```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42603-42607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18151]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 11

[EB Docket No. 04-296, PS Docket No. 15-94; FCC 18-102]

Review of the Emergency Alert System

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Petition for partial reconsideration; final decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC 
or Commission) partially denies and partially grants a petition for 
partial reconsideration of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) 
requirements for certain Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) satellite 
operators jointly filed by PanAmSat Corporation, SES Americom, Inc., 
and Intelsat, Ltd.

DATES: Effective September 24, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Cooke, Deputy Chief, Policy 
and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at 
(202) 418-7452, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
on Reconsideration (Order) in EB Docket No. 04-296 and PS Docket No. 
15-94, FCC 18-102, adopted on July 23, 2018, and released on July 24, 
2018. The full text of this document is available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 
CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may 
also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis

    1. In the Order, the Commission partially denies and partially 
grants the petition for partial reconsideration (Petition) of the EAS 
requirements for FSS satellite operators jointly filed by PanAmSat 
Corporation, SES Americom, Inc., and Intelsat, Ltd. (Petitioners). 
Specifically, the Commission denies Petitioners' request to shift the 
EAS obligations adopted for Ku band FSS licensees to the video 
programming distributors that lease transponder capacity from such 
licensees. The Commission also denies Petitioners' alternative request 
to not apply the FSS EAS rules to FSS satellite operations subject to 
satellite capacity lease agreements already in place when the FSS EAS 
requirements became effective. The Commission does, however, grant the 
Petition to the extent that it adopts more specific criteria for 
determining when EAS obligations are triggered for FSS licensees whose 
satellites are used to provide programming directed primarily to 
consumers outside the U.S., with only incidental reception by consumers 
in the U.S.

I. Background

A. The EAS

    2. The EAS is a national public warning system through which 
broadcasters, cable systems, and other service providers (EAS 
Participants) deliver alerts to the public to warn them of impending 
emergencies and dangers to life and property. The primary purpose of 
the EAS is to provide the President with ``the capability to provide 
immediate communications and information to the general public at the 
national, state and local levels during periods of national 
emergency.'' The EAS also is used by state and local governments, as 
well as the National Weather Service, to distribute alerts.

B. The EAS First Report and Order

    3. In 2005, in recognition that consumers were increasingly 
adopting digital technologies as replacements for analog broadcast and 
cable systems that were already subject to EAS requirements, the 
Commission adopted the First Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (First Report and Order) in EB Docket No. 04-296, 
70 FR 71023, 71072 (Nov. 25, 2005), expanding EAS obligations to 
digital television and radio, digital cable, and satellite television 
and radio services. The Commission deemed that ``some level of EAS 
participation must be established for these new digital services to 
ensure that large portions of the American public are able to receive 
national and/or regional public alerts and warnings.''
    4. With respect to satellite video services, the Commission, in 
part pursuant to its jurisdiction under section 303(v) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), to regulate 
direct-to-home (DTH) satellite services, extended EAS obligations to 
DBS services, as defined in section 25.701(a)(1)-(3) of the 
Commission's rules. As used in section 25.701(a), the definition of DBS 
includes entities licensed to operate FSS satellites in the Ku band 
that ``sell or lease capacity to a video programming distributor that 
offers service directly to consumers providing a sufficient number of 
channels so that four percent of the total applicable programming 
channels yields a set aside of at least one channel of non-commercial 
programming pursuant to [section 25.701(e) of the Commission's rules]'' 
(hereinafter, ``DTH-FSS licensees''). The Commission anticipated that 
this definition would ``ensure[ ] that the EAS rules apply to the vast 
majority of existing DTH satellite services, particularly those for 
which viewers may have expectations as to available warnings based on 
experience with broadcast television services.'' With respect to 
compliance requirements, the Commission generally required DBS entities 
to participate in national EAS activations, and meet related 
monitoring, testing and equipment readiness requirements.
    5. The Commission, however, allowed DTH-FSS licensees to delegate 
their EAS obligations to the video programming distributors that lease 
capacity on their satellites. Specifically, the Commission stated that 
``compliance with EAS requirements may be established based upon a 
certification from a [video programming] distributor that expressly 
states that the distributor has complied with the EAS obligations.'' 
The Commission added that the DTH-FSS licensees ``will not be required 
to verify compliance by distributors unless there is evidence that the 
distributor has not met its obligation.'' The Commission concluded that 
placing ultimate compliance responsibility on the DTH-FSS licensees 
under this scheme was not unduly burdensome because the ``certification 
requirements can be included in satellite carriage and leasing 
contracts,'' and because it was similar to the certification scheme 
adopted for FSS Part 25 licensees to meet their DBS public interest 
obligations. The Commission declined to apply EAS obligations to Home 
Satellite Dish (HSD) service, which also falls under the Commission's 
DTH jurisdiction.

C. The Petition

    6. The Petitioners state that they ``support the application of the 
EAS requirements to DTH-FSS services,'' but seek reconsideration of 
three aspects of the Commission's decision adopting such requirements. 
First, the Petition requests that the Commission modify the FSS EAS 
requirements adopted in the First Report and Order by applying

[[Page 42604]]

them directly to the video programming distributors that lease 
transponder capacity from the DTH-FSS licensees instead of applying 
them to the DTH-FSS licensees themselves. Second, in the alternative, 
the Petition requests that the Commission not apply the FSS EAS rules 
to satellite transponder(s) that were subject to pre-existing satellite 
capacity lease agreements already in place when the FSS EAS 
requirements became effective. Third, the Petition requests that the 
Commission ``provide an exemption from the EAS requirements for DTH-FSS 
services that are directed primarily to consumers outside the United 
States but also are made available to consumers in the United States.''
    7. With respect to their contention that responsibility for EAS 
compliance should be shifted from the DTH-FSS licensees to their lessee 
video programming distributors, Petitioners argue that, for all other 
services, the EAS rules apply to ``the entity that delivers programming 
to the consumer and therefore is in a position to substitute emergency 
messages when the EAS system is activated.'' Petitioners contend that 
``[i]n the case of broadcast services, for example, the requirements 
apply to the stations that transmit programming to consumers' radio and 
television receivers.'' Petitioners contend that the Commission did not 
explain why it departed from this approach in the DTH-FSS case. 
Petitioners argue that DTH-FSS programming distributors are best 
situated to comply with the FSS EAS requirements because they are the 
entities that generate and control the program content that is 
delivered via the satellite. Petitioners also liken their situation to 
the HSD providers exempted from EAS obligations in the First Report and 
Order in that, like HSD providers, DTH-FSS licensees do not control the 
programming that is transmitted over the satellite to HSD consumers.
    8. With respect to the certification mechanism through which DTH-
FSS licensees delegate responsibility for EAS obligations to their 
lessees, Petitioners argue that attaching EAS compliance obligations to 
DTH-FSS programming distributors through their capacity lease 
agreements with DTH-FSS satellite operators is inefficient, and does 
not provide for direct enforcement of compliance, but instead subjects 
resolution of compliance questions to private contract litigation.
    9. Petitioners also request that the FCC exempt DTH-FSS services 
offered primarily outside the U.S., but incidentally made available to 
U.S. subscribers. Petitioners contend that such exemption is needed 
because ``[i]t is highly improbable that the distributors of these 
services would be willing to preempt normal programming for 
announcements from the President of the United States.'' Instead, 
according to Petitioners, these video programming distributors would 
cease marketing their services in the U.S., thus depriving the public 
of ``access to valuable programming.'' Petitioners further argue that 
applying EAS requirements in this context amounts to regulating the 
content of foreign programming. Petitioners thus propose that the 
Commission exempt DTH services directed ``primarily in foreign 
countries'' from EAS obligations, and suggest that the Commission 
``employ a standard of 50% of the area or population within a footprint 
for determining whether the primary audience for a DTH service is 
outside the United States.''
    10. Two parties, EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. (EchoStar) and DIRECTV 
Latin America, LLC (DTVLA) filed oppositions to the Petition.

II. Discussion

    11. The Commission denies the Petition's request to apply the FSS 
EAS requirements directly to the video programming distributors that 
lease transponder capacity from DTH-FSS licensees instead of applying 
them to the DTH-FSS licensees themselves. As a practical matter, the 
Commission's ability to enforce the EAS requirements in this satellite 
context could be compromised if ultimate compliance responsibility were 
not placed on the DTH-FSS licensees. As the Commission observed in the 
DBS public interest certification proceeding (which implemented a 
certification regime upon which the DTH-FSS EAS certification scheme is 
modeled), the Commission has greater enforcement powers under the Act 
over satellite licensees than direct-to-home, non-licensee programmers, 
and it also has greater ownership information about such licensees than 
it has about these programmers. With respect to the DBS public interest 
certification scheme, the Commission concluded that ``placing the 
ultimate compliance responsibility on the satellite licensees is not 
unduly burdensome.'' The Commission arrives at the same conclusion in 
the context of DTH-FSS EAS obligations. The Commission observes that 
over the past decade during which the DTH-FSS EAS rules have been in 
effect, the Commission has not been apprised by DTH-FSS licensees of 
any significant problems associated with their implementation. That the 
DTH-FSS licensees lease the use of their satellites to video 
programming distributors and other entities is a business model choice 
of their own making that the EAS certification regime for DTH-FSS 
licensees attempts to accommodate.
    12. Petitioners contend that, in all cases but Petitioners', the 
Commission has applied the requirements associated with disseminating 
authorized EAS alerts ``to the entity that delivers programming to the 
consumer,'' and that DTH-FSS has been treated dissimilarly without 
explanation. The Commission finds that this comparison is inaccurate 
and thus rejects Petitioners' request to shift the compliance burden to 
program suppliers. As Petitioners themselves point out, for broadcast 
services, broadcast licensees must disseminate authorized EAS alerts 
and follow other related requirements. Similarly, in the case of cable 
services, the cable operator is responsible for following these EAS 
requirements. These EAS obligations, in either instance, do not attach 
to the entity that supplies the programming. In the case of DTH-FSS 
satellites, it is the FSS satellite transponders--not the program 
suppliers--that transmit the programming to consumer receivers, and are 
thus similarly situated to the other types of entities that participate 
in the EAS, and consequently, are appropriately subject to these EAS 
requirements.
    13. The Commission also denies the Petition's alternative request 
that the Commission not apply the FSS EAS rules in instances where 
satellite transponders are subject to preexisting capacity lease 
agreements that were in effect before the FSS EAS obligations became 
effective. The FSS EAS obligations were adopted on November 10, 2005, 
but were not made effective until May 31, 2007. Petitioners argue that 
``[t]he FSS satellite operators have no means [ ] of requiring EAS 
compliance in connection with capacity agreements that were entered 
into prior to the effective date of the R&O.'' Petitioners subsequently 
argued that ``many DTH-FSS capacity agreements are long-term contracts 
with terms extending beyond 2007.'' Petitioners did not specify how far 
beyond 2007 their capacity agreements entered into prior to the 
adoption of the FSS EAS requirements in 2005 might extend, and it is 
unclear whether any such agreements are still in effect today. That 
said, licensees in a regulated industry remain subject to new rules 
deemed by the Commission to be appropriate and in the public interest. 
As to the particular circumstances here, the

[[Page 42605]]

Commission expects that such private arrangements would have included 
accommodations to account for changes in the regulatory or statutory 
framework. And, had such implementation issues persisted beyond that 
time frame, the Commission would have expected to see other indicia of 
such difficulties. In any event, the Commission observes that the FSS 
EAS certification regime was adopted as an optional mechanism through 
which DTH-FSS licensees can delegate the performance of EAS obligations 
for which they are ultimately responsible to their DTH-FSS video 
programming distributor lessees. While the Commission contemplated this 
as one option for meeting these obligations, it did not suggest that it 
would be the only one available. Accordingly, those DTH FSS licensees 
that do not consider it feasible or efficient to delegate performance 
of these obligations to their DTH-FSS video programming distributor 
lessees always have the option of relying on their own devices to meet 
these obligations themselves.
    14. With respect to Petitioners' request that they be exempted from 
EAS requirements DTH-FSS services that are directed primarily to 
consumers outside the U.S., but incidentally received by consumers in 
the U.S., the Commission agrees with Petitioners that EAS obligations 
should not apply in such cases. The Commission does not believe it was 
intended for EAS obligations adopted in the First Report and Order to 
be applied to DTH-FSS-based services that are directed to consumers 
outside the U.S., but which incidentally include geographic overlap 
with the U.S. by virtue of the satellite transponder's footprint. In 
adopting the DBS service definition in section 25.701(a), the 
Commission emphasized that this definition would capture those services 
``for which viewers may have expectations as to available warnings 
based on experience with broadcast television services.'' Such 
expectations are unlikely to be shared by viewers outside the U.S. The 
Commission also observed that ``extending national level EAS 
requirements to DBS providers serves the public interest by ensuring 
that the significant portion of the American public that are DBS 
subscribers have access to this critical emergency information.'' To 
require that programming intended for consumers outside of the U.S. 
comply with the EAS rules would significantly increase regulatory 
burdens on DTH-FSS service providers without delivering a measurable 
benefit to an unintended U.S. audience that is unlikely to be watching 
the DTH-FSS programming. Such a result would be inconsistent with the 
Commission's stated rationales and intent for extending EAS obligations 
to DBS services. At the same time, the Commission is mindful that U.S. 
consumers who have a reasonable basis to expect that EAS alerts will be 
offered over such DTS-FSS services receive alerts consistent with those 
expectations.
    15. Accordingly, in balancing these policy objectives, the 
Commission grants partial reconsideration of its EAS rules to 
Petitioners to ensure that DTH-FSS licensees deliver EAS alerts to DTH-
FSS service consumers within the United States that have an expectation 
that they will receive EAS alerts, rather than to U.S.-based consumers 
who incidentally receive such DTH-FSS services. Petitioners have argued 
that the DTH-FSS EAS obligations should be triggered based on the U.S. 
territory encompassed within the FSS licensee's transponder footprint 
and propose a trigger based on whether 50% of the area or population 
within the DTH-FSS transponder footprint is within the contiguous 
United States (CONUS). The Commission agrees that the geographic area 
covered by the DTH-FSS transponder footprint is an appropriate measure 
of whether the DTH-FSS is focused on U.S. consumers, but disagrees that 
it should be the sole measure. Use of geographic area coverage area 
alone could exclude substantial portions of the U.S. from receiving EAS 
alerts where consumers could reasonably expect EAS to be provided. For 
example, under Petitioners' suggestion, a DTH-FSS transponder could be 
centered on a U.S. city on the border with Mexico and have DTH-FSS 
service that is marketed actively to U.S. consumers in that city, but 
would be exempt from the EAS rules if more than 50% of the transponder 
footprint covered Mexico. The Commission does not find such a result to 
be in the public interest.
    16. The Commission therefore establishes multiple criteria by which 
it will determine whether the DTH-FSS programing is directed to a 
United States audience for purposes of determining EAS obligations, or 
is merely incidentally received: (1) Whether the center of the 
footprint of the antenna beam associated with the transponder used to 
provide the DTH-FSS service is within the United States; (2) whether at 
least 50 percent of the footprint of the antenna beam associated with 
the transponder used to provide DTH-FSS covers territory within the 
United States; or (3) whether the DTH-FSS service is marketed to U.S. 
consumers, either through advertising campaigns or promotional 
materials that are focused on potential subscribers located within the 
United States. If any of these three factors is present, the Commission 
finds that it is likely that the DTH-FSS service is focused on U.S. 
consumers, and therefore is within the intended scope of the 
Commission's EAS rules.
    17. Finally, with respect to the DTH-FSS EAS obligation triggering 
criteria that the video program distributor's service include a 
sufficient number of channels such that four percent of the total 
applicable programming channels yields a set aside of at least one 
channel of non-commercial programming, the Commission observes that the 
Commission previously has clarified that this four percent set aside 
threshold is not triggered until at least 25 channels of video 
programming are being offered. To the extent it was not clear that this 
earlier finding also applies in the FSS EAS context, the Commission 
incorporates it here.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Accessible Formats

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

B. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    19. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as 
amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in EB Docket 
No. 04-296, 69 FR 52843 (Aug. 30, 2004). The Commission sought written 
public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comments on the 
IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. The Commission 
included a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in the First 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (First 
Report and Order) in EB Docket No. 04-296, 70 FR 71023, 71072 (Nov. 25, 
2005). This Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(Supplemental FRFA) supplements the FRFA to reflect the actions taken 
in this Order and conforms to the RFA.
1. Need for, and Objective of, the Order
    20. In the First Report and Order, the Commission extended 
Emergency Alert System (EAS) obligations to digital television and 
radio, digital cable, and

[[Page 42606]]

satellite television and radio services. Among other things, the 
Commission extended EAS obligations to Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) 
services, as defined in section 25.701(a)(1)-(3) of the Commission's 
rules. As used in section 25.701(a), the definition of DBS includes 
entities licensed to operate Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) satellite in 
the Ku band that ``sell or lease capacity to a video programming 
distributor that offers service directly to consumers providing a 
sufficient number of channels so that four percent of the total 
applicable programming channels yields a set aside of at least one 
channel of non-commercial programming pursuant to [section 25.701(e) of 
the Commission's rules]'' (hereinafter, ``DTH-FSS licensees'').
    21. In this Order, the Commission grants, to the extent described 
herein, a petition for partial reconsideration of the First Report and 
Order jointly filed in 2005 by PanAmSat Corporation, SES Americom, 
Inc., and Intelsat, Ltd. (collectively, Petitioners). In particular, 
the Commission denies all the specific requests made by Petitioners, 
and clarifies the criteria triggering when the EAS obligations apply to 
DTH-FSS licensees.
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA
    22. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.
3. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration
    23. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended 
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by 
the Chief Counsel of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to 
provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule(s) 
as a result of those comments.
    24. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the 
proposed rule(s) in this proceeding.
4. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Would Apply
    25. 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 herein. The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    26. As noted above, a FRFA was incorporated into the First Report 
and Order. In that analysis, the Commission described in detail the 
small entities that might be significantly affected by the rules 
adopted in the First Report and Order. In this Order, the Commission 
hereby incorporates by reference the descriptions and estimates of the 
number of small entities from the previous FRFA in this proceeding.
5. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
    27. The data, information and document collection required by the 
First Report and Order as described in the previous FRFA in this 
proceeding is hereby incorporated by reference. The actions taken in 
this Order do not amend or otherwise revise those requirements, except 
to refine the criteria that determine when DTH-FSS licensees are 
subject to EAS obligations. More specifically, the Commission finds 
that the criteria triggering DTH-FSS EAS obligations only applies in 
instances where the FSS capacity sold or leased to the video 
programming distributor is effected over a DTH-FSS transponder for 
which (1) the center of the footprint of the antenna beam associated 
with the transponder used to provide the DTH-FSS service is within the 
United States, (2) at least 50 percent of the footprint of the antenna 
beam associated with the transponder used to provide DTH-FSS covers 
territory within the United States, or (3) where the DTH-FSS service is 
marketed to U.S. consumers, either through advertising campaigns or 
promotional materials that are focused on potential subscribers located 
within the United States. If any of these three factors is present, the 
Commission finds that it is likely that the DTH-FSS service is focused 
on U.S. consumers. This aspect of the decision is consistent with the 
Commission's intent expressed in the First Report and Order for 
extending EAS alert delivery to American subscribers of DBS services.
6. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    28. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) 
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.''
    29. The analysis of the Commission's efforts to minimize the 
possible significant economic impact on small entities as described in 
the previous FRFA in this proceeding is hereby incorporated by 
reference.

Report to Congress

    30. The Commission will not send a copy of this Order, including 
this Supplemental FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy 
of this Order, including this Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of this Order and Supplemental FRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

D. Additional Information

    31. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    32. Additional Information. For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Gregory Cooke of the Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau, Policy and Licensing Division, [email protected], 
(202) 418-2351.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    33. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g),706, and 
715 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 
154(i), 154(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, 
and 615, this Order on Reconsideration is adopted,

[[Page 42607]]

and the petition for partial reconsideration filed by PanAmSat 
Corporation, SES Americom, Inc., and Intelsat, Ltd. is hereby granted 
as described herein, and otherwise denied.
    34. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Order on Reconsideration, including the Supplemental Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.

Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18151 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```