Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43611 

or solicitation; (ii) the telehealth 

technologies must be provided for the 

purpose of furnishing telehealth 

services related to the patient’s ESRD; 

and (iii) the provision of the telehealth 

technologies must ‘‘meet[] any other 

requirements set forth in regulations 

promulgated by the Secretary.’’ 

i. For the purposes of this exception, 

please provide input on how ‘‘telehealth 

technologies’’ should be defined. Please 

provide examples of telehealth 

technologies that may be used to furnish 

telehealth services related to a 

beneficiary’s ESRD (e.g., technologies 

that address services on the Medicare 

telehealth list). Also, please indicate 

whether telehealth technologies should 

include services. If so, please explain, in 

detail, what services should be 

considered ‘‘telehealth technologies.’’ 

ii. For the purposes of this exception, 

should OIG include protections or 

safeguards as ‘‘any other requirements 

set forth in regulations promulgated by 

the Secretary?’’ If so, please explain 

what protections or safeguards and why. 

4. Intersection of Physician Self-Referral 

Law and Anti-Kickback Statute 

Please share any feedback regarding 

specific circumstances in which (i) 

exceptions to the physician self-referral 

law and safe harbors to the antikickback statute should align for 

purposes of the goals of this RFI; and (ii) 

exceptions to the physician self-referral 

law in furtherance of care coordination 

or value-based care should not have a 

corresponding safe harbor to the antikickback statute. 

Respondents are encouraged to 

provide complete but concise and 

organized responses, including any 

relevant data and specific examples. 

Respondents are not required to address 

every issue or respond to every question 

discussed in this RFI to have their 

responses considered. All responses 

will be considered, provided they 

contain information OIG can use to 

identify the commenter. 

Please note: This is a request for 

information only. This RFI is issued 

solely for information and planning 

purposes; it does not constitute a 

Request for Proposal (RFP), application, 

proposal abstract, or quotation. This RFI 

does not commit the U.S. Government 

to contract for any supplies or services 

or make a grant award. Further, OIG is 

not seeking proposals through this RFI 

and will not accept unsolicited 

proposals. Respondents are advised that 

the U.S. Government will not pay for 

any information or administrative costs 

incurred in response to this RFI; all 

costs associated with responding to this 

RFI will be solely at the interested 

party’s expense. Not responding to this 

RFI does not preclude participation in 

any future procurement, if conducted. It 

is the responsibility of the potential 

responders to monitor this RFI 

announcement for additional 

information pertaining to this request. 

Please note that OIG will not respond to 

questions about the policy issues raised 

in this RFI. Contractor support 

personnel may be used to review RFI 

responses. 

Responses to this RFI are not offers 

and cannot be accepted by the U.S. 

Government to form a binding contract 

or issue a grant. Information obtained as 

a result of this RFI may be used by the 

U.S. Government for program planning 

on a nonattribution basis. Respondents 

should not include any information that 

might be considered proprietary or 

confidential. This RFI should not be 

construed as a commitment or 

authorization to incur costs for which 

reimbursement would be required or 

sought. All submissions become U.S. 

Government property and will not be 

returned. OIG may publicly post the 

comments received or a summary 

thereof. 

IV. Collection of Information 

Requirements 

This document does not impose 

information collection requirements, 

that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or 

third-party disclosure requirements. 

However, section III of this document 

does contain a general solicitation of 

comments in the form of a request for 

information. In accordance with the 

implementing regulations of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 

specifically 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4), this 

general solicitation is exempt from the 

PRA. Facts or opinions submitted in 

response to general solicitations of 

comments from the public, published in 

the Federal Register or other 

publications, regardless of the form or 

format thereof, provided that no person 

is required to supply specific 

information pertaining to the 

commenter, other than that necessary 

for self-identification, as a condition of 

the agency’s full consideration, are not 

generally considered information 

subject to the PRA. Consequently, there 

is no need for review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

authority of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.). 

V. Response to Comments 

Because of the large number of public 

comments we normally receive on 

Federal Register documents, we are not 

able to acknowledge or respond to them 

individually. We will consider all 

comments we receive by the date and 

time specified in the DATES section of 

this preamble, and, if we proceed with 

a subsequent document, we may 

respond to the comments in the 

preamble to that document. 

Dated: August 20, 2018. 

Daniel R. Levinson, 

Inspector General. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18519 Filed 8–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4152–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary 

43 CFR Part 11 

[Docket No. DOI–2018–0006; XXXD5198NI.

DS61600000.DNINR0000.000000.DX61604] 

RIN 1090–AB17 

Natural Resource Damages for 

Hazardous Substances 

AGENCY: Office of Restoration and 

Damage Assessment, Interior. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; request for public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Restoration and 

Damage Assessment (ORDA) is seeking 

comments and suggestions from State, 

Tribal, and Federal natural resource cotrustees, other affected parties, and the 

interested public on whether revisions 

to the regulations for conducting natural 

resource damage assessments and 

restoration (NRDAR) for hazardous 

substance releases are needed, and if so, 

what specific revisions should be 

considered. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

through October 26, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to ORDA on this ANPRM by any of the 

following methods. Please reference the 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

DOI–2018–0006 in your comments. 

• Electronically: Go to http://

www.regulations.gov. In the ‘‘Search’’ 

box enter ‘‘DOI–2018–0006.’’ Follow the 

instructions to submit public comments. 

We will post all comments. 

• Hand deliver or mail comments to 

the Office of Restoration and Damage 

Assessment, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 1849 C Street Northwest, Mail 

Stop/Room 5538, Washington, DC 

20240. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Glomb, Director, Office of 

Restoration and Damage Assessment at 

(202) 208–4863 or email to steve_

glomb@ios.doi.gov. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43612 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

regulations provide procedures that 

State, Tribal, and Federal natural 

resource co-trustees may use to evaluate 

the need for and means of restoring, 

replacing, or acquiring the equivalent of 

public natural resources that are injured 

or destroyed because of releases of 

hazardous substances into the 

environment. The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA)—which authorizes natural 

resource damage claims by States, 

federally recognized Indian Tribes, and 

the Federal government—specifies that 

the regulations are optional, but if the 

State, Tribal, and Federal governments 

(described as natural resource ‘‘cotrustees’’ by CERCLA) utilize them, they 

are entitled to a ‘‘rebuttable 

presumption’’ on their claim in any 

subsequent legal proceeding. 

This notice seeks comment and 

suggestions in response to the CERCLA 

biennial review requirement and 

Executive Order 13777 (February 24, 

2017), which directed the Department of 

the Interior (DOI) and other Federal 

agencies to establish Regulatory Reform 

Task Forces to evaluate existing 

regulations and make recommendations 

regarding repeal, replacement, or 

modification, consistent with applicable 

law. 

Background 

CERCLA authorizes the Federal 

government, States, and federally 

recognized Indian Tribes to act as 

‘‘trustees’’ on behalf of the public, for 

the purpose of bringing claims for injury 

to natural resources injured or destroyed 

by hazardous substance releases. Such 

claims are not fines or penalties, and the 

measure of damages is calculated by the 

cost to restore or replace the injured or 

destroyed natural resources. Trustees 

may also recover compensation for 

services the resources would have 

provided to the public pending 

restoration, along with the reasonable 

cost of assessing injury and determining 

appropriate restoration. The statute 

requires trustees to spend restoration 

recoveries ‘‘only to restore, replace, or 

acquire the equivalent’’ of injured 

natural resources pursuant to a publicly 

reviewed restoration plan. 

Section 301(c) of CERCLA requires 

the promulgation of regulations to guide 

natural resource damage assessment and 

restoration. The statute explicitly 

provides that the regulations are not 

mandatory, but if State, Tribal, or 

Federal trustees conduct an assessment 

in accordance with the regulations, they 

would receive a ‘‘rebuttable 

presumption’’ for their claim in any 

subsequent administrative or judicial 

proceeding. The Department of the 

Interior (DOI) was designated by the 

President to develop the regulations 

currently in effect at 43 CFR part 11. 

DOI previously developed two types 

of NRDAR regulations (as specified by 

CERCLA). Standard procedures for 

simplified assessments requiring 

minimal field observations (the Type A 

Rule); and site-specific procedures for 

detailed assessment in individual cases 

(the Type B Rule). The CERCLA NRDAR 

Regulations were last revised in 2008. 

These revisions to the Type B Rule 

emphasized natural resource restoration 

over litigation and monetary damages, 

made technical corrections to 

procedural timing inconsistencies, and 

responded to two court decisions 

addressing previous versions of the 

regulations: State of Ohio v. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 880 F.2d 432 

(D.C. Cir. 1989) (Ohio v. Interior); and 

Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 88 F.3d 1191 

(D.C. Cir. 1996) (Kennecott v. Interior). 

The 2008 revisions were based on the 

report of a committee convened by DOI 

under the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (FACA) to make recommendations 

on improving NRDAR practice. The 

committee was comprised of 

representatives from States, Tribes, 

Federal agencies, industrial 

corporations, industry consultants and 

attorneys, local and national nongovernmental organizations, and 

academics. Unlike previous iterations of 

the NRDAR regulations, the final 

regulatory revisions based on the FACA 

Committee report were not challenged 

by States, Tribes, industry or 

environmental groups. 

Description of Information Requested 

We are interested in comments or 

suggestions that improve the efficiency 

and cost effectiveness of the NRDAR 

process. An internal biennial review of 

the CERCLA NRDAR regulations 

identified some remaining issues from 

the NRDAR FACA Committee Report 

that could be addressed, and NRDAR 

practice issues that have developed or 

progressed since the last revision of the 

regulations. DOI is particularly 

interested in comments and suggestions 

related to these issues, outlined below. 

We also welcome comments and 

suggestions on any other aspect of the 

regulations that trustees, stakeholders, 

and the general public would like us to 

consider. 

Simplification and ‘‘Plain Language’’ 

With the exceptions of the provision 

of the Type B Regulations that were 

revised in 2008, the CERCLA NRDAR 

regulations are arguably complicated, 

overly prescriptive, repetitive, and 

dense—particularly when compared to 

the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) NRDAR 

Rule promulgated by the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration at 15 CFR part 990. A 

number of stakeholders have suggested 

that DOI should consider a 

comprehensive ‘‘plain English’’ revision 

to the CERCLA NRDAR Regulations that 

closely aligns with the structure of the 

existing OPA NRDAR Regulations. 

Type A Regulations 

The Type A Regulations were 

designed to result in efficient, cost 

effective, standardized assessments. It 

has been challenging, however, to 

develop workable Type A Regulations 

that are streamlined and utilize minimal 

actual field observations but are still 

relevant and reliable enough to be 

entitled to a rebuttable presumption of 

correctness. Accordingly, DOI is seeking 

comments or suggestions regarding 

revision to and utilization of the 

CERCLA NRDAR Type A Regulations. 

Early Emphasis on Restoration Over 

Damages 

The NRDAR FACA Committee Report 

recommended that DOI could encourage 

a restoration focus and negotiated 

agreements by revising the regulations 

to encourage early scoping of restoration 

opportunities at NRDAR sites. DOI is 

interested in any additional comments 

or suggestions on where specifically in 

the assessment process restoration 

scoping may be cost effective and 

appropriate and how that could best be 

addressed in the regulations. 

Procedures to Further Encourage 

Negotiated Settlements and Early 

Restoration 

Since the last revision of CERCLA 

NRDAR Regulations, a number of 

matters have utilized partial negotiated 

settlements early in the assessment 

process to cost effectively resolve 

discrete NRDAR claims and re-inforce 

an overall restoration focus for ultimate 

comprehensive resolution. However, the 

current regulations offer little guidance 

on how to align early restoration 

settlements with existing statutory and 

regulatory requirements for assessment 

and restoration planning. 

Advance Restoration and Restoration 

Banking 

Restoration ‘‘banking’’ and advance 

restoration—where restoration is 

undertaken in anticipation of marketing 

portions of such restoration to 

responsible parties to address natural 

resource injury caused by releases of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43613 

hazardous substances—has been 

considered at a number of sites since the 

last revision of the CERCLA NRDAR 

regulations. Some States (such as 

Louisiana) have enacted specific 

statutory provisions and promulgated 

regulations on NRDAR banking. The 

existing CERCLA NRDAR regulations do 

not provide any guidance on the use of 

advance restoration and restoration 

banking techniques. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Compliance 

The NRDAR FACA Committee Report 

encouraged DOI to adopt Departmentwide categorical exclusions from NEPA 

as appropriate and to ensure that 

compliance with NEPA requirements 

occurs concurrently with NRDAR 

restoration planning. DOI is interested 

in comments or suggestions whether 

that would best be addressed in the 

NRDAR regulations, NEPA regulations, 

or in Departmental guidance. 

Public Comment Procedures 

DOI is not obligated to consider 

comments that we receive after the close 

of the comment period for this ANPRM, 

or comments that are delivered to an 

address other than those listed in this 

notice. After the comment period for 

this ANPRM closes, DOI will review all 

comment submissions. Upon 

consideration, DOI may publish a notice 

of proposed rulemaking. 

We are particularly interested in 

receiving comments and suggestions 

about the topics identified in the 

Description of Information Requested 

section. Written comments that are 

specific, explain the rationale for the 

comment or suggestion, address the 

issues outlined in this notice, and where 

possible, refer to specific statutes, 

existing regulations, case law, or 

NRDAR practices are most useful. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address or other personal 

identifying information in you 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—might 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you may ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review we 

cannot guarantee that we will do so. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601, secs. 

104,107,111(I), 122. 

Steve Glomb, 

Director, Office of Restoration and Damage 

Assessment. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18498 Filed 8–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4334–63–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 18–214, GN Docket No. 12– 

268; FCC 18–113] 

LPTV, TV Translator, and FM 

Broadcast Station Reimbursement, 

Expanding the Economic and 

Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum 

Through Incentive Auctions 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission proposes rules to 

implement Congress’s recent directive 

that we reimburse certain Low Power 

Television (LPTV), television translator 

(TV translator), and FM broadcast 

stations for costs incurred as a result of 

the Commission’s broadcast television 

spectrum incentive auction. When 

Congress authorized the Commission to 

conduct the incentive auction, it 

required the Commission to reimburse 

certain costs incurred by full power and 

Class A television licensees and 

multichannel video program 

distributors (MVPDs). On March 23, 

2018, Congress adopted the 

Reimbursement Expansion Act (REA), 

which, among other things, expands the 

list of entities eligible to be reimbursed 

for auction-related expenses to include 

LPTV, TV translator, and FM broadcast 

stations, and to provide additional 

funds to the Reimbursement Fund to be 

used for this purpose. The REA requires 

the Commission to complete a 

rulemaking to adopt a reimbursement 

process for LPTV, TV translator, and FM 

stations within a year from the adoption 

date of the Act. This NPRM commences 

the proceeding to implement this 

directive and enable the Commission to 

meet this statutory deadline. 

DATES: Comments may be filed on or 

before September 26, 2018; and reply 

comments may be filed on or before 

October 26, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments and reply comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 18–214 

and GN Docket No. 12–268, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s website: http://fjallfoss.

fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions 

for submitting comments. 

• Mail: 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. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the supplementary information 

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Matthews of the FCC’s Media Bureau, 

Policy Division, Kim.Matthews@fcc.gov, 

(202) 418–2154. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 18– 

113, adopted August 2, 2018 and 

released August 3, 2018. The full text of 

this document is available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text may be purchased from 

the Commission’s copy contractor, 445 

12th Street SW, Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS at http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will 

be available electronically in ASCII, 

Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

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). 

The NPRM may result in new or 

revised information collection 

requirements. If the Commission adopts 

any new or revised information 

collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register inviting the public to 

comment on such requirements, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, the Commission will seek specific 

comment on how it might ‘‘further 

reduce the information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees.’’ 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. In the NPRM, we propose rules to 

implement Congress’s recent directive 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1