I. Background

The Board has long held the view that a banking organization should operate with capital levels well above its minimum regulatory capital ratios and commensurate with its risk profile. A banking organization should also have internal processes for assessing its capital adequacy that reflects a full understanding of its risks and ensure that it holds capital commensurate with those risks. Stress testing is one tool that helps both bank supervisors and a banking organization measure the sufficiency of capital available to support the banking organization's operations throughout periods of stress. 1

Prior to the passage of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA), 2 section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act)  3 required each state member bank with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion to conduct annual stress tests. In addition, section 165 required the Board to issue regulations that establish methodologies for state member banks conducting their stress test, which were required to include at least three different stress-testing scenarios: “baseline,” “adverse,” and “severely adverse.”  4 In October 2012, the Board published in the Federal Register rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Act stress testing requirements, which established company-run stress test requirements for state member banks. 5

Section 401 of EGRRCPA amended certain aspects of the stress testing requirements applicable to state member banks in section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Act. 6 Specifically, after 18 months, section 401 of EGRRCPA raises the minimum asset threshold for application of the stress testing requirement from $10 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets; revises the requirement for state member banks to conduct stress tests “annually,” and instead requires them to conduct stress tests “periodically;” and no longer requires the stress test to include an “adverse” scenario, thus reducing the number of required stress test scenarios from three to two. 7

The Board is proposing to revise the Board's stress testing rules applicable to state member banks (12 CFR part 252, subpart B), consistent with the amendments made by section 401 of EGRRCPA (the proposed rule or proposal). The proposal would also make conforming changes to the supervisory stress testing and company-run stress testing requirements applicable to bank holding companies, U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations, and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board (12 CFR part 252, subparts E and F), the Board's Policy Statement on the Scenario Design Framework for Stress Testing (12 CFR part 252, appendix A), and the stress testing requirements for certain savings and loan holding companies that were proposed for public comment on October 31, 2018. 8 The proposal also would revise the scope of applicability of the company-run stress testing requirements for certain savings and loan holding companies that were proposed for public comment on October 31, 2018. Finally, the proposal would make certain technical edits to these rules.

In preparing the proposal, the Board has coordinated closely with the FDIC and the OCC to help to ensure that the company-run stress testing regulations are consistent and comparable across depository institutions and depository institution holding companies and to address any burden that may be associated with having multiple entities within one organizational structure having to meet different stress testing requirements.

As described above, section 401 of EGRRCPA amends section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act by raising the minimum asset threshold for state member banks required to conduct company-run stress tests from $10 billion to $250 billion. Consistent with EGRRCPA, the proposal would raise this threshold such that only state member banks with total consolidated assets greater than $250 billion would be required to conduct stress tests.

Section 401 of EGRRCPA also revised the requirement under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act for state member banks to conduct stress tests, changing the required frequency from “annual” to “periodic.” Under the proposal, state member banks with assets greater than $250 billion generally would no longer be required conduct stress tests annually, rather they would be required to conduct stress tests once every other year.

Post-crisis financial regulations have resulted in substantial gains in resiliency for individual firms and for the financial system as a whole, including requiring firms to hold higher amounts of better quality capital. Based on the Board's experience overseeing and reviewing the results of company-run stress testing over more than five years, the Board believes that a two-year stress testing cycle generally would be appropriate for certain state member banks. Specifically, the state member banks that would be subject to a two-year stress testing cycle under the proposal would not be the subsidiaries of larger, more complex firms, which can present greater risk and therefore merit closer monitoring. As discussed below, state member banks that are subsidiaries of larger, more complex firms, would continue to have to conduct stress testing on an annual basis. The Board expects this level of frequency would provide the Board and the state member bank with information that is sufficient to satisfy the purposes of stress testing, including: assisting in an overall assessment of the state member bank's capital adequacy, identifying downside risks and the potential impact of adverse conditions on the state member bank's capital adequacy, and determining whether additional analytical techniques and exercises are appropriate for the state member bank to employ in identifying, measuring, and monitoring risks to the soundness of the state member bank. In addition, the Board would continue to review the state member bank's stress testing processes and procedures.

Under the proposed rule, all state member banks that would conduct stress tests every other year would be required to conduct stress tests in the same even numbered year ( i.e., the reporting years for these state member banks would be synchronized). By requiring these state member banks to conduct their stress tests in the same year, the proposal would continue to allow the Board to make comparisons across state member banks for supervisory purposes and assess macroeconomic trends and risks to the banking industry.

As an exception to the two-year cycle, state member banks that are subsidiaries of U.S. global systemically important bank holding companies or bank holding companies that have $700 billion or more in total assets or cross-jurisdictional activity of $75 billion or more would be required to conduct a stress test on an annual basis. As discussed in the Board's October 31, 2018 proposal, 9 U.S. global systemically important bank holding companies and bank holding companies with $700 or more in total assets or $75 billion or more in cross-jurisdictional activity would be required to conduct stress tests on an annual basis. The proposed requirement for these bank holding companies to conduct stress tests on an annual basis reflects their heightened risk profile, relative to smaller, less complex firms. Requiring the depository institution subsidiaries of these holding companies to a conduct stress test on an annual basis would reflect the risk profile of the overall banking organization and align with the Board's long-standing policy of applying similar standards to holding companies and their subsidiary banks.

Under the proposal, a state member bank that was subject to a two-year stress test cycle would become subject to an annual stress test if, for example, the parent bank holding company of the bank became a U.S. global systemically important bank holding company or a holding company with $700 billion or more in total assets or cross- jurisdictional activity of $75 billion or more. The proposal would not establish a transition period in these cases. Accordingly, a state member bank that becomes an annual stress test firm would be required to begin stress testing annually as of the next year. The Board would expect state member banks to anticipate and plan for this development.

As discussed above, section 401 of EGRRCPA amends section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Act to no longer require the Board to include an “adverse” stress-testing scenario in the company-run stress test, reducing the number of required company-run stress test scenarios from three to two.

The “baseline” scenario is a set of conditions that affect the U.S. economy or the financial condition of the state member bank, and that reflect the consensus views of the economic and financial outlook, and the “severely adverse” scenario is a more severe set of conditions and the most stringent of the scenarios. Because the “baseline” and “severely adverse” scenarios are designed to cover the full range of expected and stressful conditions, the “adverse” stress-testing scenario has provided limited incremental information to the Board and market participants. Accordingly, the proposal would maintain the requirement for state member banks to conduct company-run stress tests under both a “baseline” and “severely adverse” stress-testing scenario. In addition, the proposal would redefine the “severely adverse” scenario to mean a set of conditions that affect the U.S. economy or the financial condition of a state member bank that overall are significantly more severe than those associated with the baseline scenario and may include trading or other additional components.

The Board's company-run stress testing and supervisory stress testing requirements applicable to bank holding companies, U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations, and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board currently require the inclusion of an “adverse” scenario in the stress test. In addition, the stress testing requirements for certain savings and loan holding companies that were proposed for public comment on October 31, 2018, also would require the inclusion of an “adverse” scenario. 10

As discussed above, section 401 of EGRRCPA amends section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act to no longer require the Board to include an “adverse” stress-testing scenario in the company-run stress test. Similarly, section 401 of EGRRCPA amends section 165(i)(1) to no longer require the Board to include an “adverse” scenario in the supervisory stress tests that the Board is required to conduct, reducing the number of supervisory stress test scenarios from three to two.

Consistent with the changes made by section 401 of EGRRCPA, and for the reasons set forth above regarding why the inclusion of the “adverse” scenario is unnecessary, the proposal would remove the “adverse” scenario as a required scenario for all of the Board's current and proposed company-run and supervisory stress testing requirements, and revise the definition of the “severely adverse” scenario. In addition, the proposal would make conforming changes to the Board's Policy Statement on the Scenario Design Framework for Stress Testing to reflect the removal of the adverse scenario.

Section 252.15 of the Board's stress testing rule for state member banks provides that “[t]he board of directors, or a committee thereof, of a state member bank must review and approve the policies and procedures of the stress testing processes as frequently as economic conditions or the condition of the company may warrant, but no less than annually.” Section 238.144 of Regulation LL in the Board's October 31, 2018, proposal and § 252.56 of Regulation YY include similar approval language. The proposal would revise the frequency of these requirements from “annual” to “no less than each year a stress test is conducted” in order to make review by the board of directors consistent with the supervised firm's stress testing cycle.

The proposal would remove certain transition language present in the Board's stress testing rule that is no longer current. For example, the proposal would strike paragraph (a)(2) of § 252.14 of part 252, which provides the required timing of the stress tests for each stress test cycle prior to October 1, 2014.

The proposal would revise the company-run stress testing requirements for covered savings and loan holding companies included in the Board's October 31, 2018, proposal. As part of the October 31, 2018 proposal, the Board generally proposed to apply prudential standards to certain covered savings and loan holding companies using those standards for determining prudential standards for large U.S. banking organizations. Covered savings and loan holding companies are those large savings and loan holding companies other than those substantially engaged in insurance underwriting or commercial activities. 11 Section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act, as amended by EGRRCPA, requires all financial companies that have total consolidated assets of more than $250 billion to conduct periodic stress tests. Consistent with EGRRCPA, the Board is proposing to revise the scope of applicability of the company-run stress testing requirements proposed on October 31, 2018, to include all savings and loan holding companies that meet the thresholds for either a Category II or a Category III banking organization in the proposed § 238.10 of Regulation LL.

The proposal also would amend the proposed company-run stress test requirements to maintain the existing transition provision that provides that a savings and loan holding company would not be required to conduct its first stress test until after it is subject to minimum capital requirements.

The Board invites comment on all aspects of this proposed rule, including the following questions:

1. The proposal would require a state member bank that is consolidated under a holding company that is required to conduct a stress test at least once every calendar year to also conduct a stress test at least once every calendar year. What are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring a state member bank to conduct a stress test at the same frequency as, or at a different frequency than, its holding company?

2. What if any criteria should the Board consider for differentiating the frequency of stress tests (annual versus biennial) among depository institutions that have significantly different risk profiles and that are not consolidated under a holding company ( e.g., differentiate frequency based on asset size, other risk indicators), and why?

3. What alternative frequency to the proposed biennial stress testing requirement should the Board consider and why?

4. Should the Board establish a transition period for state member banks that are already required to stress test and that move from a biennial stress testing requirement to an annual stress testing requirement, and if so, why?

Section 302 of RCDRIA generally requires that regulations prescribed by Federal banking agencies which impose additional reporting, disclosures or other new requirements on insured depository institutions take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter which begins on or after the date on which the regulation is published in final form unless the agency determines, for good cause published with the regulation, that the regulation should become effective before such time.

The proposed rule imposes no additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions, including small depository institutions, nor on the customers of depository institutions. The proposed rule would raise the minimum asset threshold for state member banks that would be required to conduct a stress test from $10 billion to $250 billion, would revise the frequency with which state member banks with assets greater than $250 billion would be required to conduct stress tests, and would reduce the number of required stress test scenarios from three to two. The requirement to conduct, report, and publish a company-run stress testing is a previously existing requirement imposed by section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act. In connection with determining an effective date for the proposed rule, the Board invites comment on any administrative burdens that the proposed rule would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Board is publishing an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the proposal. The RFA requires each federal agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the promulgation of a proposed rule, or certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 12 Under regulations issued by the SBA, a small entity includes a bank, bank holding company, or savings and loan holding company with assets of $550 million or less (small entity). 13 Based on the Board's analysis, and for the reasons stated below, the Board believes that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial of number of small entities.

As discussed in the Supplementary Information, the Board is proposing to adopt amendments to Regulation YY and LL to reflect revisions made by section 401 of EGRRCPA to section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, the proposal would affect the regulatory requirements that apply to state member banks with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets, along with bank holding companies and requirements that have been proposed to apply to savings and loan holding companies with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets.

The proposal would not apply to small entities. Companies that are affected by the proposal, include state member banks with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets, along with bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets and, therefore, substantially exceed the $550 million asset threshold at which a banking entity is considered a “small entity” under SBA regulations.

The proposal would not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on banking organizations. Because the proposal would increase the minimum asset threshold for state member banks to conduct stress tests, the proposal would reduce the amount of state member banks subject to the Board's stress test rules. Moreover, as discussed above, the proposal does not apply to small entities and, therefore, the Board expects that the proposed rule will not impose any reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance costs on small entities.

The Board does not believe that the proposal duplicates, overlaps, or conflicts with any other Federal rules.

In light of the foregoing, the Board does not believe that the proposal, if adopted in final form, would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities supervised by the Board and does not believe there are any significant alternatives to the proposal that would reduce the impact of the proposal. Nonetheless, the Board seeks comment on whether the proposal would impose undue burdens on, or would have unintended consequences for, small banking organizations, and whether there are ways such potential burdens or consequences could be minimized in a manner consistent with the purposes of the proposal.

Certain provisions of the proposed rule contain a “collection of information” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control numbers are 7100-0350, which will be extended for three years with revision, and 7100-NEW. The Board reviewed the proposed rule under the authority delegated to the Board by OMB.

Comments are invited on:

a. Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

b. The accuracy or the estimate of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of the information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments on aspects of this notice that may affect reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements and burden estimates should be sent to the addresses listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, #10235, Washington, DC 20503; facsimile to (202) 395-6974; or email to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention, Federal Reserve Desk Officer.

(1) Title of Information Collection: Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Regulation YY.

Agency Form Number: FR YY.

OMB control number: 7100-0350.

Frequency: Annual, semiannual, and quarterly.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

Respondents: State member banks, U.S. bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, nonbank financial companies, foreign banking organizations, U.S. intermediate holding companies, foreign savings and loan holding companies, and foreign nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board.

Description of the Information Collection: Section 252.16 of Regulation YY requires a state member bank that has average total consolidated assets of $250 billion or more to report the results of the stress test to the Board by April 5, unless that time is extended by the Board in writing, in a manner consistent with the requirements of the section.

Current Actions: The proposed rule would raise the minimum threshold for state member banks to conduct stress tests from $10 billion to $250 billion. As a result, the number of respondents filing the reporting requirements in § 252.16 of Regulation YY would decrease to one. The reporting requirements for § 252.57 of Regulation YY are being revised in the Capital Assessments and Stress Testing (FR Y-14; OMB No. 7100-0341). 14

Legal authorization and confidentiality: This information collection is authorized by section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The obligation of covered institutions to report this information is mandatory.

The information collected in these reports is collected as part of the Board's supervisory process, and therefore is afforded confidential treatment pursuant to exemption 8 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). In addition, individual respondents may request that certain data be afforded confidential treatment pursuant to exemption 4 of FOIA if the data has not previously been publicly disclosed and the release of the data would likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the respondent (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Determinations of confidentiality based on exemption 4 of FOIA would be made on a case-by-case basis.

Current estimated annual burden hours: 119,264.

Estimated annual burden hours due to proposed revisions: (1,400).

Proposed estimated annual burden hours: 117,864.

(2) Title of Information Collection: Disclosure Requirements Associated with Regulation LL.

Agency Form Number: FR LL.

OMB control number: 7100-NEW.

Frequency: Annual, biennial.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

Respondents: Savings and loan holding companies.

Description of the Information Collection: The proposed § 238.146 of Regulation LL, which was proposed as part of the Board's October 31 proposal regarding prudential standards for large bank holding companies and savings and loan holdings companies  15 requires certain savings and loan holding companies with $100 billion or more in assets to publicly disclose a summary of the results of the stress test conducted pursuant to proposed § 238.143 of Regulation LL in a manner consistent with the requirements of proposed § 238.146 of Regulation LL.

Current Actions: The proposed § 238.146 of Regulation LL would implement disclosure requirements that were previously proposed for savings and loan holding companies. The reporting requirements for proposed §§ 238.133 and 238.145 of Regulation LL are being revised in the Capital Assessments and Stress Testing (FR Y-14; OMB No. 7100-0341). 16

Legal authorization and confidentiality: This information collection is authorized by section 10 of the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) and section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The obligation of covered institutions to report this information is mandatory. This information would be disclosed publicly and, as a result, no issue of confidentiality is raised.

Estimated number of respondents: 1.

Estimated average hours per response: 200 for initial setup and 80 for ongoing.

Estimated annual burden hours: 140.

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471, 12 U.S.C. 4809) requires the federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Board has sought to present the proposed rule in a simple and straightforward manner, and invites comment on the use of plain language.

For example:

• Has the Board organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could the proposed rule be more clearly stated?

• Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated? If not, how could the proposed rule be more clearly stated?

• Do the regulations contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?

• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to understand? If so, what changes would make the regulation easier to understand?

• Would more, but shorter, sections be better? If so, which sections should be changed?

• What other changes can the Board incorporate to make the regulation easier to understand?

For the reasons stated in the Supplementary Information, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System proposes to amend 12 CFR parts 238 and 252 as follows:

The revisions read as follows:

The revisions read as follows:

The revisions read as follows:

a. The Board has imposed stress testing requirements through its regulations (stress test rules) implementing section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act or Act) and through its capital plan rule (12 CFR 225.8). Under the stress test rules issued under section 165(i)(1) of the Act, the Board conducts an annual stress test (supervisory stress tests), on a consolidated basis, of each bank holding company with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more, intermediate holding company of a foreign banking organization, and nonbank financial company that the Financial Stability Oversight Council has designated for supervision by the Board (together, covered companies). 17 In addition, under the stress test rules issued under section 165(i)(2) of the Act, covered companies must conduct stress tests semi-annually and other financial companies with total consolidated assets of more than $250 billion and for which the Board is the primary regulatory agency must conduct stress tests on a periodic basis (together, company-run stress tests). 18 The Board will provide for at least two different sets of conditions (each set, a scenario), including baseline and severely adverse scenarios for both supervisory and company-run stress tests (macroeconomic scenarios). 19

b. The stress test rules provide that the Board will notify covered companies by no later than February 15 of each year of the scenarios it will use to conduct its annual supervisory stress tests and provide, also by no later than February 15, covered companies and other financial companies subject to the final rules the set of scenarios they must use to conduct their annual company-run stress tests. Under the stress test rules, the Board may require certain companies to use additional components in the severely adverse scenario or additional scenarios. For example, the Board expects to require large banking organizations with significant trading activities to include a trading and counterparty component (market shock, described in the following sections) in their severely adverse scenario. The Board will provide any additional components or scenario by no later than March 1 of each year. 20 The Board expects that the scenarios it will require the companies to use will be the same as those the Board will use to conduct its supervisory stress tests (together, stress test scenarios).

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-1069; Product Identifier 2018-NM-128-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0184, dated August 28, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72 airplanes. The MCAI states:

This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certain maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations. The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking and damage in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-1069.

This NPRM does not propose to supersede AD 2018-14-11. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD is more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all of the requirements of AD 2018-14-11.

ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional has issued ATR ATR72 Time Limits Document, Revision 16, dated January 30, 2018. This service information describes preventive maintenance requirements and includes updated limitations, tasks, thresholds and intervals to be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations.

This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions ( e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (l)(1) of this proposed AD.

The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with Avions de Transport Régional maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this proposed AD.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 23 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

As set forth under the current federal sector EEO complaint system (29 CFR part 1614), an individual complainant, or a class agent or claimant, who has filed an administrative complaint alleging a violation of section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16 (hereinafter “Title VII”); section 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 633a (hereinafter “ADEA”); section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 791 (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”); or section 202 of Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. 2000ff (hereinafter “GINA”), may file a civil action within 90 days of receipt of final agency action unless the complainant has filed an appeal with the EEOC. See 29 CFR 1614.407(a). When an appeal is filed with the EEOC, the current rules state that the complainant must wait to file a civil action until one of two events occurs: the EEOC issues a final decision on the appeal; or 180 days have passed since the filing of the appeal and the EEOC has not issued a decision within that time period. See 29 CFR 1614.407(c) & (d) (a complainant may file a civil action “[w]ithin 90 days of receipt of the Commission's final decision on an appeal[ ] or . . . [a]fter 180 days from the date of filing an appeal . . . if there has been no final decision by the Commission.”).

In 2012, the Ninth Circuit held that a literal application of 29 CFR 1614.407(d) is not warranted in all circumstances. In Bullock v. Berrien, 688 F.3d 613 (9th Cir. 2012), a federal employee (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”) filed an administrative EEO complaint against her employing agency and subsequently filed an administrative appeal with the EEOC regarding the agency's final action on her complaint. Shortly thereafter, the complainant withdrew the appeal and filed a civil action. The lawsuit was filed within the 90-day period following her receipt of the agency's final action.

The district court dismissed the civil action, finding that the complainant had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Relying on 29 CFR 1614.407(d), the district court concluded that the complainant's appeal to EEOC “triggered the mandatory 180-day waiting period before Plaintiff was permitted to file with this Court.” Bullock v. Dominguez, 2010 WL 1734964, at *3 (S.D. Cal. April 27, 2010). The district court stated that the plaintiff's “abandoned appeal would still trigger the 180-day rule, and her suit in this court was therefore premature.” Id. (citations omitted).

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed. The court reasoned that, because a federal sector complainant can file a civil action within 90 days of receipt of the agency final action and is not required to file an appeal before going to court, an appeal to the EEOC is an optional rather than a required administrative step. The court concluded, therefore, that a federal employee can withdraw an optional appeal and file a civil action within the 90-day period following receipt of the agency final action. See Bullock, 688 F.3d at 618-19. The court noted that it had “no occasion to decide whether an employee's lawsuit could proceed if the employee prematurely withdrew from an administrative appeal and filed suit more than 90 days after receiving notice of the final agency action on her complaint.” Id. at 619 (citations omitted).

In light of the Ninth Circuit's decision, the EEOC believes its regulations regarding a complainant's right to file a civil action should be revised to recognize that filing an administrative appeal or a request for reconsideration is an optional administrative step, and that an administrative appeal or a request for reconsideration may be withdrawn without affecting the complainant's right to file a civil action.

In an initial draft of this NPRM that, pursuant to Executive Order 12067, the EEOC sent to federal agencies for coordination, the EEOC proposed to eliminate from 1614.407(a) and (b) language stating that a complainant may not go to court if an administrative appeal has been filed. The EEOC also proposed adding a paragraph (e) to 1614.407, stating that a complainant who has filed an appeal can withdraw it and proceed to court so long as the EEOC has not issued a final decision on the appeal.

Thirteen agencies submitted comments. Three agencies concurred, but ten others opposed the proposed changes, particularly with respect to proposed 1614.407(e). The opposing agencies generally argued that the draft NPRM appeared to allow a complainant to withdraw an appeal and go to court even after 90 days of receipt of an agency final action, thereby purportedly establishing a right to file a civil action that does not exist in § 717(c) of Title VII. It is the intent of the Commission to make clear that, as held in Bullock, an appeal to the EEOC is an optional rather than a required administrative step, and that administrative exhaustion can occur when an agency either takes final action on a complaint or fails to take final action on a complaint within 180 days of the date the complaint is filed. 1 The Commission can achieve this result through its proposed revisions to paragraphs (a) and (b) of 1614.407 ( i.e., deleting the words “if no appeal has been filed” from current paragraph (a), and “if an appeal has not been filed” from current paragraph (b)). Additionally, section 717(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c), provides that a complainant who wants to file a civil action after receiving notice of an agency's final action must do so within 90 days. Thus, we agree that proposed 1614.407(e) should be revised to clarify that a complainant who has filed an appeal can withdraw it and proceed to court so long as the complainant does so within 90 days of receipt of an agency final action.

Relatedly, after receiving an appellate decision from the Commission, “[a] party may request reconsideration within 30 days of receipt of a decision of the Commission. . . .” See 29 CFR 1614.405(c). If a request for reconsideration is filed, the appellate decision on which it is based is not deemed final for purposes of triggering the right to file a civil action contained in 29 CFR 1614.407(c). See 29 CFR 1614.405(c) (“A decision issued [on appeal] is final within the meaning of § 1614.407 unless a timely request for reconsideration is filed by a party to the case.”). Instead, the Commission decision issued in response to the request for reconsideration constitutes the EEOC's final decision for purposes of invoking the 90-day time period in which a complainant may file a civil action. See 29 CFR 1614.407(c) (a complainant may file a civil action “[w]ithin 90 days of receipt of the Commission's final decision . . . .”). For purposes of consistency, the Commission also proposes to add a paragraph (f) to current § 1614.407 in order to address requests for reconsideration.

In conjunction with the proposed revision to 29 CFR 1614.407, the EEOC is proposing to remove 29 CFR 1614.201(c). This paragraph currently sets forth the conditions under which a complainant who has filed a non-mixed case complaint alleging age discrimination is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies and can file a civil action. Exhaustion requirements for complaints filed under the ADEA (as well as complaints filed under Title VII, the Rehabilitation Act, and GINA) also are set forth in § 1614.407. Some, but not all, of the exhaustion requirements under paragraph 1614.201(c) are the same as those under § 1614.407. To the extent the exhaustion requirements differ, those listed in § 1614.407, as amended by this proposed rule, are the correct ones. Therefore, the EEOC proposes to eliminate paragraph 1614.201(c).

The unique alternative exhaustion requirement that solely pertains to complaints filed under the ADEA—that a complainant may file a civil action thirty days after giving EEOC notice of the intent to file the civil action—is retained in current paragraph 1614.201(a). Similarly, the exhaustion requirements applicable to all mixed-case complaints, including those filed under the ADEA (as well as Title VII, the Rehabilitation Act, and GINA), as set forth in § 1614.310, are retained. Thus, the proposed elimination of paragraph 1614.201(c) will not affect the rights of a complainant who files an ADEA complaint, whether as a mixed or non-mixed complaint.

One agency suggested that the EEOC include a provision requiring a complainant to notify the relevant agency when the complainant withdraws an appeal filed with OFO. While this suggestion has merit, the EEOC's concern is with the enforceability of the suggested rule. Nevertheless, the EEOC proposes revising 29 CFR 1614.409 to indicate that the EEOC will not be able to enforce an appellate decision that is issued after a complainant has filed a civil action, and that a complainant should notify the EEOC when he or she files a civil action while an appeal is pending.

Finally, the EEOC proposes making an editorial change to 29 CFR 1614.505(a)(4) (“Interim relief”). Currently, that paragraph contains an erroneous reference to § 1614.505(b)(2). There is no paragraph (b)(2) within § 1614.505. Instead, the proper reference should be to paragraph (a)(3) of § 1614.505. Thus, the Commission proposes making this change.

The Commission has complied with the principles in section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of the Order, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of the Order.

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Cost. Pursuant to guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (April 5, 2017), an “E.O. 13771 regulatory action” is defined as “[a] significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 . . . .” As noted above, this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Thus, this proposed rule does not require the EEOC to issue two E.O. 13771 deregulatory actions.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

The Commission certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it applies exclusively to employees and agencies of the federal government and does not impose a burden on any business entities. For this reason, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This proposed rule does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proposes to amend chapter XIV of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

Background: On November 29, 2018, the Department published an NPRM in the Federal Register (83 FR 61462), to amend the Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance regulations to provide appropriate standards for how recipients must respond to incidents of sexual harassment. The NPRM established a 60-day comment period through January 28, 2019. On January 28, the Department published in the Federal Register a document (84 FR 409) extending the public comment period for two days, until January 30, 2019. In an abundance of caution, to the extent that some users may have experienced technical issues preventing the submission of comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, the Department is reopening the comment period for one day on February 15, 2019. Commenters must submit comments: Between 12:00 a.m. EST and 11:59 p.m. EST on February 15, 2019 if submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal; between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST on February 15, 2019, if hand-delivered; or postmarked on February 15, 2019, if delivered by postal mail or commercial delivery. Please do not resubmit a comment that was previously submitted. The Department is continuously processing and posting all comments received from the public in a manner that ensures the Department is able to review and consider each comment. Once all comments have been processed, they will be posted and publicly available.

Call the www.regulations.gov helpdesk at 877-378-5457 if you experience any technical difficulties that prevent you from submitting your comment on February 15, 2019. You also have the option to deliver your comment by postal mail, commercial delivery or hand delivery if a technical issue prevents you from submitting your comment through the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format ( e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available at www.govinfo.gov. At this site, you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

I. Background

Through a letter dated March 24, 2006, the State of North Carolina, through NCDENR, submitted several changes to the North Carolina SIP for EPA approval. EPA is proposing to approve changes to the following regulations: 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02Q Sections .0101, Required Air Quality Permits, and .0301, Applicability. 1 2 EPA has taken, will take, or will not take separate action on all other changes submitted on March 24, 2006. 3

The revision that is the subject of this proposed rulemaking pertains to changes to air quality permitting regulations related to minor source construction activities under Subchapter 2Q, Air Quality Permit Procedures. Detailed descriptions of the changes are below:

2Q Sections .0101, Required Air Quality Permits, and .0301, Applicability, have been amended to reflect the changes to the North Carolina General Statutes regarding construction to allow additional preconstruction activities for minor sources. With respect to requirements regarding stationary source permits, in both 2Q Sections .0101 and .0301, an exception has been added to allow certain preconstruction activities prior to obtaining a final minor construction permit. Those activities are clearing and grading; construction of access roads, driveways, and parking lots; construction and installation of underground pipe work, including water, sewer, electric, and telecommunications utilities; and construction of ancillary structures, including fences and office buildings that are not a necessary component of an air contaminant source, equipment, or associated air cleaning device. 2Q Section .0101 has been revised to remove a prohibition on entering into irrevocable contracts for the construction, operation, or modification of air cleaning devices. EPA has preliminarily determined that allowing the foregoing preconstruction activities is consistent with the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l) and federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-51.164.

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires that SIPs include a program for regulating the construction and modification of stationary sources as necessary to ensure that the NAAQS are maintained. The basic purpose of new source review (NSR) permitting is set forth in 40 CFR 51.160(a), requiring NSR SIPs to set forth legally enforceable procedures that enable the State or local agency to determine whether the construction or modification of a stationary source would result in a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy, or would interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. Under 40 CFR 51.160, states have discretion in conducting the minor sources permitting programs to exempt certain small or de minimis sources. Congress directed the states to exercise the primary responsibility under the CAA to tailor air quality control measures, including minor source permitting programs, to the state's needs. See Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975) (States make the primary decisions over how to achieve CAA requirements); Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976); Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2006).

Federal regulations limit the types of allowed preconstruction activities for new and modified major sources, see 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xv) and 51.166(b)(11), and North Carolina has adopted these regulations into its SIP. But Federal regulations do not impose a corresponding limitation on preconstruction activities for minor sources. The exception for certain preconstruction activities found in both 2Q Sections .0101 and .0301 explicitly applies to facilities subject to 2Q Section .0300 ( i.e., minor sources), whereas, as stated in both 2Q Sections .0101(b) and .0301(a), title V facilities ( i.e., major sources) are subject to the title V procedures under 2Q Section .0500. Furthermore, the North Carolina statutory provision to which the regulatory exception for certain preconstruction activities refers in both 2Q Sections .0101 and .0301 explicitly provides that the exception “does not relieve any person from any preconstruction or construction prohibition imposed by any federal requirement, federal delegation, federally approved requirement in any State Implementation Plan, or federally approved requirement under the title V permitting program” and “does not apply to any construction, alteration, or expansion that is subject to requirements for prevention of significant deterioration or federal nonattainment new source review. . . . ” N.C.G.S. 143-215.108A.

With these proposed changes, North Carolina's SIP would continue to prohibit the construction of emission units prior to issuance of construction permits. Therefore, there are no stationary-source emissions increases associated with any of the preconstruction activities allowed at 2Q Sections .0101 and .0301. Additionally, North Carolina has legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, as required by 40 CFR 51.160(b).

The changes to North Carolina's minor source permitting requirements, as contained in Subchapter 2Q of the North Carolina SIP, are not inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations, and are thus approvable as part of the SIP. EPA is therefore proposing action to approve the aforementioned changes pursuant to the CAA and 40 CFR 51.160-164.

In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference regulations under Subchapter 2Q, Air Quality Permits, Sections .0101, Required Air Quality Permits, and .0301, Applicability, which have a state effective date of November 11, 2005. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned revisions to the North Carolina SIP submitted by the State of North Carolina on March 24, 2006, pursuant to section 110 because these changes are not inconsistent with the CAA and EPA's regulations. Changes to the other sections in these submissions have been or will be processed in a separate action, as appropriate, for approval into the North Carolina SIP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

On December 21, 2016, the EPA published a final conditional approval for Massachusetts's June 6, 2014 SIP submittal. See 81 FR 93627. That conditional approval identified a number of issues. One of those issues relates to a provision under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that was not included in the Commonwealth's June 6, 2014 SIP submittal. In a letter dated June 14, 2016, the Commonwealth committed to submitting for inclusion in the SIP, by a date no later than one year from conditional approval of Massachusetts's infrastructure SIP submissions, the necessary provisions that would address the identified issues. The conditional approval was part of the EPA's December 21, 2016 final action on Massachusetts's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 1997 ozone, 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS. See 81 FR 93627.

Under section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, the EPA may conditionally approve a plan based on a commitment from the state to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date no later than one year from the effective date of final conditional approval. If the EPA subsequently determines that the state has met its commitment, the EPA publishes a document in the Federal Register notifying the public that the EPA is converting the conditional approval to a full approval.

Otherwise, if the state fails to meet its commitment in a timely manner, then the conditional approval automatically converts to a disapproval. If that were to occur, the EPA would then notify the state by letter. At that time, the conditionally approved SIP revisions would not be part of the state's approved SIP. The EPA subsequently would publish a document in the Federal Register notifying the public that the conditional approval had converted to a disapproval.

The EPA's December 21, 2016 conditional approval required the MassDEP to submit revised regulations that address Prong 3 of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. To address the conditional approval, on February 9, 2018, the MassDEP submitted regulatory provisions for approval into the Commonwealth's SIP. As explained in Section I.C of this document, the revisions addressed the NNSR requirements that would make the Commonwealth's NNSR program applicable to sources regardless of the attainment status of the area where the source is located. These revisions were necessary because Massachusetts is located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). 1

Section 110(a)(2)(D) contains a comprehensive set of air quality management elements pertaining to the transport of air pollution that states must address. It covers the following five topics, categorized as sub-elements: Sub-element 1, Contribute to nonattainment, and interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS; Sub-element 2, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD); Sub-element 3, Visibility protection; Sub-element 4, Interstate pollution abatement; and Sub-element 5, International pollution abatement. Sub-elements 1 through 3 are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act, and these items are further categorized into four prongs.

One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state. The EPA sometimes refers to this requirement under subsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as prong 3. A state's infrastructure SIP submittal cannot be considered approvable for prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) unless the EPA has issued final approval of the state's PSD SIP, or alternatively, has issued final approval of a SIP that the EPA has otherwise found adequate to prohibit interference with other states' measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.

Under prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the EPA also reviews the potential for in-state sources not subject to PSD to interfere with PSD in an attainment or unclassifiable area of another state. EPA guidance recommends that a “fully approved NNSR program with respect to any previous NAAQS may generally be considered by the EPA as adequate for purposes of meeting this requirement of prong 3 with respect to sources and pollutants subject to such program.”  2 The EPA last approved the Commonwealth's NNSR program on October 27, 2000. See 65 FR 64360. Because Massachusetts is located within the OTR, 3 the CAA requires sources emitting 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) or 50 tpy or more of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) located in attainment or unclassifiable areas to be subject to the requirements that would be applicable to major stationary sources if the area were classified as a moderate nonattainment area. See CAA sections 182(f)(1), 184(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7511a, 7511c. In other words, even if located in an area designated attainment or unclassifiable for ozone, under the CAA and its implementing regulations, such sources are subject to NNSR rather than PSD. The major source threshold for NNSR in Massachusetts is currently 50 tpy for NO X instead of 100 tpy due to the fact that part of Massachusetts had been designated in 1990 as a serious nonattainment area for the 1979 1-hour ozone standard. 4 5 Massachusetts's current SIP-approved NNSR regulations, however, apply only in nonattainment areas, 6 meaning that sources with 50 tpy ( see footnote 5) or more of either VOCs or NO X emissions in much of Massachusetts are not covered by either the PSD federal implementation plan (FIP), applicable in the Commonwealth, or the Commonwealth's EPA-approved NNSR program. Thus, the Commonwealth has not shown that it has met this requirement of prong 3. However, as a matter of state regulation, the Commonwealth has promulgated and implements NNSR regulations that make the Commonwealth's NNSR program applicable to such sources regardless of area designation. We are proposing to approve these regulations into the Commonwealth's SIP.

On February 9, 2018, MassDEP submitted the necessary provisions for inclusion into the SIP to make its EPA-approved NNSR program applicable to such sources and address the relevant issues identified in the EPA's December 21, 2016 conditional approval. Specifically, MassDEP's SIP submittal included the following revisions to 310 CMR 7.00: Appendix A for inclusion in the SIP:

• The Introduction in section (1) of Appendix A was revised to clarify that any source that is major for VOCs or NO X is subject to the requirements in Appendix A.

• Section (b) of the definition of Major Modification was revised to remove the requirement that a major source must be located in an ozone nonattainment area for the purpose of applying the requirements of Appendix A.

• Section (b) of the definition of Major Stationary Source was revised to remove the requirement that a major stationary source of NO X must be located in an ozone nonattainment area for the purpose of applying the requirements of Appendix A.

• The definition of Nonattainment Pollutant was added to clarify that NO X and VOCs are considered nonattainment pollutants regardless of the attainment designation status where the source is located.

• Section (3) of Appendix A was revised at subsection (b) to include the requirement for Appendix A to apply if a new major stationary source or major modification is major for NO X or VOCs.

Massachusetts failed to submit the technical demonstration in a timely manner. Therefore, our conditional approval became a disapproval on January 20, 2018. However, as noted previously, on February 9, 2018, the MassDEP submitted SIP revisions to the EPA to address the issues identified in the December 21, 2016 conditional approval under prong 3 of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), effectively remedying the disapproval relating to that provision of the CAA. The EPA has reviewed MassDEP's SIP submittal and determined that MassDEP's regulations are consistent with the underlying federal NNSR regulations in 40 CFR part 51 and meet the terms of the December 21, 2016 conditional approval. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to approve the revisions into the SIP and convert the December 21, 2016 conditional approval to a full approval for prong 3 of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

On March 12, 2008, the EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Under the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 50.15, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is at least 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50.

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS based on the three most recent years of certified ambient air quality data. Dukes County in Massachusetts was designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2012 using 2009-2011 ambient air quality data. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). At the time of designation, Dukes County was classified as a marginal nonattainment area. On March 6, 2015, the EPA issued a final rule entitled, “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (SIP Requirements Rule), which established the requirements that state, tribal, and local air quality management agencies must meet in developing implementation plans for areas where ozone concentrations exceed the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 7 See 80 FR 12264. Areas that were designated as marginal nonattainment areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS were required to attain no later than July 20, 2015, based on 2012-2014 monitoring data. See 40 CFR 51.1103. The Dukes County nonattainment area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by July 20, 2015, and therefore on April 11, 2016, the EPA Administrator signed a final determination of attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard for the Dukes County nonattainment area. See 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016).

Based on initial nonattainment designations for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, as well as the March 6, 2015 final SIP Requirements Rule, Massachusetts was required to develop a SIP revision addressing certain CAA requirements for the Dukes County nonattainment area, and submit to the EPA an NNSR Certification SIP or SIP revision no later than 36 months after the effective date of area designations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS ( i.e., July 20, 2015). 8 9 Because Massachusetts already has a NNSR program that applies statewide, Massachusetts can certify the adequacy of its existing NNSR program with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Dukes County nonattainment area. 10 See 40 CFR 51.1114.

On February 3, 2017, the EPA found that 15 states (including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) and the District of Columbia failed to submit SIP revisions in a timely manner to satisfy certain requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that apply to nonattainment areas and/or states in the ozone transport region. 11 See 82 FR 9158. As explained in that rulemaking action, consistent with the CAA and EPA regulations, these findings of failure to submit established certain deadlines for the imposition of sanctions if a state does not submit a timely SIP revision addressing the requirements for which the finding is being made, and for the EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) to address any outstanding SIP requirements.

MassDEP submitted its February 9, 2018 SIP revision to address the specific NNSR requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, located in 40 CFR 51.160-165, as well as its obligations under the EPA's February 3, 2017 Findings of Failure to Submit. The 18-month sanctions clock stopped when MassDEP submitted the SIP revision and the SIP revision became complete by operation of law on August 9, 2018. The EPA's analysis of how this SIP revision addresses the NNSR requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is provided in Section II.B.

The minimum SIP requirements for NNSR permitting programs for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are located in 40 CFR 51.165. These NNSR program requirements include those promulgated in the “Phase 2 Rule” implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS  12 and the SIP Requirements Rule implementing the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Under the Phase 2 Rule, the SIP for each ozone nonattainment area must contain NNSR provisions that: Set major source thresholds for NO X and VOCs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)( 1 )( i ) through ( iv ) and ( 2 ); classify physical changes at a major source if the change would constitute a major source by itself pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)( 3 ); consider any significant net emissions increase of NO X as a significant net emissions increase for ozone pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E); consider increases of VOCs emissions in extreme ozone nonattainment areas as significant net emissions increases and major modifications for ozone pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(F); set significant emissions rates for VOCs and NO X as ozone precursors pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) through (C) and (E); contain provisions for emissions reductions credits pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)( 1 ) and ( 2 ); provide that the requirements applicable to VOCs also apply to NO X pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(8); and set offset ratios for VOCs and NO X pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(i) through (iii) (renumbered as (a)(9)(ii) through (iv) under the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS). Under the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the SIP for each ozone nonattainment area designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on April 6, 2015, must also contain NNSR provisions that include the anti-backsliding requirements at 40 CFR 51.1105.

Massachusetts's longstanding SIP-approved NNSR program, established in the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) at Appendix A to 310 CMR 7.00, applies to the construction and modification of stationary sources, including major stationary sources in nonattainment areas. In its SIP revision, Massachusetts certifies that its existing NNSR regulations at 310 CMR 7.00: Appendix A satisfy the requirements of Section 182(a) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as specified in 40 CFR 51.165 for the Dukes County nonattainment area ( see footnote 9).

The EPA last approved revisions to the SIP-approved version of Massachusetts's NNSR rule in 2000, addressing, among other things, revisions under the 1990 CAA amendments and other general NNSR permitting requirements. See 65 FR 64360 (October 27, 2000). Massachusetts's SIP-approved NNSR regulations retain the NNSR requirements applicable to serious nonattainment areas, even though the Dukes County nonattainment area was classified as marginal nonattainment under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Dukes County was previously classified serious nonattainment as part of the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. Mass) nonattainment area on November 15, 1990 for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

Massachusetts's existing NNSR regulations and the revisions proposed in the February 9, 2018 SIP submittal for inclusion in the SIP are at least as stringent as the federal NNSR requirements and satisfy the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule and SIP Requirements Rule discussed previously. The definitions of “major modification,” “major stationary source,” “significant,” and “nonattainment pollutant” in 310 CMR 7.00: Appendix A are consistent with federal NNSR regulations. In addition, the definition of “major stationary source” and “major modification” properly address the thresholds for VOCs and NO X , as precursors to ozone, by establishing the threshold for each of these ozone precursors at 50 tons per year. This threshold for a major modification is consistent with the EPA regulations for serious nonattainment areas. Massachusetts's NNSR regulations also contain the appropriate provisions for determining emissions reduction credits due to shutdowns, establishing offset ratios, and treating NO X as a precursor to ozone. Lastly, since Massachusetts's NNSR SIP retains the NO X and VOCs thresholds for a serious nonattainment area for ozone that are based on how the Commonwealth was designated nonattainment on November 15, 1990 for the 1-hour ozone standard, the Commonwealth's SIP meets the anti-backsliding requirements.

The EPA notes that neither 310 CMR 7.00: Appendix A nor Massachusetts's approved SIP have the regulatory provision for any emissions change of VOCs in extreme nonattainment areas, specified in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(F), because Massachusetts has never had an area designated extreme nonattainment for any of the ozone NAAQS. The Massachusetts SIP is not required to have this provision for VOCs in extreme nonattainment areas until such time as Massachusetts has an extreme ozone nonattainment area.

The EPA's review of MassDEP's February 9, 2018 SIP submittal indicates that the submittal satisfies the requirements of the CAA and is appropriate for inclusion into the SIP. The EPA therefore is proposing to approve the SIP revisions discussed in this action. Also, as a result of our proposed approval of the NNSR permitting revisions discussed in Section I, the EPA is proposing to convert the December 21, 2016 conditional approval to a full approval for prong 3 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Other aspects of EPA's December 21, 2016 conditional approval will be addressed in other actions.

The EPA is also proposing to approve MassDEP's February 9, 2018 SIP revision addressing the NNSR requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Dukes County Nonattainment Area. The EPA has concluded that MassDEP's submission fulfills the 40 CFR 51.1114 revision requirement, meets the requirements of CAA sections 110 and 172 and the minimum SIP requirements of 40 CFR 51.165, as well as its obligations under the EPA's February 3, 2017 Findings of Failure to Submit relating to submission of a NNSR certification. The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this action or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rulemaking by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register .

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference of Massachusetts's 310 CMR 7.00: Appendix A. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

This rulemaking addresses a submission from the IEPA dated September 29, 2017, which describes its infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 3086). Specifically, this rulemaking addresses the portion of the submission dealing with interstate pollution transport under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), otherwise known as the “good neighbor” provision. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises from Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, pursuant to which states must submit “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” a plan that provides for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA includes a list of specific elements that “each such plan” submission must address. EPA commonly refers to such state plans as “infrastructure SIPs.” State plans must address four requirements of the good neighbor provisions (commonly referred to as “prongs”), including:

This rulemaking is evaluating whether Illinois' interstate transport provisions in its PM 2.5 infrastructure SIP meet prongs one and two of the good neighbor requirements of the CAA. Prongs three and four will be evaluated in a separate rulemaking.

EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the prong one and two interstate transport requirements with respect to the PM 2.5 NAAQS in several previous Federal rulemakings. The four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to these identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to downwind air quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind; and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of permanent and enforceable measures. This framework was most recently applied with respect to PM 2.5 in the August 8, 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208), designed to address both the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards.

EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure SIPs within three years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an October 2, 2007 guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” EPA has issued additional guidance documents and memoranda, including a September 13, 2013, guidance document titled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).”

The most recent relevant document is a memorandum published on March 17, 2016, titled “Information on the Interstate Transport `Good Neighbor' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)” (2016 memorandum). The 2016 memorandum describes EPA's consistent approach over the years to address interstate transport and provides EPA's general review of relevant modeling data and air quality projections as they relate to the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. The 2016 memorandum provides information relevant to EPA Regional office review of CAA Section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) “good neighbor” provision in infrastructure SIPs with respect to the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. IEPA's submittal and this rulemaking consider information provided in that memorandum.

The 2016 memorandum provides states and EPA Regional offices with future year annual PM 2.5 design values for monitors in the United States based on quality assured and certified ambient monitoring data and air quality modeling. The 2016 memorandum further describes how these projected potential design values can be used to help determine which monitors should be further evaluated to potentially address whether emissions from other states significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The 2016 memorandum explains that, for purposes of addressing interstate transport for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS, it may be appropriate to evaluate projected air quality in 2021, which is the attainment deadline for 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate. Accordingly, because the available data includes 2017 and 2025 projected average and maximum PM 2.5 design values calculated through the CAMx photochemical model, the 2016 memorandum suggests approaches states might use to interpolate PM 2.5 values at sites in 2021. The 2016 memorandum indicates that it may be reasonable to assume receptors projected to have average and/or maximum design values above the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also likely to be either nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021. Similarly, the 2016 memorandum indicates that it may be reasonable to assume that receptors that are projected to attain the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also likely to be attainment receptors in 2021. However, where a potential receptor is projected to be nonattainment or maintenance in 2017, but projected to be attainment in 2025, the 2016 memorandum suggests that further analysis of the emissions and modeling may be needed to make a further judgement regarding the receptor status in 2021.

The 2016 memorandum indicates that for all but one monitoring site in the eastern United States, with complete and valid PM 2.5 design values from 2009 to 2013, the modeling data shows that monitors were expected to both attain and maintain the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025. The modeling results provided in the 2016 memorandum show that out of seven PM 2.5 monitors located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (PA), one monitor is expected to be above the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS in 2017. Further, that monitor, the Liberty monitor (ID number 420030064), is projected to be above the NAAQS only under the model's maximum projected conditions (used in EPA's interstate transport framework to identify maintenance receptors) and is projected to both attain and maintain the NAAQS (along with all Allegheny County monitors) in 2025. The 2016 memorandum therefore indicates that under such a condition (where EPA's photochemical modeling indicates an area will maintain the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS in 2025 but not attain in 2017) further analysis of the site should be performed to determine if the site may be a nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021 (the attainment deadline for moderate PM 2.5 areas).

The 2016 memorandum also indicates that based on modeling projections, there are 17 potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors in California, located in the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast nonattainment areas, and one potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho.

The 2016 memorandum also indicates that for certain states with incomplete ambient monitoring data, additional information including the latest available data should be analyzed to determine whether there are potential downwind air quality problems that may be impacted by transported emissions. These states include all or portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho (outside of Shoshone County), Tennessee, and Kentucky. With the exception of four counties in Florida, the data quality problems have subsequently been resolved for these areas, and these areas now have current design values below the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS and are expected to maintain the NAAQS due to downward emission trends for nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ).

IEPA's submittal indicates that the state used data from the 2016 memorandum and supplied its own additional information in its analysis. EPA considered the analysis from IEPA, as well as additional analysis conducted by EPA, in its review of the IEPA submittal.

IEPA's submittal contains a technical analysis of its interstate transport of pollution relative to the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. As reflected in the EPA's 2016 memorandum, the only receptor identified as nonattainment or maintenance on which Illinois was deemed to have significant impact is the Liberty monitor (42-003-0064) in Allegheny County, PA located in southwest PA. In this technical analysis IEPA examined geographical, meteorological, and emissions factors to evaluate impacts on the Allegheny monitor. As stated previously, IEPA's technical analysis considers CSAPR rule implementation and EPA guidance and memoranda. IEPA did not focus on potential contribution to other areas EPA identified as not attaining the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS based on monitor data in Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, or Hawaii. The distance between Illinois and these areas, coupled with the prevailing wind directions, leads IEPA to conclude that Illinois will not contribute significantly to any of the potential receptors in those states. Since the Allegheny County, PA, receptor is the only location considered downwind of Illinois, this submission focuses on that single receptor. IEPA concluded that Illinois contributes no significant impacts to the maintenance and attainment of NAAQS for PM 2.5 in Allegheny County, PA, and therefore existing measures satisfy Illinois' responsibilities under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

IEPA's submission discussed geographical factors that show Illinois does not contribute to the nonattainment issues at the Allegheny monitor. As stated in IEPA's submittal, Illinois' nearest point to the Allegheny monitor is about 400 miles away. At this large distance, PM 2.5 precursor emissions from Illinois are thoroughly dispersed in the atmosphere long before reaching PA. Furthermore, Illinois is required to control electric generation units (EGU) year-round to meet annual budgets of NO X and SO 2 associated with CSAPR, so the Illinois contribution to long-range transport is already being minimized.

IEPA's submission included a wind rose from the Pittsburgh/Allegheny airport to demonstrate that the dominant wind directions in the monitor area are south through west, with the highest frequency from the south. Local emitting sources located south and west of the monitor were identified by IEPA in this submittal. Some sources include Clairton Coke Works (1.3 miles south) and U.S. Steel Corporation (2.0 miles west). The 2011 emissions totals for all the identified sources were 702 tons/year (TPY) of primary PM 2.5 , 3,075 TPY of NO X , and 1,468 TPY of SO 2 . These large sources of PM 2.5 and precursors of PM 2.5 near the monitor line up with prevailing wind directions in that area, leading IEPA to conclude that these sources largely contribute to the nonattainment issues at the Allegheny monitor.

IEPA's submission evaluated the Illinois emissions data from federal inventories of NO X and SO 2 . Emissions of NO X and SO 2 have been steadily decreasing since the early 2000s due to state and federal control requirements. The emissions of NO X and SO 2 in Illinois from all identified source categories have decreased by 48.5% and 64%, respectively, since 2002. Illinois' implementation of Tier 3 vehicle emission fuel standards will further reduce the on-road emissions going forward.

IEPA concludes that that no further measures are necessary to satisfy Illinois' responsibilities under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because Illinois does not contribute to projected nonattainment or maintenance issues at the Liberty monitor site. Instead, IEPA found that ambient air traveling from westerly and southernly winds and large sources of primary PM 2.5 , NO X , and SO 2 in PA near the Allegheny monitor are more likely contributing to projected nonattainment or maintenance issues at the site.

The modeling information contained in EPA's 2016 memorandum shows that one monitor in Allegheny County, PA (the Liberty monitor, 420030064) may have a maintenance issue in 2017, but is projected to both attain and maintain the NAAQS by 2025. A linear interpolation of the modeled design values to 2021 shows that the monitor is likely to both attain and maintain the standard by 2021. Emissions and air quality data trends help to corroborate this interpolation.

Over the last decade, local and regional emissions reductions of primary PM 2.5 , SO 2 , and NO X , have led to large reductions in annual PM 2.5 design values in Allegheny County, PA. In 2007, all of Allegheny County's PM 2.5 monitors exceeded the level of the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS (the 2005-2007 annual average design values ranged from 12.9-19.8 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3 ), as shown in Table 1). The 2015-2017 annual average PM 2.5 design values now show that only one monitor (Liberty, at 13.0 µg/m 3 ) exceeds the health-based annual PM 2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 µg/m 3 .

The Liberty monitor is already close to attaining the NAAQS and expected emissions reductions in the next three years will lead to additional reductions in measured PM 2.5 concentrations. There are both local and regional components to the measured PM 2.5 levels in Allegheny County and the greater Pittsburgh area. Previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional emissions from upwind states, particularly SO 2 and NO X emissions, contribute to PM 2.5 nonattainment at the Liberty monitor. In recent years, large SO 2 and NO X reductions from power plants have occurred in Pennsylvania and states upwind from the Greater Pittsburgh region. Based on existing CSAPR budgets, Pennsylvania's energy sector emissions of SO 2 will have decreased 166,000 tons between 2015-2017 as a result of CSAPR implementation. This is due to both the installation of emissions controls and retirements of electric generating units.

Between 2011 and 2016, 27.4 gigawatts of coal-fired EGUs have retired in Pennsylvania and the closest upwind states (West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan) according to the Energy Information Administration's Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory, April 2017 (form EIA-860M, at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/xls/april_generator2017.xlsx ). In addition, between 2017 and 2021, an additional 8.8 gigawatts of coal-fired EGUs are expected to retire in the same upwind states. This includes large EGUs such as JM Stuart in Ohio (2,308 megawatts [MW]), Killen Station in Ohio (600 MW), WH Sammis in Ohio (720 MW), Michigan City in Indiana (469 MW), Will County in Illinois (510 MW), Baldwin Energy Complex in Illinois (576 MW), Paradise in Kentucky (1,230 MW), and Baily in Indiana (480 MW). These regional coal unit retirements will lead to further emissions reductions which will help ensure that Alleghany County monitors will not have nonattainment or maintenance issues by 2021.

In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures noted above, additional local reductions in both direct PM 2.5 and SO 2 emissions are also expected to occur and should also contribute to further declines in Allegheny County's PM 2.5 monitor concentrations. For example, significant SO 2 reductions will occur at U.S. Steel's integrated steel mill facilities in southern Allegheny County due to reductions required via federally-enforceable permits issued by Allegheny County to support its attainment plan submitted to meet requirements in CAA Section 172(c) for the 1-hr SO 2 NAAQS. Reductions occurred October 2018 largely due to declining sulfur content in the Clairton Coke Work's coke oven gas (COG) due to upgraded controls. Because this COG is burned at U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke Works, Irvin Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel Mill, these reductions in sulfur content contribute to much lower PM 2.5 formation from precursors in the immediate future after October 4, 2018 as SO 2 is a precursor to PM 2.5 . Additionally, the expected retirement of the Bruce Mansfield Power Plant by June 2021 should reduce precursor emissions from neighboring Beaver County, PA. The Allegheny County and Beaver County SO 2 SIP submissions, which EPA is reviewing pursuant to CAA requirements, also discuss expected lower SO 2 emissions in the Allegheny County area resulting from reduced sulfur content requirements in vehicle fuels, reductions in general emissions due to declining population in the Greater Pittsburgh region, and several shutdowns of significant emitters of SO 2 in Allegheny County.

Projected power plant closures and additional emissions controls in PA and upwind states will help further reduce both direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors. Regional emission reductions will continue to occur from current on-the-books Federal and state regulations such as the Federal on-road and non-road vehicle programs, and various rules for major stationary emissions sources.

EPA modeling projections, the recent downward trend in local and upwind emissions reductions, the expected continued downward trend in emissions between 2018 and 2021, and the downward trend in monitored PM 2.5 concentrations all indicate that the Liberty monitor will attain and be able to maintain the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by 2021.

With respect to Florida, in the CSAPR modeling analysis for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, Florida did not have any potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors identified for the 1997 or 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. At this time, it is anticipated that this trend will continue; however, as there are ambient monitoring data gaps in the 2009-2013 data that could have been used to identify potential PM 2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptors for Miami/Dade, Gilchrist, Broward and Alachua counties in Florida, the modeling analysis of potential receptors was not complete for these counties. However, the most recent ambient data (2015-2017) for these counties indicates design values well below the level of the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. In addition, the highest value for these observed monitors is 8.0 µg/m 3 at the Hillsborough County monitor (12-057-3002), which is well below the NAAQS. This is also consistent with historical data: Complete and valid design values in the 2006-2008, 2007-2009 and/or 2008-2010 periods for these counties were all well below the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. For these reasons, we find that none of the counties in Florida with monitoring gaps between 2009-2013 should be considered either nonattainment or maintenance receptors for the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. For these reasons, we propose to find that emissions from Illinois will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS in Florida.

The conclusions of IEPA's analysis is consistent with EPA's expanded review of its submittal. The area (Allegheny County, PA) to which Illinois' sources potentially contribute is expected to attain and maintain the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, and as demonstrated in IEPA's submittal, Illinois will not contribute to projected nonattainment or maintenance issues at any sites in 2021. IEPA's analysis shows that through permanent and enforceable measures currently contained in its SIP and other emissions reductions occurring in Illinois, monitored PM 2.5 air quality in the identified area that Illinois sources may impact will continue to improve, and that no further measures are necessary to satisfy Illinois' responsibilities under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, EPA is proposing that prongs one and two of the interstate pollution transport element of Illinois' infrastructure SIP are approvable.

EPA is proposing to approve a portion of IEPA's September 29, 2017 submittal certifying that the current Illinois SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set forth above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) in the presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of sources, including on-and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden equipment and paints.

Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur following exposure to elevated levels of ozone, particularly in children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. 1

Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), the EPA promulgates NAAQS for pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The EPA has previously promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979 and 1997. 2 In 2008, the EPA revised and further strengthened the ozone NAAQS by setting the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.075 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period. 3 Although the EPA further tightened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm in 2015, this proposed action relates to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 4

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the country as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS, and the EPA designated all areas in the country for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2012. 5 With respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA classifies nonattainment areas under CAA section 181 and 40 CFR 51.1102 according to the severity of the ozone pollution problem, with classifications ranging from Marginal to Extreme. Attainment deadlines are determined by the nonattainment area's classification in accordance with CAA section 181(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102. Nonattainment area classification also determines, in part, the emissions control requirements for ozone applicable to the area.

Section 181(b)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether areas designated nonattainment for ozone attained the standards by the applicable attainment date. 6 Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P, the 2008 ozone NAAQS is attained at a site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. This 3-year average is referred to as the “design value.” When the design value is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm at each ambient air quality monitoring site within the area, the area is deemed to be attaining the ozone NAAQS.

Because the design value is based on the three most recent calendar years of complete, quality-assured data, an area must attain the standard by the end of the full calendar year prior to the attainment date.

The EPA's determination of attainment is based upon data that have been collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. 7 Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period preceding the attainment date must meet the data completeness requirements in Appendix P. 8 The completeness requirements are met for the 3-year period at a monitoring site if daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations of ozone are available for at least 90 percent of the days within the ozone monitoring season, on average, for the 3-year period, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness.

To make the determination that an area attains the NAAQS, each monitor must have a valid design value meeting the standard. 9 If one or more monitors have a design value that exceeds the standard, the area does not attain the NAAQS.

In the event an area fails to attain the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the EPA to make the determination that the ozone nonattainment area failed to attain the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date, and requires the area to be reclassified by operation of law to the higher of either the next higher classification for the area, or the classification applicable to the area's design value as of the determination of failure to attain.

The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation (“Pechanga Tribe”) is a federally recognized tribe whose reservation (“Pechanga Reservation”) straddles the boundary between western Riverside and northern San Diego counties. The EPA designated the lands of the Pechanga Reservation as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standards on May 21, 2012. At the time of designation, the nonattainment area consisted of the entirety of the Pechanga Reservation. 10

At the time of designation, the Pechanga area was classified as a Moderate nonattainment area. 11 Moderate areas were given a deadline of July 20, 2018, to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As noted above, because the design value is based on the three most recent calendar years of complete, quality-assured data, an area must attain the standard by the end of the full calendar year prior to the attainment date. In this case, to determine whether an area classified as Moderate for the 2008 ozone standards attained the standards by the July 20, 2018 attainment date, we rely on complete, quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data from calendar years 2015, 2016, and 2017.

We are proposing to determine that the Pechanga nonattainment area failed to attain the 2008 ozone standards by the July 20, 2018 attainment date. We are proposing this determination on the basis of complete, quality-assured and certified data for 2015-2017 at the Temecula monitoring site (AQS ID 06-065-0016), which is located approximately 10 miles north of the Pechanga Reservation. 12 The Temecula monitoring site is operated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Pechanga Tribe also operates an ozone monitoring site at the reservation and submits the data that it collects to AQS. However, the 2015-2017 design value from the Pechanga monitoring site is invalid because it does not meet the completeness requirements for the 2008 ozone standard. 13 Therefore, our proposed determination that the Pechanga nonattainment area failed to attain is based on data from the Temecula monitoring site rather than data collected at the Pechanga monitoring site.

The EPA's “Policy for Establishing Separate Air Quality Designations for Areas in Indian Country” (“Tribal Designation Policy”) anticipates the use of data from proximate state regulatory monitors to characterize air quality on tribal lands when air monitoring data are unavailable on the reservation. 14 In a previous rulemaking, the EPA relied on 8-hour ozone data from the Temecula monitor to redesignate the Pechanga nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on our conclusion that the data from the Temecula monitor were representative of ozone concentrations in the Pechanga nonattainment area. 15 This conclusion was based on the following considerations: ozone pollution is regional in nature; the Temecula monitor is located just 10 miles from the Pechanga area; there are no significant topographic barriers between the monitor and the reservation; and available data from the Temecula and Pechanga monitors tracked very closely over the 2012 to 2014 period. 16

The ozone data collected at SCAQMD's Temecula monitoring site is complete and, as discussed above, representative of ozone concentrations at the reservation. The 2017 design value calculated from 2015-2017 data from the Temecula monitor is 0.080 ppm, which exceeds the 2008 ozone standard level of 0.075 ppm. 17

If we finalize the finding of failure to attain as proposed, the effect of this finding would be to reclassify the Pechanga nonattainment area by operation of law to Serious, the next higher classification, as provided under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A)(i). If reclassified, the Pechanga area would be required to attain the standard “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than 9 years after the initial designation as nonattainment, which in this case would be no later than July 20, 2021. After reclassification to Serious, if the area attains the 2008 ozone NAAQS prior to the Serious-area attainment date, the area may seek a clean data determination or a redesignation to attainment.

As noted above, control and permitting requirements for nonattainment areas are determined, in part, by their classification, and a reclassification from Moderate to Serious imposes additional control requirements. Under the CAA and the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR), 18 tribes may, but are not required to, submit implementation plans to the EPA for approval. Under the TAR, the EPA has authority to implement such plan provisions as are necessary or appropriate to protect air quality where tribes do not do so. Accordingly, the EPA implements the tribal major source nonattainment new source review (NSR)  19 and the title V operating permit  20 programs in areas without delegated programs. If this proposed reclassification is finalized, the Pechanga nonattainment area will be subject to the Serious area provisions of the tribal major source nonattainment NSR regulations and title V regulations cited above, but it will not be required to submit an implementation plan to address any part D or title V requirements. The Pechanga area is currently subject to Moderate area major source thresholds of 100 tons per year (tpy) for ozone precursors. If this proposal is finalized, the Pechanga area major source thresholds will be lowered to 50 tpy for ozone precursors. The NSR control requirements for minor sources under the tribal minor NSR regulations will remain the same. 21

The EPA is proposing to determine that the Pechanga nonattainment area failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by its applicable Moderate area attainment date of July 20, 2018, based on complete, quality-assured and certified data from the Temecula monitoring site for years 2015-2017. The effect of this determination, if finalized, will be to reclassify the Pechanga nonattainment area from Moderate to Serious for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is soliciting comments on our proposed action and rationale over the next 30 days.

This proposed action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This proposed action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA. As noted above, under the CAA and TAR, tribes may, but are not required to, submit implementation plans to the EPA for approval to address the more stringent requirements that apply to Serious ozone nonattainment areas relative to Moderate ozone nonattainment areas.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This proposed action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The proposed determination of failure to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS (and resulting reclassification) does not in and of itself create any new requirements beyond what is mandated by the CAA. Instead, this proposed rulemaking only makes factual determinations, and does not directly regulate any entities.

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

This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, tribes, or the relationship between the national government and the states and tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This proposed action has tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. EPA staff have discussed this proposed rule with environmental staff of the Pechanga Tribe. Additionally, an opportunity for formal government-to-government consultation is being extended to Pechanga tribal officials in conjunction with this rulemaking. This outreach and consultation is being conducted according to the “EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes.”  22

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that this proposed action will not have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low income, or indigenous populations. The purpose of this rule is to make the determination whether a certain area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date, which is required by the CAA for purposes of implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As such, this action does not directly affect the level of protection provided for human health or the environment.

EPA Region 9 announces its intent to delete the soil portion of the Beckman Instruments Superfund Site from the NPL and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL in order to identify sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL are eligible for remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Beckman Instruments Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such actions.

EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially delete the Site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register .

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the soil of the Beckman Instruments Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. At the Beckman Instruments Site, contaminants in soil have been cleaned up to levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, and therefore no five-year reviews for the portion of the Site proposed to be deleted are necessary. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

The following procedures apply to deletion of the soil portion of the Site:

(1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion.

(2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it today.

(3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate.

(4) The State of California, through DTSC, has concurred with the deletion of the soil portion of the Beckman Instruments Superfund Site from the NPL.

(5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion in the Federal Register , a notice is being published in a major local newspaper, the Porterville Recorder. The notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.

(6) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond accordingly to the comments before making a final decision to delete the soil portion of the site. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the soil portion of the Beckman Instruments Superfund Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register . Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and included in the site information repositories listed above.

Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the soil portion of the Beckman Instruments Superfund Site from the NPL.

The Site (CERCLIS ID # CAD048645444), which includes the Beckman industrial plant and the surrounding study area, is located near the southern limit of the City of Porterville, California. Porterville is in Tulare County on the eastern edge of California's San Joaquin Valley. Site contamination originated at the plant, physically located at 167 West Poplar Avenue in Porterville. The plant occupies approximately 12 acres, while the overall Site is approximately 160 acres in size and extends to the Tule River to the north, plant property limits to the east, Poplar Ditch to the south, and Newcomb Street to the west. Beckman Instruments, now operating as Beckman Coulter, Inc. (BCI), started manufacturing electronic equipment assemblies and printed circuit boards in Porterville in 1967. Industrial processes used at the plant included electroplating and degreasing. Past processes and materials handling at the Beckman plant were responsible for lead contamination in soils at the Beckman plant. From 1975 until early 1983, waste discharged to an on-site evaporation pond resulted in groundwater becoming contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primarily 1,1-dichloroethene. This contaminated groundwater migrated beyond the boundaries of the plant property. On October 15, 1984, the Site was proposed for NPL listing (49 FR 40320). On June 10, 1986, EPA added the Site to the NPL (51 FR 21054). There is one site-wide Operable Unit which includes both groundwater and soil. The soil is being addressed in this proposed action. A map of the proposed deletion area is in the docket.

The plant property is zoned for industrial and agricultural use. Land use in the surrounding area is residential, commercial, and agricultural. Since the 1990s, plant activities have scaled back. The Beckman plant is now owned and operated by Nypro, a Jabil Company.

EPA completed a remedial investigation and feasibility study in 1989 and concluded that the only contaminant of concern in soil was lead in the operational area. EPA evaluated three soil remedial action alternatives in the Record of Decision (ROD): No action (S-1); excavation and disposal (S-3); and extraction, treatment, and disposal (S-4). Alternative S-1 was deemed not protective of human health and the environment and Alternative S-4 was deemed not cost-effective. EPA selected Alternative S-3, excavation and off-site disposal at an approved facility, for the soil remedy in the September 26, 1989, ROD. A cleanup level of 200 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) lead was selected based on human health risk modeling. The remedial action objective was to prevent direct contact with, and inhalation of, lead-contaminated soil. EPA determined that this remedial action would allow for unrestricted access and use of the plant property. EPA also selected a cleanup remedy for groundwater; the remedy for VOCs in groundwater was extraction, treatment, and discharge of cleaned water. EPA issued a ROD Amendment in 2005 changing the groundwater remedy to monitored natural attenuation.

In March 1990 Beckman conducted the soil remedial action, excavating approximately 18 cubic feet of lead-contaminated soil, which was transported to Kettleman Hills Landfill, a CERCLA-approved facility in Kettleman City, California.

In 2013, EPA issued the Fourth Five-Year Review Report which assessed the protectiveness of the remedy. In this report EPA noted that in 2009 the California residential lead screening level (SL) was revised to 80 mg/kg, based on 1 µg/deciliter benchmark for source-specific incremental change in blood lead levels for children. EPA determined that the 1990 soil cleanup was protective for commercial/industrial use of the property but not residential use. Based on the finding in the Fourth Five-Year Review Report, EPA asked BCI to re-evaluate the post-excavation lead concentrations and determine if the new residential lead screening level of 80 mg/kg had been attained during the 1990 soil excavation.

From 2015 to 2017, BCI, with EPA oversight, conducted several investigations and excavations. Soil samples were collected from the 1990 excavation area and several samples had lead above 80 mg/kg. In 2017 BCI did a more thorough investigation and by October 2017 had excavated approximately 270 additional cubic yards of soil, which were transported to Kettleman Hills Landfill. Confirmation sampling and analysis indicated that 50 samples were below the California residential screening level of 80 mg/kg and four samples were just above this concentration. The average concentration of the remaining soil is well below 80 mg/kg; a statistical analysis for the remaining soil calculated a conservative estimate of a mean concentration of 24 mg/kg. EPA determined that the Site soil had been cleaned to a level that allows for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

Because the soil is now clean enough to allow for any future use, no maintenance and monitoring of the soils remedy is required and no institutional controls are needed to restrict future property use.

EPA conducts reviews every five years to determine if remedies are functioning as intended and if they continue to be protective of human health and the environment. EPA issued the Fifth Five-Year Review Report on August 23, 2018, and concluded that the soil remediation is complete and the remedy at the Beckman Instruments Site is protective of human health and the environment. There were no issues or recommendations. The next five-year review, scheduled for 2023, will evaluate the groundwater remedy only.

EPA prepared a Community Involvement Plan in 1987 and updated it in 1994.

EPA held numerous community meetings before and during the Site cleanup and issued fact sheets, most of which focused on groundwater. EPA released two Proposed Plans, one for the ROD and one for the ROD Amendment. EPA released a fact sheet shortly before publication of this Notice informing the community of the proposal to delete the soil portion of the Site from the NPL and how to submit comments.

EPA has followed all procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e), Deletion from the NPL. EPA consulted with the State of California prior to developing this Notice. EPA determined that the responsible party has implemented all appropriate response actions required and that no further response action for the soil portion of the Site is appropriate. EPA is publishing a notice in a major local newspaper, The Porterville Recorder, of its intent to partially delete the Site and how to submit comments. EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial deletion in the Site information repositories; these documents are available for public inspection and copying.

The implemented soil remedy achieved the degree of cleanup and protection specified in the ROD for the soil portion of the Site. The selected remedial action objectives and associated cleanup levels for the soil are consistent with agency policy and guidance. Based on information currently available to EPA, no further Superfund response in the area proposed for deletion is needed to protect human health and the environment.

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket Nos. 19-2 and 13-184; FCC 19-5, adopted on January 29, 2019 and released on January 31, 2019. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554 or at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-5A1.pdf.

1. Schools and libraries rely on the Commission's E-Rate program to ensure that they can receive affordable, high-speed broadband so they can connect today's students with next-generation learning opportunities. A Commission decision in 2000 limited E-Rate's use for this purpose by requiring schools and libraries to amortize over three years upfront, non-recurring category one charges of $500,000 or more, which includes charges for special construction projects. This amortization requirement increased costs for E-Rate supported builds and created uncertainty for applicants about the availability of E-Rate funding for the second and third years of the amortization cycle. In 2014, the Commission suspended the requirement through funding year 2018 in order to lower these barriers to broadband infrastructure investment. Our experience over the past few years suggests that allowing the amortization requirement to be restored would decrease broadband investment while increasing administrative burdens, and that eliminating the requirement would not create a drain on E-Rate funding. Therefore, the Commission now proposes to eliminate the amortization requirement. Through these measures, the Commission seeks to further its goals of closing the digital divide by facilitating and promoting increased broadband infrastructure deployment to our nation's schools and libraries.

2. To promote the buildout and deployment of high-speed networks and connections on a permanent basis to unserved and underserved schools and libraries, including those in rural areas, the Commission proposes to eliminate the amortization requirement for non-recurring category one funding requests over $500,000, including for special construction, from the E-Rate program. As discussed below, our experience indicates that the suspension of the amortization requirement has encouraged the deployment of high-speed, low-cost broadband networks by eliminating administrative barriers and making E-Rate funding more predictable.

3. Based on the information before us, it appears that suspending the amortization requirement has: (1) Decreased administrative burdens associated with applying for E-Rate support; (2) allowed applicants and service providers to receive disbursements for the full E-Rate supported portion of projects sooner; and (3) reduced uncertainty regarding the availability of funding. Under the suspension, rather than filing funding requests in each year of the amortization cycle, applicants have had to file only a single funding request to receive E-Rate support for a project, thereby reducing the administrative effort and costs associated with filing funding requests. Moreover, during the suspension, service providers have recouped their buildout costs in one funding year rather than over the three-year amortization cycle, which, in turn, has likely made special construction a more attractive option for service providers. Additionally, applicants have enjoyed more certainty about funding for their special construction projects, receiving commitments for projects upfront, rather than in a piecemeal fashion over three years. As a result, the suspension of the amortization requirement has provided applicants and service providers with increased certainty and predictability that E-Rate funding will be available for large, special construction funding requests, which has likely incentivized efficient investment in infrastructure, including the deployment of fiber.

4. The Commission invites comment on, and evidence regarding, whether the amortization suspension has encouraged the deployment of high-speed, low-cost connections. The Commission also seeks comment on the effect of the amortization suspension on applicants and on USF expenditures. Has permitting service providers to recoup costs up front allowed applicants and the USF to pay less over time because service providers have not otherwise recouped capital costs over time through higher recurring charges? Would permanently eliminating the amortization requirement allow applicants and the USF to pay less over time for the same reason?

5. If the amortization requirement were to be restored, the Commission expects that the increased administrative burden, delayed funding commitments for special construction projects due to the three-year amortization cycle, and uncertainty around receiving funding commitments in the second and third years of the cycle would deter applicants from seeking funding for special construction. The Commission seeks comment on this view. The Commission also seeks comment on the effect of restoring the amortization requirement on applicants and on USF expenditures. Would applicants, particularly those in underserved and rural areas, be discouraged from requesting funding for special construction if the amortization requirement were to be restored? Would these applicants simply not request funding for any services at all? Would they be forced to seek funding for more costly service options, such as funding for services provided over more expensive legacy networks, thereby resulting in an increase in USF expenditures? Or would they still seek special construction funding for new networks, but with all buildout costs rolled into monthly recurring charges? What effect would this have on USF expenditures in the long term? Specifically, would rolling buildout charges into higher monthly recurring charges ultimately cause applicants and the USF to pay more over time? Does paying buildout charges upfront increase USF expenditures in the short term but decrease USF expenditures in the long term because it reduces monthly recurring charges? The Commission also seeks comment on whether an amortization requirement would conflict with the economic realities of special construction projects. Would requiring service providers to wait several years to recover their investments for high sunk cost, low marginal cost undertakings such as special construction make them less likely to build out to unserved areas? If applicants were forced to amortize certain special construction projects, would service providers have to seek financing for part of the project, and would that increase the overall cost of the project?

6. Further, over the four funding years of the suspension, it appears the concern that one-time charges would create a drain on the Fund has not materialized. To the contrary, funding requests from funding years 2015 through 2017 that would have been amortized if the requirement had been in place represented less than 5% of all E-Rate funding commitments during that period. Going forward, the Commission does not expect that allowing all funding associated with a special construction project to be paid out in one funding year, rather than over the course of three funding years, would divert funding from other services, as demand for E-Rate funding was typically under the cap from funding years 2015 through 2018, and there is no indication that there will be a significant increase in demand for future funding years.

7. Are commenters nevertheless concerned that large special construction funding requests could deplete all E-Rate funds available under the cap and leave insufficient funding available for category two services? If so, the Commission seeks data to support commenters' concerns. And to the extent that commenters believe that large special construction funding requests could create a drain on E-Rate funding, how would requiring amortization of such requests alleviate this concern? In particular, even if demand were to approach the E-Rate funding cap, the Commission does not believe that requiring amortization for large, upfront category one funding requests would necessarily alleviate this problem because requiring amortization would not reduce the amount of funding requested—it would simply spread out the amount of funding provided over a minimum of three years. While this approach could mitigate the impact of a one-year surge in demand for special construction, it would not mitigate problems that a consistent increase in demand would create. Are there better ways to mitigate any drain on E-Rate funding caused by large, upfront requests for category one funding other than requiring amortization?

8. To the extent that commenters disagree with our proposal to permanently eliminate the amortization requirement, they should explain why and provide supporting data. What are the benefits, if any, of reinstating the amortization requirement for funding year 2020 and beyond, and how do those benefits outweigh the costs of the amortization requirement? Are there problems that resulted from the amortization suspension that the Commission has not identified?

9. Paperwork Reduction Act. The NPRM may result in revised information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any revised information collection requirement, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

10. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

11. The Commission is required by Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to promulgate rules to implement the universal service provisions of Section 254. On May 8, 1997, the Commission adopted rules to reform its system of universal service support mechanisms so that universal service is preserved and advanced as markets move toward competition. Specifically, under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism, also known as the E-Rate program, eligible schools, libraries, and consortia that include eligible schools and libraries may receive discounts for eligible telecommunications services, internet access, and internal connections.

12. The rule the Commission proposes in this NPRM is directed at streamlining the administration of the E-Rate program for applicants, service providers, and the Universal Service Administrative Company. The rule that the Commission proposes would eliminate burdens associated with requesting funding for special construction.

13. The legal basis for the NPRM is contained in sections 1 through 4, 201-205, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 201 through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403.

14. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

15. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes here, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8 million businesses.

16. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

17. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the local government category show that the majority of these governments have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data the Commission estimates that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

18. The proposal under consideration in the NPRM may, if adopted, result in recordkeeping requirements for both large and small entities, but they should be equal to or less than existing requirements.

19. Eliminating Amortization Requirement. The Commission proposes to permanently eliminate the amortization requirement from the E-Rate program to provide applicants and service providers with increased certainty that E-Rate funding will be available for large, special construction funding requests, thereby likely incentivizing efficient investment in infrastructure, including deployment of fiber. The Commission seeks comment on whether eliminating the amortization requirement would increase administrative burdens for small entities.

20. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”

21. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on a reform to the E-Rate program. The Commission seeks to streamline the program rules and administration for applicants and service providers planning their E-Rate participation in future funding years. The Commission recognizes that its proposed rule would impact small entities. The rule the Commission proposes would lessen reporting burdens on small entities.

22. Eliminating amortization requirement. By eliminating the amortization requirement, applicants may file a single application for a special construction project, rather than multiple applications over multiple years for the same special construction project.

23. Compliance burdens. Implementing our proposed rule would impose some burden on small entities by requiring them to become familiar with the new rule to comply with it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

26. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1 through 4, 201-205, 254, 303(r) and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 201 through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403, and § 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.3, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted .

This is a summary of the Commission's DA 19-25, adopted and released on January 29, 2019. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

On December 13, 2018, the Media Bureau released a PN ( December PN ) seeking comment on the proposal that was submitted by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and NCTA—The internet and Television Association (NCTA) on December 7, 2018 in docket number 17-317 ( Joint Proposal, available online at https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1207161565486/Ex%20Parte%20Carriage%20Elections%20Notice%20%20NCTA-NAB%2012-7-18.pdf ). 1 The Joint Proposal responds to the Electronic Delivery of MVPD Subscriber Notification Rules Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ) that sought comment, in part, on updating the requirement that broadcast televisions stations send carriage election notices via certified mail. In response to the NPRM, several parties proposed ways to reduce the burden and costs involved in the carriage election process.

Currently, sections 76.64(h) and 76.66(d) of our rules direct each television broadcast station to provide notice every three years, via certified mail, to each cable system or Direct Broadcast Satellite carrier serving its market regarding whether it is electing to demand carriage (“must carry” or “mandatory carriage”), or to withhold carriage pending negotiation (“retransmission consent”). The NPRM sought comment on revising this requirement to permit broadcast stations to use alternative means of notice.

Under the Joint Proposal,

The comment and reply deadlines established by the December PN, as well as the planned publication of that PN, fell during a lapse in funding. By operation of the General Counsel's January 28, 2019 Public Notice, the deadlines for both would have been extended to the same day—January 30, 2019. 2 In light of these unique circumstances, the Media Bureau, on its own motion, further extends the deadlines. We will publish this PN in the Federal Register and announce the final comment dates once they are established.

We invite the public to comment on the recommended approach in the Joint Proposal. In particular, we seek comment on whether, and to what extent, the Commission should adopt these recommendations or any alternative modifications to the carriage election rules. The Commission will consider the Joint Proposal and the comments filed in response to this PN together with the comments and ex partes previously filed in response to the NPRM in determining what action to take in this proceeding.

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

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

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

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

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

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

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

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

Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).