Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Notices 38201 

1 §§ 24321–22, Public Law 114–94. 

2 80 FR 78521, December 16, 2015. 

3The comments are available in Docket No. 

NHTSA–2015–0119 at www.regulations.gov. 

4The transcripts are available in Docket No. 

NHTSA–2015–0119 at www.regulations.gov. 

Nevada, Reno campus. The purpose of 

the project is to increase transit 

ridership and connectivity, enhance 

pedestrian safety, and improve 

accessibility to transit in the Virginia 

Street corridor. The project includes 

building five new RAPID stations and 

replacing three bus shelters with full 

RAPID stations; acquiring right-of-way; 

and creating exclusive bus lanes, traffic 

signal priority at five intersections, offboard fare collection, level boarding, 

and real-time bus arrival information at 

stations. The project also includes 

purchasing two electric buses, 

constructing two roundabouts at 

intersections to improve bus turning 

movements and enhance traffic 

operations and safety, and improving 

sidewalk and cross walk infrastructure 

to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle 

network and visibility in the corridor. 

Finally, the project includes parking 

and access management, utility 

relocations and drainage improvements. 

The project was the subject of the 

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit 

Extension Project Environmental 

Assessment, dated June 2018. 

Final agency actions: Section 4(f) 

determination, dated June 12, 2018; 

Section 106 of the NHPA finding of No 

Adverse Effect, dated March 17, 2017; 

project-level air quality conformity; and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI), dated June 15, 2018. 

Supporting documentation: The 

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit 

Extension Project Environmental 

Assessment in Washoe County, Nevada, 

dated June 2018. 

Elizabeth S. Riklin, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Planning 

and Environment. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16682 Filed 8–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0055] 

New Car Assessment Program 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NHTSA’s New Car 

Assessment Program (NCAP) provides 

comparative information on the safety of 

new vehicles to assist consumers with 

vehicle purchasing decisions. 

Significant changes to NCAP have been 

either suggested by NHTSA or 

mandated by Congress in recent years. 

In December 2015, Congress mandated 

that NHTSA conduct a rulemaking 

requiring that crash avoidance 

information be placed on the Monroney 

label of new vehicles. Later that same 

month, NHTSA published a ‘‘request for 

comments’’ (RFC) in which it sought 

public comments on planned changes to 

NCAP. This notice announces a public 

meeting to obtain up-to-date stakeholder 

input on the way forward for NCAP. 

DATES: NHTSA will hold the public 

meeting on September 14, 2018, from 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. 

Check-in will begin at 8 a.m. Attendees 

should arrive by 8 a.m. to allow 

sufficient time for security clearance. In 

addition to this meeting, the public will 

have the opportunity to submit written 

comments to the docket for this notice 

concerning matters addressed in this 

notice. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at DOT Headquarters, located at 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001 (Green 

Line Metro station at Navy Yard) in the 

Oklahoma City Conference Room. This 

facility is accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You 

may contact Ms. Jennifer N. Dang, 

Division Chief, New Car Assessment 

Program, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards (Telephone: 202–366–1810). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

This notice announces the holding of 

a public meeting on September 14, 

2018, to obtain up-to-date stakeholder 

input for use in planning the future of 

NCAP. The impetus for this meeting 

comes from developments relating to 

two events in December 2015. On 

December 4, 2015, the Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation (FAST) 1 Act 

was signed into law, which includes a 

mandate that NHTSA conduct a 

rulemaking to require the incorporation 

of crash avoidance information on the 

vehicle price stickers (also known as the 

Monroney labels) placed on the 

windows of new vehicles. On December 

16, 2015, NHTSA announced in a 

Federal Register ‘‘request for 

comments’’ (RFC) 2 its plan to add new 

tools and techniques to NCAP. 

NHTSA received nearly 300 sets of 

written comments on its December 2015 

RFC.3 The commenters included vehicle 

manufacturers, automotive suppliers, 

associations of vehicle manufacturers 

and suppliers, consumer advocacy 

groups, universities, and other 

individuals and organizations interested 

in vehicle safety. NHTSA also received 

oral comments at two public hearings, 

the first in Detroit, Michigan on January 

14, 2016, and the second at DOT 

Headquarters in Washington, DC on 

January 29, 2016.4

Commenters across the spectrum 

raised a number of issues involving both 

data and procedures. Commenters stated 

the public comment period was 

inadequate for purposes of responding 

because of the complexity of the 

program upgrade, and that the technical 

information supporting the RFC was not 

sufficient to allow a full understanding 

of the contemplated changes. According 

to the commenters, this hindered their 

ability to prepare substantive public 

comments. 

In addition, most vehicle 

manufacturers stated that the significant 

cost burden due to fitment of the 

contemplated new technologies and the 

inclusion of a new crash test and new 

test devices would increase the price of 

new vehicles. Manufacturers, along with 

safety advocates, also expressed the 

need for data demonstrating that each 

proposed program change would 

provide enough safety benefits to 

warrant its inclusion in NCAP. Safety 

and consumer advocates recommended 

that NCAP award credit only if the 

technologies meet certain human 

machine interface requirements. In 

addition, several commenters suggested 

that NHTSA develop near-term and 

long-term roadmaps for NCAP and 

revise NCAP in a more gradual, 

‘‘phased’’ approach. 

Furthermore, commenters suggested 

that most of the planned NCAP 

upgrades, including the new rating 

system, should only be adopted through 

a process similar in rigor to that of a 

notice and comment rulemaking 

conducted under the Administrative 

Procedure Act. Lastly, certain vehicle 

manufacturers were concerned that 

changing future vehicle designs in order 

to respond to a NCAP upgrade would 

have an adverse effect on compliance 

with fuel economy and greenhouse gas 

emissions requirements. 

In light of the public comments and 

NHTSA’s FAST Act mandate, NHTSA is 

requesting oral and written comments 

from the public to help guide the 

Agency in planning its next steps for 

NCAP. The Agency continues to believe 

that NCAP needs to be modernized to 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
38202 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Notices 

incentivize the voluntary adoption of 

safety features. As part of that effort, the 

Agency is continuing to explore best 

methods for selecting and incorporating 

crash avoidance information on the 

vehicle price stickers. 

NHTSA is considering various 

approaches to enhancing NCAP so that 

the program continues to serve the 

American public by providing useful, 

practical comparative vehicle safety 

information. For example, NHTSA 

could consider modifying the way 

NCAP provides meaningful consumer 

information about the safety potential of 

advanced crash avoidance technologies. 

Another strategy is to package 

information now available through 

NCAP in new ways, if they will be 

particularly effective in communicating 

vehicle safety information to targeted 

groups of new vehicle customers. Other 

NCAP enhancements on which the 

Agency seeks comment include 

strengthening the existing program’s 

testing protocols and possibly creating 

safety ratings for areas of vehicle 

performance that are not currently rated. 

From its inception, NCAP has played 

a significant role in educating 

consumers on vehicle safety as a key 

factor in their vehicle purchasing 

decisions. The increasing number of 

advanced crash avoidance technologies 

and Automated Driving Assistance 

Systems in vehicles underscores the 

importance of NCAP’s role in educating 

consumers about vehicle safety. NCAP 

plays a vital role in ensuring that the 

potential benefits of advanced crash 

avoidance technologies are effectively 

communicated to the public. For 

example, NCAP could help standardize 

nomenclature of crash avoidance 

technologies by providing detailed 

descriptions of performance criteria that 

a technology must satisfy before being 

incorporated into NCAP testing. 

NHTSA continues to gather 

information and conduct research 

relative to the areas discussed in the 

December 2015 RFC. Additionally, 

NHTSA is working to leverage the 

existing NCAP program to, among other 

things, improve the information it 

provides consumers, thereby increasing 

their awareness and understanding of 

certain safety improvements and 

enabling them to make better informed 

purchasing decisions. The Agency 

believes that a more thorough 

examination of which updates to NCAP 

are sufficiently supported by data and 

useful to consumers will ultimately lead 

to a better program that increases safety 

without unnecessarily increasing 

vehicle costs or impeding innovation. 

II. Public Meeting Details 

Registration: Registration is necessary 

for all attendees, due to limited space. 

Attendees must register online at 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ 

NCAP-Public-Meeting by September 7, 

2018. Please provide your name, email 

address, and affiliation. Also, indicate 

whether you plan to participate actively 

in the meeting (speaking will be limited 

to 10 minutes per speaker for each of the 

four agenda topics, unless the number of 

registered speakers is such that more 

time per agenda topic will be available), 

and whether you require 

accommodations, such as a sign 

language interpreter. 

Written Comments: Docket NHTSA– 

2018–0055 is available for written 

statements and supporting information 

regarding matters addressed in this 

notice. All interested persons, regardless 

of whether they attend or speak at the 

public meeting, are invited to submit 

written comments to the docket and are 

encouraged to do so. The formal docket 

comment period will close on [60 days 

from the publication date of this 

announcement], but NHTSA will 

continue to accept comments to the 

docket by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal Holidays. 

• Fax: 202–366–1767. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the Agency name and docket 

number. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to https://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided. Please see the Privacy Act 

discussion below. 

Docket: For access to the docket go to 

https://www.regulations.gov at any time 

or to 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, Washington, DC 20590–0001, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. Telephone: 202–366–9826. 

Privacy Act: DOT posts all comments, 

without edit, to https://

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice, DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS, accessible through 

www.transportation.gov/privacy. In 

order to facilitate comment tracking and 

response, we encourage commenters to 

provide their name, or the name of their 

organization; however, submission of 

names is completely optional. Whether 

or not commenters identify themselves, 

all timely comments will be fully 

considered. 

Confidential Business Information: If 

you wish to submit any written 

information under a claim of 

confidentiality, you should submit three 

copies of your complete written 

submission, including the information 

you claim to be confidential business 

information to the Chief Counsel, 

NHTSA, at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. In 

addition, you should submit two copies, 

from which you have deleted the 

claimed confidential business 

information, to Docket Management at 

the address given above. When you send 

a comment containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should submit a cover 

letter setting forth the information 

specified in our confidential business 

information regulation (49 CFR part 

512). 

The public meeting is structured to be 

a listening session in which NHTSA 

considers recommendations from the 

public on how best to improve NCAP. 

The list of questions below is not 

intended to limit the discussion or ideas 

to be presented at the listening session. 

It reflects areas in which NHTSA is 

requesting feedback relative to the next 

steps that could be taken with NCAP. 

NHTSA hopes these questions stimulate 

the thinking of those who plan to speak 

in the public meeting and/or submit 

written comments. Commenters may 

wish to use these questions to help 

organize and present their thoughts and 

ideas. Suggestions about other 

approaches to improving NCAP that are 

not reflected in these questions are 

encouraged as well. 

Specific Guiding Questions: To help 

guide NHTSA gather information and 

feedback for use in planning the future 

of NCAP, the Agency seeks comments 

on the four topics below. NHTSA urges 

that, where possible, comments be 

supported by data and analysis to 

increase their usefulness. Please clearly 

indicate the source of such data. 

A. Consumer Information 

(1) NCAP strives to provide 

consumers with meaningful, 

comparative safety information that will 

assist them in making informed vehicle 

purchasing decisions. What changes 

could NHTSA make to the program that 

would better assist consumers in 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Notices 38203 

5NHTSA’s program can be viewed at https://

www.nhtsa.gov/ratings. 

6Euro NCAP’s program can be viewed at https:// 

www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/. 

7The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s 

program can be viewed at http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ 

ratings. 

8https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/16472/euroncap-2020-roadmap-rev1-march-2015.pdf. 

9https://www.euroncap.com/en/press-media/ 

press-releases/euro-ncap-launches-road-map-2025- 

in-pursuit-of-vision-zero/. 

10 §§ 24321–22, Public Law 114–94. 

11 78 FR 20599 (April 5, 2013). 

12Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) 

are systems developed to automate/enhance vehicle 

systems for safety and for better driving. For 

example, the vehicle can help the human driver 

steer and/or brake, though the human driver must 

pay full attention at all times and perform the rest 

of the driving task. 

understanding the relative safety of 

vehicles? 

(2) NHTSA currently provides crash 

safety ratings on its website, on vehicle 

window stickers, on its mobile 

application, in communication 

materials, and through distribution (i.e., 

to the automotive online community). 

What additional ways can the safety 

information generated by NCAP be most 

effectively communicated to today’s 

consumers? 

(3) What additional website 

functionality should NHTSA consider 

when presenting NCAP safety 

information to the public (e.g., ranking 

based on performance, grouping based 

on vehicle class, comparing vehicles 

within a class, custom filtering, options 

to view all vehicles at once, interactive 

charts and graphics)? 

(4) What types of safety information, 

or methods of presenting safety 

information, should NHTSA’s NCAP 5

consider from other NCAPs 6 or 

consumer-focused organizations to 

provide more meaningful information to 

consumers? How can NCAP better 

complement other U.S. consumer rating 

programs, such as that of the Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)? 7

(5) In addition to safety ratings, what 

other safety information would be 

useful to prominently present on 

NHTSA’s website, mobile application, 

and other venues to new vehicle buyers? 

How much benefit would there be in 

highlighting specific information to 

certain new vehicle buying 

demographics (e.g., older drivers, teen 

drivers, family vehicles, urban/rural 

drivers, budget-conscious)? What types 

of objective criteria should NHTSA 

consider for this? 

(6) Many new vehicles are equipped 

with pedestrian crash avoidance 

features. What value do vehicle buyers 

place on pedestrian crash avoidance 

features when selecting a new vehicle to 

purchase? Should NCAP consider 

pedestrian crash avoidance features 

when making program changes, and if 

so, how could a pedestrian component 

best be incorporated (e.g., as part of a 

rating, or as a separate assessment)? 

(7) The field of vehicle safety is more 

dynamic now than ever before because 

of technological advances. Today’s 

vehicles undergo more frequent design 

changes; advanced crash avoidance 

technologies are being introduced at a 

rapid rate; and, software updates to 

safety systems can be made over-the-air, 

improving their existing abilities and 

even giving them new abilities. Given 

the accelerating pace of such 

advancements, should NCAP consider 

alternative ways of collecting test data 

and safety information (such as through 

self-certification or some other means) 

and how can NCAP collect data/ 

information from vehicle manufacturers 

so that it can continue to convey 

accurate information to consumers in a 

timely manner (such as via an 

interactive database)? 

(8) Other NCAPs have produced longterm roadmaps for their programs. Euro 

NCAP published program roadmaps to 

2020 8 and 2025.9 What value would 

NHTSA, vehicle manufacturers, 

suppliers, and the public obtain by 

developing near-term and long-term 

roadmaps for U.S. NCAP? 

B. Rating System 

(9) What types of ratings are most 

useful to vehicle manufacturers for 

communicating safety information to 

consumers? Are star ratings still the best 

way to promote meaningful safety 

information? Are there alternatives that 

should be considered (e.g., awards, 

numerical or percentage rankings, 

performance classifications (good vs. 

poor), half stars)? What are the 

advantages and disadvantages of these 

approaches? 

(10) For a single, overall rating system 

covering many areas of safety (such as 

a 5-star rating), how can NHTSA 

apportion the testing and criteria to 

ensure that individual aspects of the 

rating will be properly weighted and 

balanced? What other strategies (e.g., 

half stars, demerits, modifiers) should 

NHTSA consider for a single, overall 

rating system? 

C. Crash Avoidance 

(11) The FAST Act requires that crash 

avoidance information be presented 

next to crashworthiness information on 

the Monroney label.10 (Implementation 

of this requirement will be the subject 

of a separate notice and comment 

proceeding). What approach should 

NHTSA consider in fulfilling this 

requirement that will be most helpful to 

consumers? Should NHTSA consider a 

rating (i.e., stars), a list of technologies, 

an award, or another approach? What 

strategy can offer flexibility if new 

changes to the crash avoidance 

information is warranted? 

(12) How can future crash avoidance 

aspects of NCAP complement other 

vehicle safety consumer information 

programs in the U.S.? 

(13) Consumers are currently 

presented with a variety of advanced 

technology features on different vehicle 

models. Some are for convenience and 

some are designed for safety. Currently, 

a new advanced technology must meet 

four prerequisites to be added to NCAP. 

These include: (1) There is a known 

safety need, (2) vehicle and equipment 

designs that mitigate the safety need 

exist, or are available as a prototype, (3) 

a safety benefit can be estimated based 

on the anticipated performance of the 

existing or prototype design, and (4) a 

performance-based, objective test 

procedure can be developed to measure 

the ability of the technology to mitigate 

the safety issue.11 How can NHTSA 

improve upon these strategies when 

determining which advanced 

technology features are appropriate for 

inclusion in NCAP? Should NHTSA 

also consider other factors (e.g., 

effectiveness, fleet penetration, path to 

automation, consumer acceptance, 

cost)? 

(14) NHTSA has been engaging the 

public on ways to safely integrate 

Automated Driving Systems on our 

nation’s roads. What should NCAP’s 

role be in supporting the safe integration 

of Advanced Driver Assistance 

Systems 12 that may lay the groundwork 

for Automated Driving Systems? Which 

crash avoidance elements, or aspects of 

automation, should NHTSA include in 

NCAP, and how could these be best 

evaluated (e.g., by assessing the 

performance of a specific technology or 

the crash avoidance system during a 

crash event)? 

(15) How should NHTSA’s assessment 

of crash avoidance technology be 

combined with crashworthiness? If they 

are communicated in the same way, 

should there be an overall measure, or 

separate measures for crashworthiness 

and crash avoidance? If separate 

measures are preferred, should the 

measures be of the same type (e.g., only 

ratings or only awards, etc.), or should 

the measures be a combination of 

different types (e.g., ratings and awards, 

etc.)? Are there other strategies NHTSA 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
38204 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Notices 

13 78 FR 20603. 

1On March 23, 2018, the OCC published a 60-Day 

notice for this information collection. The 

comments can be viewed on www.reginfo.gov. 

Please follow the instructions listed in this notice 

to view them. 

should consider, and what are their 

advantages and disadvantages? 

(16) Currently, many crash avoidance 

technologies are sold as optional 

equipment on vehicles, and a variety of 

different advanced technology features 

may be available on different trim 

levels. How can NCAP best 

communicate whether crash avoidance 

technologies are standard vs. optional 

on a vehicle model or trim level to 

ensure consumers are given accurate 

information on the safety of the vehicle 

they are purchasing? How should 

equipment availability affect the ratings 

of vehicles? What metric should NHTSA 

use to determine when it is appropriate 

to remove an advanced technology from 

NCAP (e.g., replace a technology once it 

reaches a high level of fleet penetration 

and replace it with a technology with a 

low level of penetration)? 

D. Crashworthiness 

(17) What are the opportunities for 

crashworthiness safety improvement? 

How should NHTSA approach 

consideration of new tests, test 

protocols or test devices, new injury 

criteria, risk curves, or additional 

occupants to be more reflective of realworld crashes? Could meaningful 

changes to injury criteria and risk 

curves be made to the current crash test 

dummies in the existing test 

configurations? 

(18) Should NHTSA expand 

assessments beyond frontal and side 

crash testing? If so, how? For example, 

should NHTSA consider inclusion of 

other strategies, such as credit for 

enhanced seat belt reminders, or other 

technologies? 

(19) How can the crashworthiness 

aspects of NCAP complement other 

vehicle safety consumer information 

programs in the U.S.? For example, are 

the crash modes, crash test dummies 

and injury criteria used in NCAP 

complementary to those used by the 

IIHS? Do they strike the right balance for 

the frontal and side impact crash 

configurations? 

(20) Most new vehicles rated by 

NCAP are currently receiving 4- or 5- 

star ratings. These star ratings are based 

on how a vehicle’s risk of injury 

reflected in NCAP tests compares to a 

baseline injury risk for all crash types 

that was derived from NHTSA crash 

data for MY 2007 and 2008 vehicles. In 

its July 11, 2008, Federal Register notice 

announcing enhancements to NCAP, 

NHTSA indicated that it would 

periodically review the crash 

performance of the vehicle fleet, as 

reflected by then-current NCAP test 

data.13 However, NHTSA has not 

conducted any formal reviews or 

baseline risk adjustments to date. 

Should NHTSA now consider adjusting 

the baseline risks used in the ratings 

calculations to reflect the crash test data 

from today’s vehicles? Or, would there 

be a better approach to update the 

crashworthiness program to better 

differentiate performance among the 

vehicle fleet (e.g., new tests, dummies, 

injury criteria, etc.)? 

(21) How frequently should NCAP 

change crashworthiness test 

requirements and/or update rating 

requirements to stay relevant with each 

new model year vehicle fleet? What 

effect would year-to-year changes have 

on (a) the credibility and 

understandability of information 

provided to consumers and (b) the 

manufacturers? 

E. Meeting Agenda 

8–9 a.m. Arrival/Check-in through 

security 

9–9:10 a.m. Welcome remarks from 

NHTSA 

9:10–11:10 a.m. Speakers on consumer 

information 

11:10 a.m.–12:10 p.m. Speakers on 

rating system 

12:10–1:15 p.m. Lunch (not provided) 

1:15–3:15 p.m. Speakers on crash 

avoidance 

3:15–4:15 p.m. Speakers on 

crashworthiness 

4:15–4:50 p.m. Speakers on other 

topics 

4:50–5 p.m. Closing remarks from 

NHTSA 

Under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95 and 501.5. 

Issued in Washington, DC on: July 27, 

2018. 

Heidi R. King, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16653 Filed 8–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Information Collection 

Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; 

Appraisal Management Companies 

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency (OCC), Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The OCC, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

and respondent burden, invites the 

general public and other Federal 

agencies to take this opportunity to 

comment on a continuing information 

collection as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In 

accordance with the requirements of the 

PRA, the OCC 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 OCC is soliciting comment 

concerning the renewal of its 

information collection titled, ‘‘Appraisal 

Management Companies.’’ The OCC also 

is giving notice that it has sent the 

collection to OMB for review. 

DATES: You should submit written 

comments by September 4, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Commenters are encouraged 

to submit comments by email, if 

possible. You may submit comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Email: prainfo@occ.treas.gov. 

• Mail: Legislative and Regulatory 

Activities Division, Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 

1557–0324, 400 7th Street SW, suite 3E– 

218, Washington, DC 20219. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: 400 7th 

Street, SW, suite 3E–218, Washington, 

DC 20219. 

• Fax: (571) 465–4326. 

Instructions: You must include 

‘‘OCC’’ as the agency name and ‘‘1557– 

0324’’ in your comment. In general, the 

OCC will publish them on 

www.reginfo.gov without change, 

including any business or personal 

information that you provide, such as 

name and address information, email 

addresses, or phone numbers. 

Comments received, including 

attachments and other supporting 

materials, are part of the public record 

and subject to public disclosure. Do not 

include any information in your 

comment or supporting materials that 

you consider confidential or 

inappropriate for public disclosure. 

Additionally, please send a copy of 

your comments by mail to: OCC Desk 

Officer, 1557–0324, U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street NW, #10235, Washington, DC 

20503 or by email to oira_submission@

omb.eop.gov. 

You may review comments and other 

related materials that pertain to this 

information collection 1 following the 

close of the 30-Day comment period for 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1