) * * * * * * * * recent quarter showing credit and debit (6) * * * (h) Lead insured depository adjustments that reflect the proposed (i) * * * institution means the largest insured transaction, consolidated pro forma (A) Limited growth. Except as depository institution controlled by the risk-based capital ratios for the provided in paragraphs (c)(6)(ii) and (iii) bank holding company as of the quarter acquiring bank holding company as of of this section, the sum of the aggregate ending immediately prior to the the most recent quarter, and a risk-weighted assets to be acquired in proposed filing, based on a comparison description of the purchase price and the proposal and the aggregate risk- of the average total risk-weighted assets the terms and sources of funding for the weighted assets acquired by the controlled during the previous 12- transaction; or month period be each insured (2) If the bank holding company has acquiring bank holding company in all depository institution subsidiary of the consolidated assets of less than $3 other qualifying transactions does not holding company. For purposes of this billion, a pro forma parent-only balance exceed 35 percent of the consolidated paragraph (h), for a qualifying sheet as of the most recent quarter risk-weighted assets of the acquiring community banking organization (as showing credit and debit adjustments bank holding company. For purposes defined in § 217.12 of this chapter) that that reflect the proposed transaction, paragraph (c)(6) of this section, other is subject to the community bank and a description of the purchase price, qualifying transactions means any leverage ratio framework (as defined in the terms and sources of funding for the transaction approved under this section § 217.12 of this chapter), average total transaction, and the sources and or § 225.23 during the 12 months prior risk-weighted assets equal the qualifying schedule for retiring any debt incurred to filing the notice under this section; community banking organization’s in the transaction; and average total consolidated assets (as (B) If the bank holding company is a (B) Individual size limitation. Except used in § 217.12 of this chapter). qualifying community banking as provided in paragraph (c)(6)(iii) of this section, the total risk-weighted * * * * * organization (as defined in § 217.12 of (r) * * * this chapter) that is subject to the assets to be acquired do not exceed $7.5 (4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (r)(1) community bank leverage ratio billion; through (3) of this section: framework (as defined in § 217.12 of * * * * * (i) A bank holding company that is a this chapter), an abbreviated (iii) Qualifying community banking qualifying community banking consolidated pro forma balance sheet as organizations. Paragraphs (c)(6)(i)(A)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61800 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

and (B) of this section shall not apply ■ a. Redesignating footnote 2 to and the total revenue and net income of if: paragraph (a)(1) as footnote 1 to the company to be acquired; (A) The acquiring bank holding paragraph (a)(1); (C) For each insured depository company is a qualifying community ■ b. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and institution (that is not a qualifying banking organization (as defined in (c)(5)(i); and community banking organization (as § 217.12 of this chapter) that is subject ■ c. Adding paragraphs (c)(5)(iii) and defined in § 217.12 of this chapter) that to the community bank leverage ratio (e). is subject to the community bank framework (as defined in § 217.12 of The revisions and additions read as leverage ratio framework (as defined in this chapter); follows: § 217.12 of this chapter)) whose Tier 1 capital, total capital, total assets or risk- (B) The sum of the total assets to be § 225.23 Expedited action for certain acquired in the proposal and the total weighted assets change as a result of the nonbanking proposals by well-run bank transaction, the total risk-weighted assets acquired by the acquiring bank holding companies. holding company in all other qualifying assets, total assets, Tier 1 capital and (a) * * * total capital of the institution on a pro transactions does not exceed 35 percent (1) * * * of the average total consolidated assets forma basis; and (iii) If the proposal involves an (D) For each insured depository (as used in § 217.12 of this chapter) of acquisition of a going concern: the acquiring bank holding company as institution that is a qualifying (A) If the acquiring bank holding community banking organization (as last reported to the Board; and company is not a qualifying community defined in § 217.12 of this chapter) that (C) The total assets to be acquired do banking organization (as defined in is subject to the community bank not exceed $7.5 billion; § 217.12 of this chapter) that is subject leverage ratio framework (as defined in * * * * * to the community bank leverage ratio § 217.12 of this chapter) whose Tier 1 (f) Qualifying community banking framework (as defined in § 217.12 of capital (as defined in § 217.2 of this organizations. For purposes of this this chapter): chapter and calculated in accordance section, a qualifying community (1) If the bank holding company has with § 217.12(b) of this chapter) or total banking organization (as defined in consolidated assets of $3 billion or assets change as a result of the § 217.12 of this chapter) that is subject more, an abbreviated consolidated pro transaction, the total assets and Tier 1 to the community bank leverage ratio forma balance sheet for the acquiring capital of the institution on a pro forma framework (as defined in § 217.12 of bank holding company as of the most basis; recent quarter showing credit and debit this chapter) controls total risk-weighted * * * * * assets equal to the qualifying adjustments that reflect the proposed (c) * * * community banking organization’s transaction, consolidated pro forma (5) * * * average total consolidated assets (as risk-based capital ratios for the (i) In general—(A) Limited growth. used in § 217.12 of this chapter) as last acquiring bank holding company as of Except as provided in paragraphs reported to its primary banking the most recent quarter, a description of (c)(5)(ii) and (iii) of this section, the sum supervisor. the purchase price and the terms and of aggregate risk-weighted assets to be sources of funding for the transaction, ■ 47. Section 225.22 is amended by acquired in the proposal and the and the total revenue and net income of adding paragraph (d)(8)(vi) to read as aggregate risk-weighted assets acquired the company to be acquired; or follows: by the acquiring bank holding company (2) If the bank holding company has in all other qualifying transactions does § 225.22 Exempt nonbanking activities and consolidated assets of less than $3 not exceed 35 percent of the acquisitions. billion, a pro forma parent-only balance consolidated risk-weighted assets of the * * * * * sheet as of the most recent quarter acquiring bank holding company. For (d) * * * showing credit and debit adjustments purposes of paragraph (c)(5) of this (8) * * * that reflect the proposed transaction, a section, ‘‘other qualifying transactions’’ (vi) Qualifying community banking description of the purchase price and means any transaction approved under organizations. For purposes of the terms and sources of funding for the this section or § 225.14 during the 12 paragraph (d)(8)(ii) of this section, a transaction and the sources and months prior to filing the notice under lending company or industrial bank that schedule for retiring any debt incurred this section; is a qualifying community banking in the transaction, and the total assets, (B) Consideration paid. Except as organization (as defined in § 217.12 of off-balance sheet items, revenue and net provided in paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this this chapter) that is subject to the income of the company to be acquired; section, the gross consideration to be community bank leverage ratio (B) If the acquiring bank holding paid by the acquiring bank holding framework (as defined in § 217.12 of company is a qualifying community company in the proposal does not this chapter), or is a subsidiary of such banking organization (as defined in exceed 15 percent of the consolidated a qualifying community banking § 217.12 of this chapter) that is subject Tier 1 capital of the acquiring bank organization, has risk-weighted assets to the community bank leverage ratio holding company; and equal to: framework (as defined in § 217.12 of (C) Individual size limitation. Except this chapter), an abbreviated as provided in paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of (A) Its average total consolidated consolidated pro forma balance sheet this section, the total risk-weighted assets (as used in § 217.12 of this for the acquiring bank holding company assets to be acquired do not exceed $7.5 chapter) as most recently reported to its as of the most recent quarter showing billion; primary banking supervisor (as defined credit and debit adjustments that reflect in § 225.14(d)(5)); or * * * * * the proposed transaction, consolidated (iii) Qualifying community banking (B) Its total assets, if the company or pro forma leverage ratio for the organizations. Paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) industrial bank does not report such acquiring bank holding company as of through (C) of this section shall not average total consolidated assets. the most recent quarter, a description of apply if: * * * * * the purchase price and the terms and (A) The acquiring bank holding ■ 48. Section 225.23 is amended by: sources of funding for the transaction, company is a qualifying community

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61801

banking organization (as defined in leverage ratio framework (as defined in (c) * * * § 217.12 of this chapter) that is subject § 217.12 of this chapter)) whose Tier 1 (3) Qualifying community banking to the community bank leverage ratio capital, total capital, total assets or risk- organizations. For purposes of this framework (as defined in § 217.12 of weighted assets change as a result of the paragraph (c), a financial holding this chapter); and transaction, the total risk-weighted company that is a qualifying community (B) The sum of the total assets to be assets, total assets, Tier 1 capital and banking organization (as defined in acquired in the proposal and the total total capital of the institution on a pro § 217.12 of this chapter) that is subject assets acquired by the acquiring bank forma basis; and to the community bank leverage ratio holding company in all other qualifying (B) For each insured depository framework (as defined in § 217.12 of transactions does not exceed 35 percent institution that is a qualifying this chapter) calculates its Tier 1 capital of the average total consolidated assets community banking organization (as (as defined in § 217.2 of this chapter) in (as used in § 217.12 of this chapter) of defined in § 217.12 of this chapter) that accordance with § 217.12(b) of this the acquiring bank holding company as is subject to the community bank chapter. last reported to the Board; leverage ratio framework (as defined in (C) The gross consideration to be paid § 217.12 of this chapter) whose Tier 1 PART 238—SAVINGS AND LOAN by the acquiring bank holding company capital (as defined in § 217.2 of this HOLDING COMPANIES (REGULATION in the proposal does not exceed 15 chapter and calculated in accordance LL) with § 217.12(b) of this chapter) or total percent of the Tier 1 capital (as defined ■ 53. The authority citation for part 238 assets change as a result of the in § 217.2 of this chapter and calculated continues to read as follows: in accordance with § 217.12(b) of this transaction, the total assets and Tier 1 chapter) of the acquiring bank holding capital of the institution on a pro forma Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 559; 12 U.S.C. company; and basis; 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467, 1467a, 1468, 1813, 1817, 1829e, 1831i, 1972; 15 U.S.C. 78l. (D) The total assets to be acquired do * * * * * ■ not exceed $7.5 billion; ■ 50. Section 225.87 is amended by 54. Section 238.53 is amended by * * * * * adding paragraph (b)(4)(iv) to read as revising paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(B) and (e) Qualifying community banking follows: (c)(2)(v) to read as follows: organizations. For purposes of this § 238.53 Prescribed services and activities § 225.87 Is notice to the Board required section, a qualifying community of savings and loan holding companies. banking organization (as defined in after engaging in a financial activity? * * * * * * * * * * § 217.12 of this chapter) that is subject (c) * * * to the community bank leverage ratio (b) * * * (4) * * * (2) * * * framework (as defined in § 217.12 of (iii) * * * (iv) For purposes of this paragraph this chapter) controls total risk-weighted (B) Consolidated pro forma risk-based (b)(4), a financial holding company that assets equal to the qualifying capital and leverage ratio calculations is a qualifying community banking community banking organization’s for the acquiring savings and loan organization (as defined in § 217.12 of average total consolidated assets (as holding company as of the most recent this chapter) that is subject to the used in § 217.12 of this chapter) as last quarter (or, in the case of a qualifying community bank leverage ratio reported to its primary banking community banking organization (as framework (as defined in § 217.12 of supervisor. defined in § 217.12 of this chapter) that this chapter) calculates its Tier 1 capital ■ is subject to the community bank 49. Section 225.24 is amended by (as defined in § 217.2 of this chapter) in leverage ratio framework (as defined in revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv)(B) and accordance with § 217.12(b) of this § 217.12 of this chapter), consolidated (a)(2)(vi) to read as follows: chapter. pro forma leverage ratio calculations for ■ § 225.24 Procedures for other nonbanking 51. Section 225.174 is amended by the acquiring savings and loan holding proposals. adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: company as of the most recent quarter); (a) * * * § 225.174 What aggregate thresholds and (2) * * * apply to merchant banking investments? * * * * * (iv) * * * * * * * * (v)(A) For each insured depository (B) Consolidated pro forma risk-based (d) Qualifying community banking institution (that is not a qualifying capital and leverage ratio calculations organizations. For purposes of this community banking organization (as for the acquiring bank holding company section, a financial holding company defined in § 217.12 of this chapter) that as of the most recent quarter (or, in the that is a qualifying community banking is subject to the community bank case of a qualifying community banking organization (as defined in § 217.12 of leverage ratio framework (as defined in organization (as defined in § 217.12 of this chapter) that is subject to the § 217.12 of this chapter)) whose Tier 1 this chapter) that is subject to the community bank leverage ratio capital, total capital, total assets or risk- community bank leverage ratio framework (as defined in § 217.12 of weighted assets change as a result of the framework (as defined in § 217.12 of this chapter) calculates its Tier 1 capital transaction, the total risk-weighted this chapter), consolidated pro forma (as defined in § 217.2 of this chapter) in assets, total assets, Tier 1 capital, and leverage ratio calculations under accordance with § 217.12(b) of this total capital of the institution on a pro § 217.12 of this chapter for the acquiring chapter. forma basis; and bank holding company as of the most ■ (B) For each insured depository recent quarter); and 52. Section 225.175 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as institution that is a qualifying * * * * * follows: community banking organization (as (vi)(A) For each insured depository defined in § 217.12 of this chapter) that institution (that is not a qualifying § 225.175 What risk management, record is subject to the community bank community banking organization (as keeping and reporting policies are required leverage ratio framework (as defined in defined in § 217.12 of this chapter) that to make merchant banking investments? § 217.12 of this chapter), whose Tier 1 is subject to the community bank * * * * * capital (as defined in § 217.2 of this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61802 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

chapter and calculated in accordance PART 324—CAPITAL ADEQUACY OF organization means an FDIC-supervised with § 217.12(b) of this chapter) or total FDIC-SUPERVISED INSTITUTIONS institution that is not an advanced assets change as a result of the approaches FDIC-supervised institution transaction, the total assets and Tier 1 ■ 57. The authority citation for part 324 and that satisfies all of the following capital of the institution on a pro forma continues to read as follows: criteria: basis; Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1815(a), 1815(b), (i) Has a leverage ratio of greater than * * * * * 1816, 1818(a), 1818(b), 1818(c), 1818(t), 9 percent; 1819(Tenth), 1828(c), 1828(d), 1828(i), (ii) Has total consolidated assets of PART 251—CONCENTRATION LIMIT 1828(n), 1828(o), 1831o, 1835, 3907, 3909, less than $10 billion, calculated in (REGULATION XX) 4808; 5371; 5412; Pub. L. 102–233, 105 Stat. accordance with the reporting 1761, 1789, 1790 (12 U.S.C. 1831n note); Pub. instructions to the Call Report as of the ■ 55. The authority citation for part 251 L. 102–242, 105 Stat. 2236, 2355, as amended end of the most recent calendar quarter; continues to read as follows: by Pub. L. 103–325, 108 Stat. 2160, 2233 (12 U.S.C. 1828 note); Pub. L. 102–242, 105 Stat. (iii) Has off-balance sheet exposures Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1818, 1844(b), 1852, 2236, 2386, as amended by Pub. L. 102–550, of 25 percent or less of its total 3101 et seq. 106 Stat. 3672, 4089 (12 U.S.C. 1828 note); consolidated assets as of the end of the ■ 56. Section 251.3 is amended by Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1887 (15 most recent calendar quarter, calculated revising paragraph (c)(2) and adding U.S.C. 78o–7 note); Pub. L. 115–174 § 201. as the sum of the notional amounts of paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: ■ 58. Section 324.10 is amended by the exposures listed in paragraphs revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: (a)(2)(iii)(A) through (I) of this section, § 251.3 Concentration limit. divided by total consolidated assets, * * * * * § 324.10 Minimum capital requirements. each as of the end of the most recent (c) * * * (a) Minimum capital requirements. (1) calendar quarter: (2) U.S. company not subject to An FDIC-supervised institution must (A) The unused portion of applicable risk-based capital rules. For maintain the following minimum commitments (except for a U.S. company that is not subject to capital ratios: unconditionally cancellable applicable risk-based capital rules (other (i) A common equity tier 1 capital commitments); than a qualifying community banking ratio of 4.5 percent. (B) Self-liquidating, trade-related organization (as defined in § 217.12 of (ii) A tier 1 capital ratio of 6 percent. contingent items that arise from the this chapter) that is subject to the (iii) A total capital ratio of 8 percent. movement of goods; community bank leverage ratio (iv) A leverage ratio of 4 percent. (C) Transaction-related contingent framework (as defined in § 217.12 of (v) For advanced approaches FDIC- items, including performance bonds, bid this chapter)), consolidated liabilities supervised institutions or for Category bonds, warranties, and performance are equal to the total liabilities of such III FDIC-regulated institutions, a standby letters of credit; company on a consolidated basis, as supplementary leverage ratio of 3 (D) Sold credit protection through determined under applicable accounting percent. guarantees and credit derivatives; standards. (vi) For state savings associations, a (E) Credit-enhancing representations (3) Qualifying community banking tangible capital ratio of 1.5 percent. and warranties; organizations. For a U.S. company that (2) A qualifying community banking (F) Securities lent and borrowed, is a qualifying community banking organization (as defined in § 324.12), calculated in accordance with the organization (as defined in § 217.12 of that is subject to the community bank reporting instructions to the Call Report; this chapter) that is subject to the leverage ratio framework (as defined in (G) Financial standby letters of credit; community bank leverage ratio § 324.12), is considered to have met the (H) Forward agreements that are not framework (as defined in § 217.12 of minimum capital requirements in this derivative contracts; and this chapter), consolidated liabilities are paragraph (a). (I) Off-balance sheet securitization equal to: * * * * * exposures; and (i) Average total consolidated assets ■ 59. Section 324.12 is added to read as (iv) Has total trading assets and (as used in § 217.12 of this chapter) of follows: trading liabilities, calculated in the company as last reported on the accordance with the reporting qualifying community banking § 324.12 Community bank leverage ratio instructions to the Call Report of 5 organization’s applicable regulatory framework. percent or less of the FDIC-supervised filing with the qualifying community (a) Community bank leverage ratio institution’s total consolidated assets, banking organization’s appropriate framework. (1) Notwithstanding any each as of the end of the most recent Federal banking agency; minus other provision in this part, a qualifying calendar quarter. (ii) The company’s tier 1 capital (as community banking organization that (3)(i) A qualifying community defined in § 217.2 of this chapter and has made an election to use the banking organization may elect to use calculated in accordance with community bank leverage ratio the community bank leverage ratio § 217.12(b) of this chapter). framework under paragraph (a)(3) of this framework if it makes an opt-in election * * * * * section shall be considered to have met under this paragraph (a)(3). the minimum capital requirements (ii) For purposes of this paragraph FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE under § 324.10, the capital ratio (a)(3), a qualifying community banking CORPORATION requirements for the well capitalized organization makes an election to use 12 CFR Chapter III capital category under § 324.403(b)(1) of the community bank leverage ratio this part, and any other capital or framework by completing the applicable Authority and Issuance leverage requirements to which the reporting requirements of its Call For the reasons stated in the qualifying community banking Report. preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance organization is subject, if it has a (iii)(A) A qualifying community Corporation proposes to amend chapter leverage ratio greater than 9 percent. banking organization that has elected to III of Title 12, Code of Federal (2) For purposes of this section, a use the community bank leverage ratio Regulations as follows: qualifying community banking framework may opt out of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61803

community bank leverage ratio capital ratio requirements for the well § 324.403 Capital measures and capital framework by completing the applicable capitalized capital category under categories. risk-based and leverage ratio reporting § 324.403(b)(1)(i)(A) through (D) of this (a) Capital measures. (1) For purposes requirements necessary to demonstrate part, and any other capital or leverage of section 38 of the FDI Act and this compliance with § 324.10(a)(1) in its requirements to which the qualifying subpart H, the relevant capital measures Call Report or by otherwise providing community banking organization is are: the information to the FDIC. subject and must continue calculating (i) Total Risk-Based Capital Measure: (B) A qualifying community banking and reporting its leverage ratio under The total risk-based capital ratio; organization that opts out of the this section. (ii) Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Measure: community bank leverage ratio (5) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(1) The tier 1 risk-based capital ratio; framework pursuant to paragraph through (4) of this section, an FDIC- (iii) Common Equity Tier 1 Capital (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section must comply supervised institution that no longer Measure: The common equity tier 1 risk- with § 324.10(a)(1) immediately. meets the definition of a qualifying based capital ratio; and (b) Calculation of the leverage ratio. A community banking organization as a (iv) Leverage Measure: qualifying community banking result of a merger or acquisition has no (A) The leverage ratio; and organization’s leverage ratio is grace period and immediately ceases to (B) With respect to an advanced calculated in accordance to be a qualifying community banking approaches FDIC-supervised § 324.10(b)(4), except that a qualifying organization. Such an FDIC-supervised institutions, on January 1, 2018, and community banking organization is not institution must comply with the thereafter, the supplementary leverage required to: minimum capital requirements under ratio. (1) Make adjustments and deductions § 324.10(a)(1) and must report the (2) For a qualifying community from tier 2 capital for purposes of required capital measures under banking organization (as defined under § 324.22(c); or § 324.10(a)(1) for the quarter in which it § 324.12), that has elected to use the (2) Calculate and deduct from tier 1 ceases to be a qualifying community community bank leverage ratio capital an amount resulting from banking organization. framework (as defined under § 324.12), insufficient tier 2 capital under (6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(1) the leverage ratio calculated in § 324.22(f). through (4) of this section, an FDIC- accordance with § 324.12(b) is used to (c) Treatment when ceasing to meet supervised institution that has a determine the well capitalized capital the qualifying community banking leverage ratio of 8 percent or less does category under paragraph (b)(1)(i) (A) organization requirements. (1) Except as not have a grace period and must through (D) of this section. provided in paragraphs (c)(5) and (6) of comply with the minimum capital (b) Capital categories. For purposes of this section, if an FDIC-supervised requirements under § 324.10(a)(1) and section 38 of the FDI Act and this institution ceases to meet the definition must report the required capital subpart, an FDIC-supervised institution of a qualifying community banking measures under § 324.10(a)(1) for the shall be deemed to be: organization, the FDIC-supervised quarter in which it reports a leverage (1)(i) ‘‘Well capitalized’’ if: institution has two reporting periods (A) Total Risk-Based Capital Measure: ratio of 8 percent or less. under its Call Report (grace period) The FDIC-supervised institution has a either to satisfy the requirements to be ■ 60. Section 324.22 is amended by total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0 a qualifying community banking revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: percent or greater; and organization or to comply with § 324.22 Regulatory capital adjustments (B) Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Measure: § 324.10(a)(1) and report the required and deductions. The FDIC-supervised institution has a capital measures under § 324.10(a)(1) on * * * * * tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.0 its Call Report. (f) Insufficient amounts of a specific percent or greater; and (2) The grace period begins as of the (C) Common Equity Tier 1 Capital regulatory capital component to effect end of the calendar quarter in which the Measure: The FDIC-supervised deductions. Under the corresponding FDIC-supervised institution ceases to institution has a common equity tier 1 deduction approach, if an FDIC- satisfy the criteria to be a qualifying risk-based capital ratio of 6.5 percent or supervised institution does not have a community banking organization greater; and sufficient amount of a specific provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this (D) The FDIC-supervised institution component of capital to effect the section. The grace period ends on the has a leverage ratio of 5.0 percent or required deduction after completing the last day of the second consecutive greater; and deductions required under paragraph calendar quarter following the (E) The FDIC-supervised institution is (d) of this section, the FDIC-supervised beginning of the grace period. not subject to any written agreement, institution must deduct the shortfall (3) During the grace period, the FDIC- order, capital directive, or prompt from the next higher (that is, more supervised institution continues to be corrective action directive issued by the subordinated) component of regulatory treated as a qualifying community FDIC pursuant to section 8 of the FDI capital. Notwithstanding any other banking organization for the purpose of Act (12 U.S.C. 1818), the International provision of this section, a qualifying this part and must continue calculating Lending Supervision Act of 1983 (12 community banking organization (as and reporting its leverage ratio under U.S.C. 3907), or the Home Owners’ Loan defined in § 324.12) that has elected to this section unless the FDIC-supervised Act (12 U.S.C. 1464(t)(6)(A)(ii)), or use the community bank leverage ratio institution has opted out of using the section 38 of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. framework pursuant to § 324.12 is not community bank leverage ratio 1831o), or any regulation thereunder, to required to deduct any shortfall of tier framework under paragraph (a)(3) of this meet and maintain a specific capital 2 capital from its additional tier 1 section. level for any capital measure. (4) During the grace period, the capital or common equity tier 1 capital. (ii) Beginning on January 1, 2018 and qualifying community banking * * * * * thereafter, an FDIC-supervised organization continues to be considered ■ 61. Section 324.403 is amended by institution that is a subsidiary of a to have met the minimum capital revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read covered BHC will be deemed to be well requirements under § 324.10(a)(1), the as follows: capitalized if the FDIC-supervised

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61804 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

institution satisfies paragraphs (b)(1)(i) PART 365—REAL ESTATE LENDING chapter and calculated in accordance (A) through (E) of this section and has STANDARDS with § 324.12(b) of this chapter. a supplementary leverage ratio of 6.0 * * * * * ■ 64. The authority citation for part 365 percent or greater. For purposes of this Dated: September 17, 2019. paragraph, a covered BHC means a U.S. continues to read as follows: Joseph M. Otting, top-tier bank holding company with Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1828(o) and 5101 et Comptroller of the Currency. more than $700 billion in total assets as seq. By order of the Board of Governors of the reported on the company’s most recent ■ 65. Appendix A to subpart A of part Federal Reserve System, October 7, 2019. Consolidated Financial Statement for 365 is amended: E. Misback, Bank Holding Companies (Form FR Y– ■ a. In the first paragraph of the Deputy Secretary of the Board. 9C) or more than $10 trillion in assets appendix, redesignating footnote 5 as Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. under custody as reported on the footnote 1; By order of the Board of Directors. company’s most recent Banking ■ b. Following the heading Organization Systemic Risk Report ‘‘Supervisory Loan-to-Value-Limits’’ in Dated at Washington, DC, on September 17, 2019. (Form FR Y–15). the table, by redesignating footnotes 1 Robert E. Feldman, (iii) A qualifying community banking and 2 as footnotes 2 and 3; and organization, as defined under § 324.12, ■ c. Following the heading ‘‘Loans in Executive Secretary. that has elected to use the community Excess of the Supervisory Loan-to- [FR Doc. 2019–23472 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] bank leverage ratio framework under Value-Limits,’’ redesignating the BILLING CODE P § 324.12 shall be considered to have met footnote 2 as footnote 4 and revising it. The revision reads as follows: the capital ratio requirements for the DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY well capitalized capital category in Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 365— paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) through (D) of this Interagency Guidelines for Real Estate Office of the Comptroller of the section. Lending Policies Currency * * * * * * * * * * 12 CFR Part 3 PART 337—UNSAFE AND UNSOUND Loans in Excess of the Supervisory [Docket ID OCC–2017–0018] BANKING PRACTICES Loan-to-Value-Limits 4 For state non-member banks and RIN 1557–AE70 ■ 62. The authority citation for part 337 state savings associations, ‘‘total FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM continues to read as follows: capital’’ refers to that term described in § 324.2 of this chapter. For a qualifying Authority: 12 U.S.C. 375a(4), 375b, 12 CFR Part 217 1463(a)(1), 1816, 1818(a), 1818(b), 1819, community banking organization (as 1820(d), 1828(j)(2), 1831, 1831f, 5412. defined in § 324.12 of this chapter) that [Regulation Q; Docket No. R–1576] is subject to the community bank ■ 63. Section 337.3 is amended by leverage ratio framework (as defined in RIN 7100–AE74 redesignating footnote 3 to paragraph (b) § 324.12 of this chapter), ‘‘total capital’’ FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE as footnote 1 and revising it to read as refers to the FDIC-supervised CORPORATION follows: institution’s tier 1 capital, as defined in § 324.2 of this chapter. § 337.3 Limits on extensions of credit to 12 CFR Part 324 executive officers, directors, and principal * * * * * RIN 3064–AF18 shareholders of insured nonmember banks. PART 390—REGULATIONS * * * * * TRANSFERRED FROM THE OFFICE OF Regulatory Capital Rule: (b) * * * THRIFT SUPERVISION Simplifications to the Capital Rule 1 Pursuant to the Economic Growth and For the purposes of § 337.3, an ■ 66. The authority citation for part 390 Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act insured nonmember bank’s capital and continues to read as follows: of 1996; Revised Effective Date unimpaired surplus shall have the same meaning as found in § 215.2(f) of Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1819. AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Federal Reserve Board Regulation O ■ 67. Section 390.344 is amended by Currency, Treasury; the Board of (§ 215.2(f) of this chapter). For a revising the definition of ‘‘Capital’’ to Governors of the Federal Reserve qualifying community banking read as follows: System; and the Federal Deposit organization (as defined in § 324.12 of Insurance Corporation. § 390.344 Definitions applicable to capital ACTION: this chapter) that is subject to the distributions. Final rule, announcement of community bank leverage ratio effective date, early adoption. * * * * * framework (as defined in § 324.12 of Capital means total capital, as SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller this chapter), capital and unimpaired computed under part 324 of this of the Currency, the Board of Governors surplus shall mean the FDIC-supervised chapter. For a qualifying community of the Federal Reserve System, and the institution’s tier 1 capital (as defined in banking organization (as defined in Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation § 324.2 of this chapter) plus adjusted § 324.12 of this chapter) that is subject (collectively, the agencies) are adopting allowances for credit losses or to the community bank leverage ratio a final rule that permits insured allowances for loan and lease losses, as framework (as defined in § 324.12 of depository institutions and depository applicable (as defined in § 324.2 of this this chapter), total capital means the institution holding companies not chapter). FDIC-supervised institution’s tier 1 subject to the advanced approaches * * * * * capital, as defined under § 324.2 of this capital rule to implement certain

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61805

provisions of the final rule titled Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street considering these requests, the agencies Regulatory Capital: Simplifications to NW, Washington, DC 20429. have determined that allowing non- the Capital Rule Pursuant to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office advanced approaches banking Economic Growth and Regulatory of the Comptroller of the Currency, the organizations to implement the Capital Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996, Board of Governors of the Federal Simplifications Final Rule in the first which was issued by the agencies in Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit quarter of 2020 would be appropriate. July 22, 2019, (Capital Simplifications Insurance Corporation (collectively, the Allowing non-advanced approaches Final Rule) on January 1, 2020, rather agencies) adopted the Simplifications to banking organizations to implement the than April 1, 2020, as initially provided. the Capital Rule Pursuant to the Capital Simplifications Final Rule in the Consistent with this approach, the Economic Growth and Regulatory first quarter of 2020 would permit transitions provisions of the regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 banking organizations that have updated capital rule are being amended to (Capital Simplifications Final Rule) to their reporting systems to implement provide that banking organizations not simplify certain aspects of the capital the simplifications and obtain subject to the advanced approaches rule.1 The Capital Simplifications Final regulatory burden relief one quarter capital rule will be permitted to Rule is responsive to the agencies’ earlier than initially provided in the implement the Capital Simplifications March 2017 report to Congress pursuant Capital Simplifications Final Rule. Final Rule as of its revised effective date to the Economic Growth and Regulatory in the quarter beginning January 1, The agencies are adopting this direct Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 final rule to permit non-advanced 2020, or to wait until the quarter (EGRPRA), in which the agencies beginning April 1, 2020. approaches banking organizations to committed to meaningfully reduce implement the sections of the Capital regulatory burden, especially on DATES: This rule is effective January 1, Simplifications Final Rule that were community banking organizations. The 2020. The effective date for the originally effective on April 1, 2020, key elements of the Capital amendments to 12 CFR 3.21, 3.22, beginning on January 1, 2020. Simplifications Final Rule apply solely 3.300(b) and (d), 217.21, 217.22, Specifically, the sections in the Capital to banking organizations that are not 217.300(b) and (d), 324.21, 324.22, and Simplifications Final Rule that were subject to the advanced approaches 324.300(b) and (d) published on July 22, effective April 1, 2020, under that rule capital rule (non-advanced approaches 2019 (84 FR 35234), is changed from are now effective January 1, 2020. Non- banking organizations). Under the April 1, 2020, to January 1, 2020. advanced approaches banking Capital Simplifications Final Rule, non- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: organizations can elect whether to advanced approaches banking implement the changes in the quarter OCC: David Elkes, Risk Expert, or organizations will be subject to simpler beginning January 1, 2020, or to JungSup Kim, Risk Specialist, Capital regulatory capital requirements for and Regulatory Policy (202) 649–6370; mortgage servicing assets, certain implement them in the quarter or Carl Kaminski, Special Counsel, or deferred tax assets arising from beginning April 1, 2020. The affected Daniel Perez, Senior Attorney, or Rima temporary differences, and investments sections are those related to mortgage Kundnani, Senior Attorney, Chief in the capital of unconsolidated servicing assets, certain deferred tax Counsel’s Office, (202) 649–5490, for financial institutions than those assets arising from temporary persons who are deaf or hearing currently applied. The Capital differences, investments in the capital of impaired, TTY, (202) 649–5597, Office Simplifications Final Rule also unconsolidated financial institutions, of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 simplifies, for non-advanced approaches and the calculation of minority interest 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. banking organizations, the calculation and will become mandatory as of April Board: Constance M. Horsley, Deputy for the amount of capital issued by a 1, 2020. If a non-advanced approaches Associate Director, (202) 452–5239; Juan consolidated subsidiary of a banking banking organization elects to adopt Climent, Manager, (202) 872–7526; or organization and held by third parties these revisions for the quarter beginning Andrew Willis, Lead Financial (sometimes referred to as a minority January 1, 2020, it must adopt all of Institutions Policy Analyst, (202) 912– interest) that is includable in regulatory these revisions for that quarter and 4323, Division of Supervision and capital. thereafter. Consistent with the Capital Regulation; or Jay Schwarz, Special The simpler capital requirements Simplifications Final Rule, the Counsel (202) 452–2970; Gillian described above are implemented transition provisions adopted by the Burgess, Senior Counsel (202) 736– through the Capital Simplifications agencies in November 2017 will cease to 5564, or Mark Buresh, Senior Counsel Final Rule via amendments to 12 CFR apply to non-advanced approaches (202) 452–5270, Legal Division, Board of 3.21, 3.22, 3.300, 217.21, 217.22, banking organizations in the quarter in Governors of the Federal Reserve 217.300(b) and (d), 324.21, 324.22, and which the firm elects to adopt the these System, 20th and C Streets NW, 324.300 that were originally effective portions of the Capital Simplifications Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing April 1, 2020. The agencies initially set Final Rule.2 As a result, non-advanced impaired only, Telecommunication an effective date of April 1, 2020, for approaches banking organizations may Device for the Deaf (TDD), (202) 263– those amendments to the capital rule, in choose to begin implementing the 4869. part, to give institutions sufficient time capital treatment under the Capital FDIC: Benedetto Bosco, Chief, Capital to update their recordkeeping and Simplifications Final Rule for the Policy Section, [email protected]; reporting systems. Subsequent to the reporting period ending on March 31, Michael Maloney, Senior Policy publication of the Capital 2020. All non-advanced approaches Analyst, [email protected]; Simplifications Final Rule, the agencies banking organizations must implement [email protected]; Capital received letters from the banking the capital treatment under the Capital Markets Branch, Division of Risk industry groups seeking the ability to Simplifications Final Rule for the Management Supervision, (202) 898– adopt the Capital Simplifications Final reporting period ending on June 30, 6888; or Michael Phillips, Counsel, Rule earlier than April 1, 2020. After 2020. [email protected]; Supervision Branch, Legal Division, Federal Deposit 1 See 84 FR 35234 (July 22, 2019). 2 82 FR 55309 (Nov. 21, 2017).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61806 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

Administrative Law Matters Rule with the provisions now being reporting prior on their preferred issued in the current direct final rule. effective date. A. Administrative Procedure Act The agencies believe that the B. Solicitation of Comments on Use of The agencies are issuing this direct implementation provisions of the Plain Language final rule without prior notice and the current direct final rule are appropriate opportunity for public comment and now given the feedback from the public Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach- without the 30-day delayed effective since issuance of the Capital Bliley Act 6 requires Federal banking date ordinarily prescribed by the Simplifications Final Rule. In particular, agencies to use plain language in all Administrative Procedure Act (APA).3 the public feedback has indicated that proposed and final rules published after Pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the many banking organizations would be January 1, 2000. The agencies have APA, general notice and the opportunity prepared to implement the Capital sought to present this direct final rule in for public comment are not required Simplifications Final Rule for the a simple and straightforward manner. with respect to a rulemaking when an quarter beginning January 1, 2020. C. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis ‘‘agency for good cause finds (and Further, this final rule (1) relieves incorporates the finding and a brief burden; (2) does not change any In accordance with the requirements statement of reasons therefor in the substantive requirements of the Capital of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 rules issued) that notice and public Simplifications Final Rule or impose (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, the procedure thereon are impracticable, any new mandates on any banking agencies may not conduct or sponsor, unnecessary, or contrary to the public organization; and (3) allows, but does and a respondent is not required to interest.’’ 4 not require, banking organizations to respond to, an information collection As discussed above, this direct final implement the revised requirements in unless it displays a currently-valid rule addresses requests from banking the Capital Simplifications Final Rule Office of Management and Budget industry groups to be allowed to comply earlier than initially provided. (OMB) control number. The OCC, starting on January 1, 2020, with certain In addition, the agencies believe that Board, and FDIC have reviewed this requirements of the Capital there is good cause consistent with the direct final rule and determined that it Simplifications Final Rule that public interest to issue this direct final does not introduce a new collection of otherwise were subject to an effective rule without notice and public information pursuant to the PRA. date of April 1, 2020. This direct final procedure. This direct final rule benefits D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis rule will allow banking organizations to banking organizations subject to the begin implementing the revised Capital Simplifications Final Rule by The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requirements either on January 1, 2020 allowing them to begin complying with does not apply to a rulemaking when a or April 1, 2020. Non-advanced general notice of proposed rulemaking the new requirements in the Capital 7 approaches banking organizations that Simplifications Final Rule one quarter is not required. As noted previously, choose not to implement the revised before they become mandatory, thereby the agencies are issuing this direct final requirements on January 1, 2020, still simplifying the reporting requirements rule without notice and public will be required to do so beginning for those banking organizations whose procedure. Accordingly, the RFA’s April 1, 2020. The agencies initially set systems will be in place by January 1, requirements relating to an initial and an effective date of April 1, 2020, for 2020. Notably, this direct final rule does final regulatory flexibility analysis do those amendments to the capital rule, in not impose any new requirements or not apply. Nonetheless, the agencies part, to give institutions sufficient time mandatory burdens on any banking believe that, with respect to the entities to update their systems and reporting organization. Finally, the agencies subject to the direct final rule and systems. After the rule was finalized, believe that there is good cause to issue within each agency’s respective the agencies received requests to allow this direct final rule without notice and jurisdiction, the direct final rule would banking organizations the option to public procedure since it would be not have a significant economic impact adopt the rule on January 1, 2020, rather on a substantial number of small impracticable to request comment given 8 than April 1, 2020, on grounds that the request for relief is to begin on entities. early adoption would simplify the January 1, 2020. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of reporting requirements for banking The APA also requires a 30-day 1995 delayed effective date, except for (1) organizations whose systems will be in The OCC analyzed the final rule substantive rules which grant or place by January 1, 2020, thereby under the factors set forth in the recognize an exemption or relieve a reducing regulatory burden. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The agencies believe that there is restriction; (2) interpretative rules and (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise good cause to issue this direct final rule analysis, the OCC considered whether provided by the agency for good cause.5 without notice and public procedure the rule includes a Federal mandate that because that process would be The agencies find good cause to publish may result in the expenditure by State, unnecessary as the agencies recently the direct final rule with an immediate local, and Tribal governments, in the issued a final rule after providing notice effective date because the rule grants aggregate, or by the private sector, of and receiving comment from the public. relief to banking organizations and $100 million or more in any one year Specifically, the original administrative because there is good cause for the same (adjusted for inflation). The OCC has record that supports the Capital reasons set forth above under the determined that this rule will not result Simplifications Final Rule is still discussion of section 553(b)(B) of the APA. Delaying the implementation date pertinent and, as a result, a new round 6 Public Law 106–102, section 722, 113 Stat. of notice and comment on the Capital would deprive banking organizations 1338, 1471 (1999). Simplifications Final Rule is that are considering adopting the 7 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. unnecessary. The agencies could have requirements of the Capital 8 Under regulations issued by the Small Business issued the Capital Simplifications Final Simplification Final Rule earlier of the Administration, a small entity includes a depository institution, bank holding company, or savings and ability to make modifications to their loan holding company with total assets of $600 3 5 U.S.C. 553. million or less and trust companies with total assets 4 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). 5 5 U.S.C. 553(d). of $41.5 million or less.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 61807

in expenditures by State, local, and on competition, employment, calendar quarter beginning January 1, Tribal governments, or the private investment, productivity, innovation, or 2020. During the quarter beginning sector, of $100 million or more in any on the ability of United States-based January 1, 2020, a national bank or one year. Accordingly, the OCC has not enterprises to compete with foreign- Federal savings association that makes prepared a written statement to based enterprises in domestic and such an election must deduct 80 percent accompany this rule. export markets.13 As required by the of the amount otherwise required to be Congressional Review Act, the agencies deducted under § 3.22(d)(2) and must F. Riegle Community Development and will submit the direct final rule and apply a 100 percent risk weight to assets Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 other appropriate reports to Congress not deducted under § 3.22(d)(2). In Pursuant to section 302(a) of the and the Government Accountability addition, during the quarter beginning Riegle Community Development and Office for review. January 1, 2020, a national bank or Regulatory Improvement Act The OMB has determined that the Federal savings association that makes (RCDRIA),9 in determining the effective direct final ruleis not a ‘‘major rule’’ such an election must include in its date and administrative compliance within the meaning of the Congressional regulatory capital 20 percent of any requirements for new regulations that Review Act.14 As required by the minority interest that exceeds the impose additional reporting, disclosure, Congressional Review Act, the agencies amount of minority interest includable or other requirements on IDIs, each will submit the direct final rule and in regulatory capital under § 3.21 as it Federal banking agency must consider, other appropriate reports to Congress applies to an advanced approaches consistent with principles of safety and and the Government Accountability national bank or Federal savings soundness and the public interest, any Office for review. association. A national bank or Federal administrative burdens that such savings association that is not an regulations would place on depository List of Subjects advanced approaches national bank or institutions, including small depository 12 CFR Part 3 Federal savings association must apply institutions, and customers of Administrative practice and the treatment under §§ 3.21 and 3.22 depository institutions, as well as the procedure, Capital, National banks, applicable to a national bank or Federal benefits of such regulations. In addition, Risk. savings association that is not an section 302(b) of RCDRIA requires new advanced approaches national bank or regulations and amendments to 12 CFR Part 217 Federal savings association beginning regulations that impose additional Administrative practice and April 1, 2020, and thereafter. reporting, disclosures, or other new procedure, Banks, Banking, Capital, * * * * * requirements on IDIs generally to take Federal Reserve System, Holding Board of Governors of the Federal effect on the first day of a calendar companies. quarter that begins on or after the date Reserve System on which the regulations are published 12 CFR Part 324 For the reasons set out in the joint in final form.10 Administrative practice and preamble, the Board of Governors of the Because the direct final rule would procedure, Banks, Banking, Capital Federal Reserve System amends 12 CFR not impose additional reporting, adequacy, Savings associations, State part 217 as follows: disclosure, or other requirements on non-member banks. IDIs, section 302 of the RCDRIA does PART 217—CAPITAL ADEQUACY OF not apply. In any event, the direct final Office of the Comptroller of the BANK HOLDING COMPANIES, rule will take effect on January 1, 2020. Currency SAVINGS AND LOAN HOLDING For the reasons set out in the joint COMPANIES, AND STATE MEMBER G. The Congressional Review Act preamble, 12 CFR part 3 is amended as BANKS (REGULATION Q) For purposes of Congressional Review follows. ■ Act, the OMB makes a determination as 3. The authority citation for part 217 to whether a final rule constitutes a PART 3—CAPITAL ADEQUACY continues to read as follows: ‘‘major’’ rule.11 If a rule is deemed a STANDARDS Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(a), 321–338a, ‘‘major rule’’ by the OMB, the 481–486, 1462a, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831n, ■ Congressional Review Act generally 1. The authority citation for part 3 1831o, 1831p–l, 1831w, 1835, 1844(b), 1851, provides that the rule may not take continues to read as follows: 3904, 3906–3909, 4808, 5365, 5368, 5371. effect until at least 60 days following its Authority: 12 U.S.C. 93a, 161, 1462, 1462a, ■ 4. Section 217.300 is amended by publication.12 1463, 1464, 1818, 1828(n), 1828 note, 1831n adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: The Congressional Review Act defines note, 1835, 3907, 3909, and 5412(b)(2)(B). § 217.300 Transitions. a ‘‘major rule’’ as any rule that the ■ 2. Section 3.300 is amended by adding Administrator of the Office of paragraph (f) to read as follows: * * * * * Information and Regulatory Affairs of (g) A Board-regulated institution that the OMB finds has resulted in or is § 3.300 Transitions. is not an advanced approaches Board- likely to result in—(A) an annual effect * * * * * regulated institution may apply the on the economy of $100,000,000 or (f) A national bank or Federal savings treatment under §§ 217.21 and more; (B) a major increase in costs or association that is not an advanced 217.22(c)(2), (5), (6), and (d)(2) prices for consumers, individual approaches national bank or Federal applicable to an advanced approaches industries, Federal, State, or local savings association may apply the Board-regulated institution during the government agencies or geographic treatment under §§ 3.21 and 3.22(c)(2), calendar quarter beginning January 1, regions, or (C) significant adverse effects (5), (6), and (d)(2) applicable to an 2020. During the quarter beginning advanced approaches national bank or January 1, 2020, a Board-regulated 9 12 U.S.C. 4802(a). Federal savings association during the institution that makes such an election 10 12 U.S.C. 4802. must deduct 80 percent of the amount 11 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. 13 5 U.S.C. 804(2). otherwise required to be deducted 12 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3). 14 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. under § 217.22(d)(2) and must apply a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 61808 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

100 percent risk weight to assets not Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1815(a), 1815(b), addition, during the quarter beginning deducted under § 217.22(d)(2). In 1816, 1818(a), 1818(b), 1818(c), 1818(t), January 1, 2020, an FDIC-supervised addition, during the quarter beginning 1819(Tenth), 1828(c), 1828(d), 1828(i), institution that makes such an election January 1, 2020, a Board-regulated 1828(n), 1828(o), 1831o, 1835, 3907, 3909, must include in its regulatory capital 20 4808; 5371; 5412; Pub. L. 102–233, 105 Stat. institution that makes such an election 1761, 1789, 1790 (12 U.S.C. 1831n note); Pub. percent of any minority interest that must include in its regulatory capital 20 L. 102–242, 105 Stat. 2236, 2355, as amended exceeds the amount of minority interest percent of any minority interest that by Pub. L. 103–325, 108 Stat. 2160, 2233 (12 includable in regulatory capital under exceeds the amount of minority interest U.S.C. 1828 note); Pub. L. 102–242, 105 Stat. § 324.21 as it applies to an advanced includable in regulatory capital under 2236, 2386, as amended by Pub. L. 102–550, approaches FDIC-supervised institution. § 217.21 as it applies to an advanced 106 Stat. 3672, 4089 (12 U.S.C. 1828 note); An FDIC-supervised institution that is approaches Board-regulated institution. Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1887 (15 not an advanced approaches institution A Board-regulated institution that is not U.S.C. 78o–7 note). must apply the treatment under an advanced approaches Board- ■ 6. Effective January 1, 2020, § 324.300 §§ 324.21 and 324.22 applicable to an regulated institution must apply the is amended by adding paragraph (f) to FDIC-supervised institution that is a treatment under §§ 217.21 and 217.22 read as follows: non-advanced approaches institution applicable to a Board-regulated beginning April 1, 2020, and thereafter. § 324.300 Transitions. institution that is not an advanced * * * * * approaches Board-regulated institution * * * * * Dated: September 17, 2019. beginning April 1, 2020, and thereafter. (f) An FDIC-supervised institution that is not an advanced approaches Joseph M. Otting, * * * * * FDIC-supervised institution may apply Comptroller of the Currency. 12 CFR Part 324 the treatment under §§ 324.21 and By order of the Board of Governors of the 324.22(c)(2), (5), (6), and (d)(2) Federal Reserve System, October 16, 2019 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE applicable to an advanced approaches CORPORATION Ann E. Misback, FDIC-supervised institution during the Secretary of the Board. calendar quarter beginning January 1, For the reasons set out in the joint Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. preamble, 12 CFR part 324 is amended 2020. During the quarter beginning By order of the Board of Directors. as follows. January 1, 2020, an FDIC-supervised institution that makes such an election Dated at Washington, DC, on September PART 324—CAPITAL ADEQUACY OF must deduct 80 percent of the amount 17, 2019. FDIC-SUPERVISED INSTITUTIONS otherwise required to be deducted Robert E. Feldman, under § 324.22(d)(2) and must apply a Executive Secretary. ■ 5. The authority citation for part 324 100 percent risk weight to assets not [FR Doc. 2019–23467 Filed 11–12–19; 8:45 am] continues to read as follows: deducted under § 324.22(d)(2). In BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2 Vol. 84 Wednesday, No. 219 November 13, 2019

Part IV

The President

Proclamation 9963—Veterans Day, 2019

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\13NOD0.SGM 13NOD0 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\13NOD0.SGM 13NOD0 61811

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 84, No. 219

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Title 3— Proclamation 9963 of November 7, 2019

The President Veterans Day, 2019

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation On November 11, Americans commemorate the service, sacrifice, and im- measurable contributions of our Nation’s veterans who have proudly worn our country’s uniform to defend and preserve our precious liberty. As we celebrate Veterans Day, we pause to recognize the brave men and women who have fearlessly and faithfully worked to defend the United States and our freedom. Their devotion to duty and patriotism deserves the respect and admiration of our grateful Nation each and every day. We are forever thankful for the many heroes among us who have bravely fought around the world to protect us all. As Americans, it is our sacred duty to care for and support those who have shown courage and conviction in selfless service to our country. Safe- guarding the health and welfare of our Nation’s veterans has been a top priority for my Administration. Last year, I was proud to sign into law the VA MISSION Act, the most significant reform to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in more than 50 years. This historic legislation allows veterans to seek timely care from trusted providers within their communities. In 2018, I also signed the largest funding bill for the VA in history, securing $8.6 billion for veterans’ mental health services, $400 million for opioid abuse prevention, and $270 million for rural veterans’ health initiatives. Further, I recently signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the Depart- ment of Education to discharge some types of Federal student loans owed by totally and permanently disabled veterans. We also must not forget or forsake our veterans in times of distress as they transition to civilian life. That is why I signed an Executive Order in March addressing veteran suicide, a solemn crisis that requires urgent national action. Through this step, we launched the President’s Roadmap to Empower Veterans and End a National Tragedy of Suicide (PREVENTS), which is bringing together all levels of government and the private sector to improve the quality of life for our veterans, identify and assist veterans in need, and turn the tide on this tragic crisis. Time after time, throughout the history of our Republic, veterans have de- fended our way of life with integrity, dedication, and distinction. In respectful recognition of the contributions our service members have made to advance peace and freedom around the world, the Congress has provided (5 U.S.C. 6103(a)) that November 11 of each year shall be set aside as a legal public holiday to honor our Nation’s veterans. As Commander in Chief of our heroic Armed Forces, I humbly thank our veterans and their families for their willingness to answer the call of duty and for their unwavering love of country. Today, we pledge always to fight for those who have fought for us, our veterans, who represent the best of America. They deserve our prayers, our unending support, and our eternal gratitude. NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim November 11, 2019, as Veterans Day. I encourage all Americans to recognize the fortitude and sacrifice of our veterans through public ceremonies and private thoughts and prayers. I call upon Federal, State, and local officials to display the flag of the United

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\13NOD0.SGM 13NOD0 61812 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Presidential Documents

States and to participate in patriotic activities in their communities. I call on all Americans, including civic and fraternal organizations, places of wor- ship, schools, and communities to support this day with commemorative expressions and programs. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand nineteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty- fourth.

[FR Doc. 2019–24793 Filed 11–12–19; 11:15 am] Billing code 3295–F0–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\13NOD0.SGM 13NOD0 Trump.EPS Vol. 84 Wednesday, No. 219 November 13, 2019

Part V

The President

Notice of November 12, 2019—Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran Notice of November 12, 2019—Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:34 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\13NOO0.SGM 13NOO0 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:34 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\13NOO0.SGM 13NOO0 61815

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 84, No. 219

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Title 3— Notice of November 12, 2019

The President Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran

On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706) and took related steps to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the situation in Iran. Our relations with Iran have not yet normalized, and the process of imple- menting the agreements with Iran, dated January 19, 1981, is ongoing. For this reason, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond November 14, 2019. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Iran declared in Executive Order 12170. The emergency declared in Executive Order 12170 is distinct from the emergency declared in Executive Order 12957 on March 15, 1995. This renewal, therefore, is distinct from the emergency renewal of March 12, 2019. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 12, 2019. [FR Doc. 2019–24806 Filed 11–12–19; 11:15 am] Billing code 3295–F0–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:34 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\13NOO0.SGM 13NOO0 Trump.EPS Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Presidential Documents 61817 Presidential Documents

Notice of November 12, 2019

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

On November 14, 1994, by Executive Order 12938, the President declared a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States posed by the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (weapons of mass destruction) and the means of delivering such weapons. On July 28, 1998, by Executive Order 13094, the President amended Executive Order 12938 to respond more effectively to the worldwide threat of prolifera- tion activities related to weapons of mass destruction. On June 28, 2005, by Executive Order 13382, the President, among other things, further amend- ed Executive Order 12938 to improve our ability to combat proliferation activities related to weapons of mass destruction. The proliferation of weap- ons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12938 with respect to the prolifera- tion of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering such weapons must continue beyond November 14, 2019. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12938, as amended by Executive Orders 13094 and 13382. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 12, 2019. [FR Doc. 2019–24809

Filed 11–12–19; 11:15 am] Billing code 3295–F0–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:37 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\13NOO1.SGM 13NOO1 Trump.EPS i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 219 Wednesday, November 13, 2019

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING NOVEMBER

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–741–6000 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Laws 741–6000 the revision date of each title. 10 CFR Presidential Documents 3 CFR Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 Proposed Rules: Proclamations: 810...... 59315 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 9956...... 59693 Other Services 9957...... 59697 12 CFR 9958...... 59699 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 1...... 61776 9959...... 59701 Privacy Act Compilation 741–6050 3 ...... 59230, 61776, 61804 9960...... 59703 5...... 61776 9961...... 59705 6...... 61776 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 9962...... 59707 23...... 61776 9963...... 61811 24...... 61776 World Wide Web Executive Orders: 32...... 61776 13495 (Revoked by 34...... 61776 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications EO 13897)...... 59709 50...... 59230 is located at: www.govinfo.gov. 13896...... 58595 160...... 61776 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 13897...... 59709 192...... 61776 Inspection List and electronic text are located at: Administrative Orders: 201...... 59923 www.federalregister.gov. Notices: 204...... 59924 206...... 61776 E-mail Notice of October 31, 2019 ...... 59287 208...... 61776 FEDREGTOC (Daily Federal Register Table of Contents Electronic Notice of November 211...... 61776 Mailing List) is an open e-mail service that provides subscribers 12, 2019 ...... 61815 215...... 61776 with a digital form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The Notice of November 217 ...... 59032, 59230, 61776, digital form of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes 12, 2019 ...... 61817 61804 HTML and PDF links to the full text of each document. Presidential 223...... 61776 Determinations: 225...... 59032, 61776 To join or leave, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/ 238...... 59032, 61776 USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your email address, then No. 2020–01 of October 18, 2019 ...... 59519 242...... 59032 follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your 243...... 59194 subscription. No. 2020–02 of October 18, 2019 ...... 59521 249...... 59230 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail No. 2020–03 of 251...... 61776 service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. October 25, 2019 ...... 59917 252...... 59032 To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 303...... 61776 and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 5 CFR 324 ...... 59230, 61776, 61804 the instructions. 329...... 59230 Proposed Rules: 337...... 61776 FEDREGTOC and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 8301...... 60346 347...... 61776 respond to specific inquiries. 362...... 61776 Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 7 CFR 365...... 61776 Federal Register system to: [email protected] 966...... 59289 381...... 59194 390...... 61776 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 1470...... 60883 regulations. 1600...... 59919 Proposed Rules: 1610...... 59919 45...... 59970 1700...... 59919 237...... 59970 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, NOVEMBER 1735...... 59919 246...... 60944 1737...... 59919 349...... 59970 58595–59288...... 1 1740...... 59919 624...... 59970 59289–59524...... 4 1744...... 59919 701...... 59989 59525–59710...... 5 1751...... 59919 1221...... 59970 59711–59916...... 6 2003...... 59919 59917–60306...... 7 2200...... 59919 13 CFR 60307–60882...... 8 2201...... 59919 Proposed Rules: 60883–61516...... 12 Proposed Rules: 121...... 60846 61517–61818...... 13 932...... 59736 124...... 60846 125...... 60846 8 CFR 126...... 60846 127...... 60846 103...... 60307 134...... 60846 217...... 60316 14 CFR 9 CFR 39 ...... 59292, 59711, 59713, 327...... 60318 59716, 59718, 59926, 60325, 557 ...... 59678, 59682, 59685 60328, 60900, 60903, 60906,

VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:00 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\13NOCU.LOC 13NOCU ii Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Reader Aids

61517, 61520, 61523, 61526, 27 CFR 38 CFR 419...... 61142 61529, 61533 478...... 60333 17...... 61548 484...... 60478 71 ...... 58599, 58600, 61537 486...... 60478, 61142 95...... 60330 29 CFR 39 CFR 600...... 59529 97...... 59294, 59296 3020...... 61552 Proposed Rules: 500...... 59928 43 CFR 501...... 59928 Proposed Rules: 39 ...... 58634, 58636, 58638, 3050...... 60031 3000...... 59730 59315, 59739, 60001, 60003, 580...... 59928 801...... 59928 60007, 60349, 60351 40 CFR 44 CFR 71...... 60354 2700...... 59931 Proposed Rules: 52 ...... 59527, 59728, 60920, 64...... 59548 15 CFR 90...... 60150 60927, 61560 778...... 59590 60...... 61563 45 CFR 744...... 61538 63...... 58601 102...... 59549 801...... 60912 81...... 60927 31 CFR 1169...... 59313 922...... 61546 180 ...... 58623, 59932, 60932, 1010...... 59302 60937 16 CFR 47 CFR Proposed Rules: 282...... 58627 Proposed Rules: 150...... 59320 300...... 60339 1...... 59567 Ch. II ...... 60010 Proposed Rules: 54...... 59937 1112...... 60949 32 CFR 51...... 59743 Proposed Rules: 1130...... 60949 233...... 59720 52 ...... 58641, 59325, 59327, 1...... 59605 1236...... 60949 504...... 59723 59331, 59743, 60968, 61592 73...... 59605, 59756 17 CFR 584...... 60916 63...... 58936 Ch. XII...... 59723 70...... 59743, 60968 48 CFR Proposed Rules: 71...... 59743 160...... 60963 Proposed Rules: 33 CFR Ch. I ...... 60986 207...... 60988 20 CFR 100 ...... 59525, 59526, 60334 141...... 61684 212...... 60988 117...... 60916 142...... 61684 215...... 60988 Proposed Rules: 165 ...... 59526, 59754, 59726, 170...... 58666 227...... 60988 617...... 60150 60334, 60337 228...... 59744 252...... 60988 618...... 60150 Proposed Rules: 261...... 60975 21 CFR 117...... 59741 282...... 58674 49 CFR 300...... 60357 165 ...... 59602, 60025, 61583 614...... 59568 1308...... 60333 710...... 60363 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 34 CFR 721...... 59335 1...... 59452 234...... 60032 11...... 59452 600...... 58834 41 CFR 395...... 59761 602...... 58834 16...... 59452 Proposed Rules: 396...... 60990 603...... 58834 129...... 59452 60–1...... 59746 654...... 58834 1141...... 60966 60–300...... 59746 50 CFR 668...... 58834 60–741...... 59746 17...... 59570 23 CFR 674...... 58834 622...... 60344, 61568 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 42 CFR 648 ...... 59588, 59735, 61569 650...... 61494 Ch. III ...... 61585 405...... 60648, 61142 679...... 59588, 59968 409...... 60478 Proposed Rules: 26 CFR 37 CFR 410...... 60648, 61142 10...... 60998 1...... 59297 201...... 60917 412...... 61142 17...... 60278, 60371 57...... 61547 202...... 60917, 60918 413...... 60648 300...... 60040 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 414 ...... 60478, 60648, 61142 622...... 61003 1 ...... 59318, 60011, 60812 383...... 60356 416...... 61142 648...... 59349

VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:00 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\13NOCU.LOC 13NOCU Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 / Reader Aids iii

in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual H.R. 1396/P.L. 116–68 subscribe, go to http:// pamphlet) form from the Hidden Figures Congressional listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS Superintendent of Documents, Gold Medal Act (Nov. 8, 2019; publaws-l.html U.S. Government Publishing 133 Stat. 1129) This is a continuing list of Office, Washington, DC 20402 Last List November 4, 2019 public bills from the current (phone, 202–512–1808). The Note: This service is strictly session of Congress which text will also be made for E-mail notification of new have become Federal laws. available on the Internet from laws. The text of laws is not This list is also available GPO’s Federal Digital System Public Laws Electronic available through this service. online at http:// (FDsys) at http://www.gpo.gov/ Notification Service PENS cannot respond to www.archives.gov/federal- fdsys. Some laws may not yet (PENS) specific inquiries sent to this register/laws. be available. address. The text of laws is not S. 693/P.L. 116–67 PENS is a free electronic mail published in the Federal National POW/MIA Flag Act notification service of newly Register but may be ordered (Nov. 7, 2019; 133 Stat. 1128) enacted public laws. To

VerDate Sep 11 2014 21:00 Nov 12, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\13NOCU.LOC 13NOCU