Federal Register Vol. 82, No.117,

Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-76, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.

On April 8, 2016, we published in the Federal Register (81 FR 20575-20579, Docket No. APHIS-2015-0004) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations in order to allow fresh fruit of any color of pitahaya (Hylocereus spp., Acanthocereus spp., Cereus spp., Echinocereus spp., Escontria spp., Myrtillocactus spp., and Stenocereus spp.) to be imported into the continental United States. (Hereafter we refer to these species collectively as “pitahaya.”) We also prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). The PRA evaluates the risks associated with the importation of fresh pitahaya fruit from Ecuador into the continental United States. The RMD relies upon the findings of the PRA to determine the phytosanitary measures necessary to ensure the safe importation into the continental United States of fresh pitahaya fruit from Ecuador.

In the proposed rule, we noted that the PRA identified one quarantine pest present in Ecuador that could be introduced into the continental United States through the importation of fresh pitahaya fruit: Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann), South American fruit fly.

We determined in the PRA that measures beyond standard port of arrival inspection will mitigate the risks posed by this plant pest and proposed a systems approach that includes requirements for fruit fly trapping, pre-harvest inspections, approved production sites, and packinghouse procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests. The fresh pitahaya fruit will also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of the systems approach.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending June 7, 2016. We received 12 comments during the comment period.

Eight commenters, consisting of shippers, growers, and consumers, stated general support for the proposed action. The remaining four commenters did not categorically oppose the rule but did raise questions about its provisions that we address below.

One commenter stated that the proposed rule indicates there is a lack of adequate data that would allow APHIS to determine the economic effects of the rule. The commenter added that additional analysis should be conducted to ensure that small entities, specifically the United States pitahaya growers, should not receive any adverse effects of this rule change.

We note in the final regulatory flexibility analysis prepared for this rule that we received no adverse comments with respect to the specific economic impacts on small entities. Therefore, in the absence of apparent significant economic impacts and based on our review of available information, APHIS does not expect the proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on small entities and that additional analysis is not necessary.

The same commenter asked why the operational workplan required in proposed § 319.56-77(a) 2 does not outline any specific requirements for the workplan itself, other than that it must be approved by APHIS.

Section 319.56-77(a) does in fact outline specific requirements that must be met by the operational workplan. The workplan provided to APHIS by the NPPO of Ecuador must detail activities that the NPPO of Ecuador will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of the section.

Four commenters communicated concerns about the risk of introducing A. fraterculus into the continental United States via the pathway of fresh pitahaya imported from Ecuador.

One commenter representing the State of Florida stated that an introduction of A. fraterculus would severely impact Florida's $8.25 billion dollar agricultural industry. The commenter stated that fruit infested with internal A. fraterculus larvae are highly likely to escape detection during culling and recommended that shipments of pitahaya from Ecuador not be allowed into Florida. Another commenter representing an organization of State plant regulatory agencies was not opposed to the proposed systems approach as long as there is full adoption of the control measures identified in the RMD to manage A. fraterculus and strict monitoring and enforcement of the systems approach. The commenter noted Florida's recommendation to prohibit shipments of pitahaya from Ecuador into Florida but did not state a position on the recommendation.

We acknowledge the commenters' concerns over the risk of introducing A. fraterculus into the continental United States via the pathway of fresh pitahaya from Ecuador, particularly in areas of the southern United States that could sustain permanent A. fraterculus populations. However, we have determined that the production and inspection practices contained in the systems approach, which include requirements for fruit fly trapping, pre-harvest inspections, and packinghouse pest exclusion procedures, will sufficiently mitigate the risk of A. fraterculus in imports of fresh pitahayas from Ecuador.

Moreover, during a 2016 site visit to Ecuador conducted after publication of the proposed rule, we determined the host population of A. fraterculus in pitahaya areas of production to be negligible with respect to pest risk, rendering unnecessary the proposed requirement prohibiting other host crops of A. fraterculus to be grown within 100 meters of pitahaya fields. Therefore, we are removing the requirement by amending proposed § 319.56-77(c)(2) accordingly.

One commenter noted that proposed § 319.56-77(e)(2) states the action that must be taken if a single larva of A. fraterculus is found in a shipment. The commenter asked if more than a single larva is found, whether further action will be taken regarding the remaining shipment of pitahaya fruit on lots other than that in which the larva was discovered.

The requirement in § 319.56-77(e)(2) states that if a single larva of A. fraterculus is found in a shipment from a place of production (either by the NPPO in Ecuador or by inspectors at the continental United States port of entry), the entire lot of fruit will be prohibited from import into the United States and the place of production of that fruit will be suspended from the export program until appropriate measures agreed upon by the NPPO of Ecuador and APHIS have been taken. In other words, all lots comprising that shipment will be prohibited from import into the United States regardless of whether one or more larvae of A. fraterculus are found. Furthermore, suspension of the place of production from the export program will allow the NPPO and APHIS to take appropriate measures to mitigate the risk of future detections in shipments of pitahayas from that place of production.

Another commenter, concerned by the risk posed by A. fraterculus, stated that APHIS is over-relying on the NPPO of Ecuador to enforce pest control protocols and that measures should be adopted for additional review of the NPPO's enforcement actions.

We consider APHIS' oversight of the NPPO of Ecuador's enforcement of the systems approach to be adequate to mitigate the risk of A. fraterculus following the pathway of fresh pitahaya from Ecuador to the continental United States. Under § 319.56-77(a), the NPPO of Ecuador must provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details activities that the NPPO of Ecuador will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of this section. In addition, each consignment of pitahaya fruit must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of the systems approach in § 319.56-77. Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule with the change discussed in this document.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this rule is not significant, it does not trigger the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This rule amends the regulations to allow the importation of fresh pitahaya fruit (of any color) (Hylocereus spp., Acanthocereus spp., Cereus spp., Echinocereus spp., Escontria spp., Myrtillocactus spp., and Stenocereus spp.) into the continental United States from Ecuador using a systems approach to pest risk mitigation. The systems approach will integrate prescribed mitigation measures that cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection. Entities potentially affected by the rule are U.S. pitahaya fruit growers, of which most, if not all, are small entities.

Pitahaya fruit, or dragon fruit, is produced in Hawaii, California, and Florida. It is estimated that these States produce over 11,000 metric tons of pitahaya fruit per year. The quantity of pitahaya fruit that will be imported from Ecuador is uncertain, but the entire pitahaya export volume of Ecuador is estimated to be 165 metric tons, which is 1.4 percent of U.S. production.

Farms producing pitahaya fruit are classified within the North American Industry Classification System under Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming (NAICS 111339). For this industry classification, a business is considered to be a small entity if its annual receipts are not more than $750,000. It is probable that most or all U.S. producers of pitahaya are small businesses by the U.S. Small Business Administration standard. We expect any impact of the rule for these entities will be minimal, given Ecuador's expected small share of the U.S. pitahaya market.

Based on our review of available information, APHIS does not expect the rule to have a significant economic impact on small entities. In the absence of significant economic impacts, we have not identified alternatives that will minimize such impacts.

This final rule allows fresh pitahaya fruit to be imported into the continental United States from Ecuador. State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh pitahaya fruit imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this final rule, which were filed under 0579-0447, have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision, if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -200PF series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92742) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that certain areas of the frame webs are subject to WFD. The NPRM proposed to require high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the frame webs for any crack in any open coordinating holes, tooling holes, and insulation blanket attachment holes; repair if necessary; and modification of the frame webs at all open hole locations, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking that could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received. Boeing Commercial Airplanes, FedEx, and United Airlines supported the NPRM.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the actions specified in the proposed AD.

We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to specify all compliance times, rather than referring to the service information because a certain compliance time specified in the service information is relative to the issue date of the service information. For this AD, that compliance time is relative to the effective date of this AD.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously, and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0103, dated June 22, 2016. The service information describes procedures for performing repetitive HFEC inspections of the frame webs for any crack of any open coordinating holes, tooling holes, and insulation blanket attachment holes; and modifying the frame webs between stringers S-20 and S-25. 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.

We estimate that this AD affects 74 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1262). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that the fuselage circumferential splice plates along the center fastener rows, forward and aft of station 900 and station 1180 splice centerlines, are susceptible to WFD. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive LFEC inspections for cracks of certain circumferential splice plates, and repairs if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct any such cracks, which could lead to the failure of a principal structural element and could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing and United Airlines stated that they support the NPRM.

Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.

We concur with the commenter's statement. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which ST01518SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

FedEx Express (FedEx) stated that VT Aerospace, which holds STC ST03562AT for modification of an airplane from a passenger to a freighter configuration, confirmed that STC ST03562AT does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. FedEx otherwise had no objection to the NPRM.

We agree with the commenter's statement that STC ST03562AT does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST03562AT does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Because this STC is installed on a limited number of airplanes, we have determined that it is not necessary to revise this AD to include a provision that explicitly states the effect of this STC on compliance.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0105, dated June 10, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive LFEC inspections and repairs of the circumferential splice plates at station 900 and station 1180, from stringer S-6L to stringer S-6R, for any cracks. 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.

We estimate that this AD affects 634 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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.

Discussion

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-11, dated June 9, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0558.

Bombardier, Inc., has issued Section 03-19, “Unreliable Airspeed,” of Chapter 3, “Emergency Procedures,” in the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2E25 (Series 1000) AFM, Revision 9, dated February 13, 2015. The service information describes procedures to stabilize the airplane's airspeed and attitude. 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 issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0558; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-133-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on 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 AD.

Currently, there are no affected airplanes on the U.S. Register. However, if an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the required actions would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to be $85 per product.

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.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:

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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2007-26-04, Amendment 39-15306 (72 FR 71216, December 17, 2007) (“AD 2007-26-04”). AD 2007-26-04 applied to certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2016 (81 FR 72554) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the forward skin panel at the station (STA) 259.5 circumferential butt splice between stringers 19L and 24L is subject to WFD. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections for cracking around the heads of the fasteners on the forward fastener row in certain areas of a certain circumferential butt splice, and repair if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to add repetitive inspections of the skin for cracking at the aft fastener column, and a one-time inspection for defects in the production countersunk rivets, and corrective actions if necessary; and add an optional skin trim-out repair, which would terminate certain inspections. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice, which could result in loss of structural integrity of the fuselage skin and possible loss of cabin pressure.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the proposed AD to specify that doing the optional repairs terminates the initial and repetitive inspections instead of just the repetitive inspections. SWA stated that if a terminating repair were installed prior to the initial inspection, there is no justification for either the initial or repetitive inspections.

We agree with SWA's request. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to specify that the terminating repairs are applicable to both the initial and repetitive inspections.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.

We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously, and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1267, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2016 (“ASB 737-53A1267, R1”). The service information describes procedures for detailed inspections and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) surface inspections of the skin around the fastener heads for any crack on the forward and aft fastener columns, left and right sides, at STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice; a detailed inspection for any defect of the production countersunk rivet heads on both forward and aft fastener columns, left and right sides, at the STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice; and corrective actions, including a skin trim-out repair and other repairs. 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.

We estimate that this AD affects 115 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the optional skin-trim-out repair specified in this AD.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 17, 2017 (82 FR 10968) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the forward passenger doors to identify the part number, and for affected doors, inspecting to identify existing repairs and doing corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct widespread fatigue damage of the forward passenger doors, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0079, dated April 21, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

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-2016-9574.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.

FedEx agrees that the inspection is necessary and supports the intent of the NPRM.

FedEx stated that it does not have a process in place to report the inspection results specified by paragraph (i) of the proposed AD using the on-line Airbus reporting tool. FedEx asked that it be allowed to use the older method of reporting identified in Airbus Service Bulletins A310-52-2076, Revision 01, dated October 14, 2014; and A300-52-6084, Revision 01, dated October 16, 2014. FedEx added that the new on-line application would be used when a method and adequate personnel are in place to utilize that application.

We agree with the commenter. We recognize that operators may not have a method in place or adequate personnel available to utilize the online Airbus reporting tool. Using the reporting sheet provided in Airbus Service Bulletins A310-52-2076, Revision 01, dated October 14, 2014; and A300-52-6084, Revision 01, dated October 16, 2014; is an acceptable method for reporting. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to include this option for reporting.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We also determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Airbus has issued the following service information:

• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-0180, Revision 01, dated October 14, 2014.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A310-52-2076, Revision 01, dated October 14, 2014.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6084, Revision 01, dated October 16, 2014.

The service information describes procedures for inspecting the forward passenger doors on the left- and right-hand sides to identify the part number, and for affected doors, inspecting to identify existing repairs and doing corrective actions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. 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.

We estimate that this AD affects 128 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary corrective actions that will be required based on the results of the part number inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these corrective actions:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for other on-condition actions specified in this AD.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:

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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Model A320-212, -214, -232, and -233 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2015 (80 FR 51968) (“the NPRM”).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0278, dated December 19, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A320-212, -214, -232, and -233 airplanes. The MCAI states:

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-2015-3148.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

Delta (DAL) requested that we withdraw the proposed rule. DAL commented that a review of the manufacturing records for the cracked skin panel noted rework in the discrepant area, which could have contributed to cracking. DAL also stated that the effectivity specified in Airbus AOT A53N009-14, dated December 17, 2014, was limited to airplanes fitted with reworked panels and manufactured with the same chemical milling process. DAL commented that, in addition, there were scratch-like indications near the cracked area which may have been due to the manufacturing process. DAL stated that further research is in work with nothing confirmed.

DAL stated since the issuance of Airbus AOT A53N009-14, dated December 17, 2014, all 7 applicable airplanes mentioned in the proposed rule have completed the initial inspections with no findings. DAL stated that over half the airplanes were inspected from the inside using the HFEC inspection, which is capable of detecting very small cracks. DAL also commented that the inspection results have been provided to Airbus for review. DAL also stated that Airbus conducted a study that showed an undetected crack would not result in an explosive decompression but rather a partial opening of the skin causing flapping with a slow loss of cabin pressure. DAL noted that further testing is in work to determine what final action, if any, is required.

DAL also stated that EASA is considering cancellation of AD 2014-0278, dated December 19, 2014, pending the outcome of the investigations.

DAL stated that the proposed rule is premature and should be cancelled based on the available data and recent inspection results.

We disagree with the commenter's request. The EASA, as the State of Design Authority for Airbus products, has determined an unsafe conditions exists after conducting a risk analysis. We agree with the EASA's risk assessment and their decision to mitigate the risk by mandating the actions required in this AD. EASA has not determined that cancellation of AD 2014-0278, dated December 19, 2014, is warranted. However, if new information becomes available to justify revising or removing this AD, we will consider further rulemaking. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We reviewed Airbus AOT A53N009-14, Rev 00, dated December 17, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the pocket radii located between fuselage frames 35 and 40, above stringer 6 on both the left- and right-hand sides, and repair if necessary. 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.

We estimate that this AD affects 1 airplane of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:

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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the NAS route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

On January 19, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (82 FR 6353), Docket No. FAA-2016-8944, to amend Jet route J-25; amend VOR Federal airways V-55, V-82, V-161, V-218, and V-413; and establish RNAV T-routes T-330, T-354, and T-383 due to the planned decommissioning of the Brainerd VORTAC. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. One comment was received.

The commenter stated that the NPRM listed only the regulatory body [aeronautical] changes in the proposal and that an additional study to be conducted was an environmental impact study. The commenter stated the only environmental concerns would be any potential for aircraft noise changes in the affected areas, due to the changing routes, and the associated impact to the local populace and/or wildlife, depending on the degree of the changes. The FAA completed an environmental review of the ATS route amendments and RNAV route establishments in this action and determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion from further environmental impact review actions under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004, VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), and United States Area Navigation Routes (low altitude T-routes) are published in paragraph 6011, of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Jet routes, VOR Federal airways, and RNAV T-routes listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify Jet route J-25 and VOR Federal airways V-55, V-82, V-161, V-218, and V-413, and to establish RNAV T-Routes T-330, T-354, and T-383. These actions are necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the Brainerd VORTAC.

The Jet route and VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.

J-25: J-25 extends between the intersection of the United States/Mexico border and Brownsville, TX, VORTAC 221° radial and the Winnipeg, MB, Canada, VORTAC. The route segment between the Gopher, MN, VORTAC and the Winnipeg, MB, Canada, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the route remain as charted.

V-55: V-55 extends between the Dayton, OH, VOR and the Bismarck, ND, VOR. The airway segment between the Siren, WI, VOR and the Park Rapids, MN, VOR is removed. The unaffected portions of the airway remain as charted.

V-82: V-82 extends between the Baudette, MN, VOR and the Dells, WI, VORTAC. The airway segment between the intersection of the Baudette, MN, VOR 194° and Brainerd, MN, VORTAC 331° radials (the BLUOX fix) and the Gopher, MN, VORTAC is removed. Additionally, the BLUOX fix is redefined in its existing location using radials from the Baudette, MN, VOR and the Park Rapids, MN, VOR. The unaffected portions of the airway remain as charted.

V-161: V-161 extends between the Three Rivers, TX, VOR and the Winnipeg, MB, Canada, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Gopher, MN, VORTAC and the Grand Rapids, MN, VOR is removed. Additionally, the airway segment between the Grand Rapids, MN, VOR and the International Falls, MN, VORTAC is re-designated as part of V-218. The unaffected portions of the airway remain as charted.

V-218: V-218 extends between the Grand Rapids, MN, VOR and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC. The V-161 airway segment noted previously between the Grand Rapids, MN, VOR and the International Falls, MN, VORTAC is added to V-218.

V-413: V-413 extends between the Ironwood, MI, VORTAC and Brainerd, MN, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Gopher, MN, VORTAC and the Brainerd, MN, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portion of the airway remains as charted. Additionally, the airway description for the amended airway is reversed to reflect the airway segments in a south to north order consistent with odd numbered ATS route criteria.

The RNAV T-routes being established are outlined below.

T-330: T-330 is established between the Grand Forks, MN, VOR and the Gopher, MN, VORTAC. This T-route mitigates the loss of the V-55 and V-413 airway segments addressed previously, and provides RNAV T-route capability and connectivity with a more direct routing between the Grand Forks, ND, and Minneapolis, MN, terminal areas.

T-354: T-354 is established between the Park Rapids, MN, VOR and the Siren, WI, VOR. This T-route mitigates the loss of the V-55 airway segment addressed previously.

T-383: T-383 is established between the Gopher, MN, VORTAC and the BLUOX fix that is being redefined in its existing location using radials from the Baudette, MN, VOR and the Park Rapids, MN, VOR. This T-route mitigates the loss of the V-82 and V-413 airway segments addressed previously.

All radials listed in the route descriptions below are stated relative to True north.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of modifying one Jet route and five VOR Federal airways, and establishing three RNAV T-routes qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Paragraph 5-6.5a categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). Therefore, this action is not expected to cause any significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E en route airspace at the Oakland ARTCC, centered near Sacramento, CA, to ensure controlled airspace exists in those areas where the Federal airway structure is inadequate.

On March 13, 2017, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (82 FR 13407) Docket No. FAA-2016-9476 to establish Class E en route airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center, near Sacramento, CA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Three comments were received supporting the proposal; one from an anonymous commenter and two from Wally Roberts on behalf of the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA).

Two comments were received supporting the proposed action. One commenter, in a separate comment, noted a small portion of Class E airspace upward from 5,000 feet mean sea level near the Hunter MOA was excluded from the proposed area. The FAA discovered a typographical error on one geographic coordinate in the proposed airspace legal description caused this exclusion (lat. 36°45′00″ N., instead of lat. 35°45′00″ N.). Also, the FAA determined the western edge of the proposed airspace required slight adjustments to ensure it captured that airspace within 12 miles of the shoreline. This action makes these corrections.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E en route airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface centered near Sacramento, CA, extending from the southern border of the Rogue Valley en route airspace area near Redding, CA, west to include that airspace within 12 miles of the shoreline, south to the southern boundary of the Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center near Monterey, CA, east to the western boundary of the Coaldale en route airspace area, and northeast to near Reno, NV. This airspace is established to allow the most efficient routing between airports without reducing margins of safety or requiring additional coordination and pilot/controller workload. This action ensures the safety and management of controlled airspace within the national airspace system as it transitions from ground based navigation aids to satellite-based Global Navigation Satellite System for navigation.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Mahlon Sweet Field Airport, Eugene, OR, to ensure the safety and management of aircraft within the National Airspace System.

The FAA Aeronautical Information Services branch found the Class E surface area airspace at Mahlon Sweet Field Airport, Eugene, OR, as published in FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, requires NOTAM part-time status to avoid overlap with the part-time Class D surface area airspace at the same airport. The FAA inadvertently removed the NOTAM language from the regulatory text of the Class E surface area airspace.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by adding the following language to the legal description of Class E surface area airspace at Mahlon Sweet Field Airport, Eugene, OR that reads, “This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.”. This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace at Grayling Airport, Grayling, AK to support the development of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport, and for the safety and management of aircraft within the National Airspace System.

On March 06, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 12525) Docket FAA-2016-9333 a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Grayling Airport, Grayling, AK. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Two comments supporting the proposed rule were received from Taylor Emmerich and H T.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Grayling Airport, Grayling, AK, and that airspace 2 miles on each side of the 024° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 8 miles northeast of the airport and that airspace 2 miles on each side of 182° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 11.2 miles south of the airport.

This airspace is necessary to support IFR operations in new standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;(2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979) ; and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule revises the Commission's FOIA regulations to incorporate certain changes codified by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law 114-185, 130 Stat. 538 (June 30, 2016) (“Act”). The Act requires each agency to review its regulations and issue new regulations in accordance with the Act's provisions. The Act requires agencies to notify requesters of the availability of dispute resolution services from the agency's FOIA Public Liaison and the National Archives and Records Administration's Office of Government Information Services (“OGIS”). The Act also incorporates the Department of Justice's foreseeable harm standard, specifying that an agency shall withhold information only if the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(8)(A)(i)(I). This provision requires agencies to consider whether partial disclosure is possible and to take reasonable steps to segregate and release nonexempt information. In accordance with the Act, this rule incorporates the sunset provision for the deliberative process privilege. The Act also increases the time limit for requesters to file an administrative appeal to 90 days. This rule updates the Commission's regulations in 17 CFR part 145 to incorporate those statutory changes. This rule also contains several technical amendments to reflect the Commission's current organizational structure, eliminate unnecessary text, and correct erroneous citations.

Section 145.0 (Definitions) is revised to (1) eliminate the term Assistant Secretary because the position referred to—Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOI, Privacy, and Sunshine Acts Compliance—is defunct; (2) update the definition of Compliance Staff to reflect the current organizational structure; and (3) add paragraph letters before each defined term for easier cross-reference throughout part 145.

Section 145.4 (Public records available with identifying details deleted; nonpublic records available in abridged or summary form) is revised to update cross-references with the paragraph letters corresponding to the defined terms.

Section 145.5 (Disclosure of nonpublic records) is revised to incorporate the foreseeable harm standard codified by the Act, which provides that an agency shall withhold information under FOIA only if the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption, or disclosure is prohibited by law. This section is also revised to reflect the requirement in the Act that agencies consider whether partial disclosure of information is possible whenever agencies determine that full disclosure of a requested record is not possible.

Paragraph (e) of § 145.5 is revised to include the three traditional privileges incorporated into Exemption 5 of FOIA and to conform to the requirement of the Act which states that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested. This paragraph is also revised to remove superfluous text concerning Exemption 5.

Section 145.6 (Commission offices to contact for assistance; registration records available) is revised to reflect the current addressee for requests for non-public records and to reflect the current addresses for the regional offices.

Paragraph (b) of § 145.7 (Requests for Commission records and copies thereof) is revised to indicate to whom requests for nonpublic records should be addressed and to delete references to Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance since that position is defunct, as noted above.

Paragraph (c) of § 145.7 is revised to remove oral requests for records because requests for records should be submitted in a written format for record keeping purposes and to eliminate unnecessary text concerning misdirected requests.

Paragraph (f) of § 145.7 is revised to replace the term Assistant Secretary with Office of General Counsel because the Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance position is defunct.

Paragraph (g) of § 145.7 is revised to correct erroneous text and to replace the term Assistant Secretary with Office of General Counsel because the Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance position is defunct.

Paragraph (h) of § 145.7 is revised to replace references to Assistant Secretary with the term Compliance Staff or Office of General Counsel where appropriate. This paragraph is also revised to incorporate the Act's requirement that an affirmative determination informs the requester of the availability of assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison. Additionally, this paragraph is revised to incorporate the Act's requirement that an adverse determination informs the requester of the right to seek dispute resolution services from the FOIA Public Liaison and from OGIS. Further, this paragraph is revised to provide requesters an opportunity to modify the request and to seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison if the request involves unusual circumstances. This paragraph is also revised to conform to the requirement under the Act that agencies inform requesters of the right to seek dispute resolution services from OGIS if the request involves unusual circumstances.

Paragraph (i) of § 145.7 is revised to extend the time to file an administrative appeal to 90 days in conformity with the Act. Further, this paragraph is revised to include the requirement under the Act to inform the requester of mediation services offered by OGIS. This paragraph is also revised to streamline the process for administrative reviews and to replace the term Assistant Secretary with the term Compliance Staff because the Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance position is defunct. Moreover, this paragraph corrects typographical errors.

Paragraph (j) of § 145.7 is revised to replace the term Assistant Secretary with the term Compliance Staff because the Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance position is defunct.

Section 145.8 (Fees for records services) is revised to replace the term Assistant Secretary with the term Compliance Staff because the Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance position is defunct.

The Commission is issuing an interim rule to revise its FOIA regulations because these changes merely reflect the statutory amendments to FOIA that are contained in the Act. This approach enables these regulatory changes to take effect sooner than would be possible with the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in advance. Nonetheless, the Commission welcomes public comments from interested persons regarding any aspect of the changes made by this interim final rule. Please refer to the ADDRESSES section above. The Commission will consider all public comments in drafting the final rule.

All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Except as described below regarding confidential business information, all comments are considered part of the public record and will be posted as received to http://comments.cftc.gov for public inspection. The information made available online includes personal identifying information (such as name and address) which is voluntarily submitted by the commenter. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

If you want to submit material that you consider to be confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must submit your comment by mail or hand delivery/courier and include a petition for confidential treatment as described in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations, 17 CFR 145.9.

The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://comments.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the rulemaking will be retained in the rulemaking record and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the FOIA.

Administrative Procedure Act. The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 553 et seq., requires federal agencies to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and provide an opportunity for public comment before issuing a new rule. Rules are exempt from notice and comment if they are interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). The Commission has determined that this exception applies. The subject rules do not change the substantive standards the agency applies in implementing FOIA to the extent they conform to the changes codified in the Act. Also, the Commission has determined that the rules concern its organization, procedure, and practice because they make updates to accurately reflect the organizational structure of the agency. Furthermore, an agency may also issue a new rule without a pre-publication public comment period when it for “good cause” finds that prior notice and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). The Commission has determined that there is good cause to find that a pre-publication comment period is unnecessary. These revisions to the existing regulations in 17 CFR part 145 codify statutory changes and are technical-administrative in nature. For these reasons, the Commission's implementation of this rule as an interim final rule, with provision for post-promulgation public comment, is in accordance with section 553(b) of the APA.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires federal agencies to consider whether the rules they propose will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, if so, to provide a regulatory flexibility analysis regarding the economic impact on those entities. This rule amends the Commission's FOIA regulations to incorporate certain statutory changes required by the Act, and to reflect updates to the Commission's internal administrative structure and to make editorial changes to the regulations. Because the Commission is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

Paperwork Reduction Act. The Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 5 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., imposes certain requirements on federal agencies in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information. This rule does not contain any new collection of information requirements within the meaning of the PRA. Thus, the PRA is inapplicable to this rule.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR part 145 as set forth below:

The Coast Guard will enforce these special local regulations listed in 33 CFR 100.100 Table 1 on the specified dates and times as indicated below.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100, the events listed below are established as special local regulations. During the enforcement periods, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within the regulated area unless they receive permission from the COTP or designated representative.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.100(a) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of these enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners or Marine Information Broadcasts. If the COTP determines that this special local regulation need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The bridge owner, State of Maine Department of Transportation (Maine DOT), requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule of the Maine Department of Transportation (Barter's Island) Highway Bridge, mile 4.6, across the Back River between Barter's Island and Hodgdon Island, Maine. The drawbridge navigation span has a vertical clearance of six feet at mean high water in the closed position. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.523. The approved temporary deviation allows the bridge to remain closed for vessel traffic between the hours of 7 a.m. through 5:30 p.m. from June 12 through June 14.

The waterway is transited by fishing and sailing vessels of various sizes. For the last three years, the bridge averaged less than three openings a day during the month of June. Maine DOT contacted the primary stakeholders, none of which objected to the deviation. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may continue to do so at any time. Vessels have the option of going around the North Side of Barter's Island to reach the Sheepscot River. During the hours of deviation the bridge will not be able to open for emergencies.

The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Coast Guard issued a Bridge Permit dated August 21, 2013 approving the location and construction of the Kosciuszko Bridge across Newtown Creek, mile 2.1, between the Boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn, NY. On November 29, 2016, NYSDOT notified the Coast Guard that it will be lowering the existing center span from the Kosciuszko Bridge over Newtown Creek at mile 2.1 onto two barges within the Newtown Creek Federal navigation channel, securing the center span to the barges for transit, rotating the barges, and towing the barges through Newtown Creek to the East River for final upland disposal.

In response, on February 22, 2017, the Coast Guard published a NPRM titled “Safety Zone; Kosciuszko Bridge Construction, Newtown Creek, Brooklyn and Queens, NY” (82 FR 11332). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this bridge project. During the comment period that ended March 24, 2017, we received no comments.

On May 1, 2017, the contractor provided June 21-22 as the expected primary dates for the removal and loading of the existing center span onto two barges. The contractor has informed the Coast Guard that the backup dates for the removal and transport of the existing center are June 28-29 and July 5-6, 2017.

The Coast Guard is making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(d)). This provision authorizes an agency to make a rule effective less than 30 days after publication for good cause. We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because waiting 30 days would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide a full 30-days notice because this rule must be effective on June 21-22, 2017 due to favorable tides on that day necessary for the barge transits. If this rule is not made effective by this date, then it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to perform its statutory mission to ensure the safety of the maritime public. Though we are not providing a full 30 day notice period before the rule becomes effective, the Coast Guard did provide notice and opportunity to comment through the NPRM process.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with these operations will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-foot radius of the tugs and barges. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a 500-foot radius of the two barges and assist vessels when loading, securing, and transporting the center span of the Kosciuszko Bridge through Newtown Creek before, during, and after the operations.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published February 22, 2017. There are no changes to the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a safety zone from June 21 through December 31, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Newtown Creek within 500 feet of the two barges and assist vessels to be used for the removal and loading of the existing center span from the Kosciuszko Bridge at mile 2.1, within 500 feet of two barges and their assist vessels in Newtown Creek from approximately 370 yards south (upstream) of the existing Kosciuszko Bridge at mile 2.1 and Newtown Creek's confluence with the East River during transport of the existing center span to an offsite location. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the loading, securing, rotating the two barges for transit tentatively scheduled on June 21, 2017, and transporting the center span of the Kosciuszko Bridge through Newtown Creek tentatively scheduled on June 22, 2017. Backup dates for these operations are June 28-29 and July 5-6, 2017.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zones. Although vessel traffic will not be able to transit around these safety zones as the two barges carrying the Kosciuszko Bridge center span will block a minimum of 109 feet of the 130 foot wide Federal navigation channel, enforcement of the safety will be limited in duration. It is anticipated the entire operation of loading the Kosciuszko Bridge center span, securing the span on the barges, rotating the barges, and towing through Newtown Creek should last no longer than 48 hours. During the lowering and securing of the center span and the approximate one-hour transit time from the bridge site to the East River vessels will not be able to meet or overtake the two barges with three assist tugs as the combined width of these vessels will be 109 feet and the Federal navigation channel is only 130 feet wide. However, the known waterway users upstream of the bridge including the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, U.S. Concrete, Bayside Fuel Oil Depot, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency all reported the requested 48-hour channel closure will not negatively impact their operations. U.S. Concrete stated they require at least two weeks' notice if the closure is anticipated to last longer than 48 hours. Facilities downstream of the bridge will not be required to move vessels moored at their facility as long as they do not extend into the Federal navigation channel and would be able to depart the facility before, or after, the two barges carrying the bridge span are towed past the facility. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to Mariners and a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V. A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a stationary safety zone lasting approximately 48 hours, a moving safety zone lasting approximately one hour that will prohibit transit within 500 feet of the two barges and assist vessels carrying the bridge span, and a stationary safety zone lasting approximately three hours that will prohibit transit within 600 feet of the existing bridge during explosives demolition operations at each onshore approach span. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) for Categorically Excluded Actions is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

I. General Information A. Why is EPA using a Direct Final Rule?

EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment as this action is just revising an existing reference in part 312 to the updated version of a standard practice recently made available by ASTM International (E2247-16). However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

This action offers certain parties the option of using an available industry standard to conduct all appropriate inquiries at certain properties. Parties purchasing large tracts of forested land and parties purchasing large rural properties may use the ASTM E2247-16 standard practice to comply with the all appropriate inquiries requirements of CERCLA. This rule does not require any entity to use this standard. Any party who wants to claim protection from liability under CERCLA may follow the regulatory requirements of the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule at 40 CFR part 312, use the ASTM E1527-13 Standard Practice for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments to comply with the all appropriate inquiries provision of CERCLA, or use the standard recognized in this direct final rule, the ASTM E2247-16 standard.

Entities potentially affected by this action, or who may choose to use the newly referenced ASTM standard to perform all appropriate inquiries, include public and private parties who, as bona fide prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners, or innocent landowners, are purchasing large tracts of forested lands or large rural properties and intend to claim a limitation on CERCLA liability in conjunction with the property purchase. In addition, any entity conducting a site characterization or assessment on a property that consists of large tracts of forested land or a large rural property with a brownfields grant awarded under CERCLA Section 104(k)(2)(B)(ii) may be affected by this action. This includes state, local and Tribal governments that receive brownfields site assessment grants. A summary of the potentially affected industry sectors (by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes) is displayed in the table below.

The list of potentially affected entities in the above table may not be exhaustive. Our aim is to provide a guide for readers regarding those entities that EPA is aware potentially could be affected by this action. However, this action may affect other entities not listed in the table. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding section entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This direct final rule amends the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule setting federal standards for the conduct of “all appropriate inquiries” at 40 CFR part 312. The All Appropriate Inquiries Rule sets forth standards and practices necessary for fulfilling the requirements of CERCLA section 101(35)(B) as required to obtain CERCLA liability relief and for conducting site characterizations and assessments with the use of brownfields grants per CERCLA section 104(k)(2)(B)(ii).

On January 11, 2002, President Bush signed the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (“the Brownfields Amendments”). In general, the Brownfields Amendments to CERCLA provide funds to assess and clean up brownfields sites; clarifies CERCLA liability provisions related to innocent purchasers of contaminated properties; and provides funding to enhance State and Tribal cleanup programs. In part, subtitle B of the Brownfields Amendments revises some of the provisions of CERCLA section 101(35) and limits Superfund liability under Section 107 for bona fide prospective purchasers and contiguous property owners, in addition to clarifying the requirements necessary to establish the innocent landowner defense under CERCLA. The Brownfields Amendments clarified the requirement that parties purchasing potentially contaminated property undertake “all appropriate inquiries” into prior ownership and use of property prior to purchasing the property in order to qualify for protection from CERCLA liability.

The Brownfields Amendments required EPA to develop regulations establishing standards and practices for how to conduct all appropriate inquiries. EPA promulgated regulations that set standards and practices for all appropriate inquiries on November 1, 2005 (70 FR 66070). In the final regulation, EPA referenced, and recognized as compliant with the final rule, the ASTM E1527-05 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.” The regulation was amended in December 2013 to recognize the revised ASTM E1527-13, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process” (78 FR 79319). EPA also amended the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule in December 2008 to recognize another ASTM standard as compliant with the final rule, the ASTM E2247-08 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property” (73 FR 78716). Therefore, the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule (40 CFR part 312) currently allows for the use of both the ASTM E1527-13 and the ASTM E2247-08 standards to conduct all appropriate inquiries, in lieu of following requirements included in the final rule. Note that in October 2014, EPA withdrew the reference to the ASTM E1527-05 standard from the AAI rule (79 FR 60087).

Since EPA promulgated the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule setting standards and practices for the conduct of all appropriate inquiries, ASTM International published a revised Phase I site assessment standard for conducting Phase I environmental site assessments of large tracts of rural and forestland properties. This standard, ASTM E2247-16, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property,” was reviewed by EPA, in response to a request for its review by ASTM International, and determined by EPA to be compliant with the requirements of the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule.

This direct final rule amends the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule to allow the use of the recently revised ASTM standard, E2247-16, for conducting all appropriate inquiries, as required under CERCLA for establishing the innocent landowner defense, as well as qualifying for the bona fide prospective purchaser and contiguous property owner liability protections.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)) directs agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, unless their use would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. ASTM International is an internationally recognized voluntary consensus standard body. The ASTM E2247-16 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property” includes an environmental site assessment process that EPA finds is not inconsistent with the standards and practices included in the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule.

With this action, EPA is establishing that, parties seeking liability relief under CERCLA's landowner liability protections, as well as recipients of brownfields grants for conducting site assessments, will be considered to be in compliance with the requirements for all appropriate inquiries, as required in the Brownfields Amendments to CERCLA, if such parties satisfy the applicability requirements and comply with the procedures provided in the ASTM E2247-16, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property.” EPA determined that it is reasonable to promulgate this clarification as a direct final rule that is effective 90 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register, rather than delay promulgation of the clarification until after receipt and consideration of public comments. EPA made this determination based upon the Agency's finding that the ASTM E2247-16 standard is “not inconsistent with,” and compliant with the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule and the Agency sees no reason to delay allowing for its use in conducting all appropriate inquiries. The Agency notes that this action does not require any party to use the ASTM E2247-16 standard. Any party conducting all appropriate inquiries to comply with the CERCLA requirements at section 101(35)(B) for the innocent landowner defense, the contiguous property owner liability protection, or the bona fide prospective purchaser liability protection may continue to follow the provisions of the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule at 40 CFR part 312, use the ASTM E1527-13 Standard or use the ASTM E2247-16 standard, as applicable.

In taking this action, the Agency is allowing for the use of an additional recognized standard or customary business practice, in complying with a federal regulation. This action does not require any person to use the newly revised standard. This action merely allows for the use of ASTM International's E2247-16 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property” for those parties purchasing relatively large tracts of rural property or forestlands who want to use the ASTM E2247-16 standard in lieu of the following specific requirements of the all appropriate inquiries rule or the ASTM E1527-13 standard.

The Agency notes that there are no significant differences between the regulatory requirements in the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule and the standards and practices included in the two ASTM standards (ASTM E1527-13 and ASTM E2247-16). To facilitate an understanding of the revisions to the ASTM E2247-08 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Standard for Forestland or Rural Property, which was recognized by EPA as compliant with the requirements of the all appropriate inquiries regulation in 2013, and the revised ASTM E2247-16 Standard, which replaces the ASTM E2247-08 standard, EPA developed, and placed in the docket for this action, the document “Summary of Updates and Revisions to ASTM E2247 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property.” Also in the docket for this action is the document “Comparison of the All Appropriate Inquiries Regulation, the ASTM E1527-13 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process and the ASTM E2247-16 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property Standard.” This document provides an overview of the similarities and slight differences between the AAI regulatory requirements and the requirements included in the two ASTM phase I environmental site assessment standards.

This action includes no changes to the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule other than to update the reference in the regulation for the ASTM E2247 standard. This action replaces the reference to the ASTM E2247-08 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property” in the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule with the updated ASTM E2247-16 standard of the same name. EPA is not seeking comments on the standards and practices included in the final rule published at 40 part 312. Also, EPA is not seeking comments on the ASTM E2247-16 standard. EPA's only action with this direct final rule is recognition of the ASTM E2247-16 standard as compliant with the final rule, and therefore it is only this action on which the Agency is seeking comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to OMB review. Further, this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and, as a result, is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate or the private sector in any one year, and does not contain regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, it is not subject to Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). This action does not create new binding legal requirements that substantially and directly affect Tribes under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action does not have significant Federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

This action involves technical standards. This action allows for the use of the ASTM International Standard known as Standard E2247-16 and entitled “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property.”

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends title 40 chapter I of the code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Need for Correction

On April 20, 2017, NMFS published a final rule (82 FR 18581) that implemented the Plan and management measures that are not regulated through the IPHC, including the sport fishery allocations and management measures for the IPHC's regulatory Area 2A. Subsequent to publication in the Federal Register, two typographical errors were noted in the section “2017 Sport Management Measures,” in the Columbia River subarea.

On page 18583, in the last line of the third column, an incorrect date was provided for the opening of the nearshore fishery in the Columbia River subarea. This rule corrects the date to be consistent with the Plan and state regulations. The Plan describes that the nearshore fishery in this subarea opens subsequent to the all-depth fishery, on the first Monday following the opening of the all-depth fishery. State regulations correctly announced the 2017 date that conforms with the Plan framework, Monday, May 8, 2017.

On page 18584, in the fifth line of the first column, an incorrect date was provided for the opening of the all-depth fishery in the Columbia River subarea. This rule corrects the date to be consistent with the Plan and state regulations. The Plan describes that the all-depth fishery in this subarea opens the first Thursday of May, or on May 1 if it is a Friday, Saturday or Sunday. State regulations correctly announced the 2017 date that conforms with the Plan framework, Thursday, May 4, 2017.

The affected states and IPHC staff have been notified of these corrections, and the pending correct dates have been announced on NMFS's halibut hotline (1-800-662-9825 or 206 526-6667). NMFS will not take enforcement action against any individuals who relied on the original, incorrect dates in good faith. Therefore, these corrections are anticipated by the public and the state regulatory agencies, and their implementation will cause no harm.

In the Federal Register of April 20, 2017 (82 FR 18581), paragraph (8)(d)(i), beginning on page 18583, is corrected to read as follows:

(i) This subarea is divided into an all-depth fishery and a nearshore fishery. The nearshore fishery is allocated 500 pounds of the subarea allocation. The nearshore fishery extends from Leadbetter Point (46°38.17′ N. lat., 124°15.88′ W. long.) to the Columbia River (46°16.00′ N. lat., 124°15.88′ W. long.) by connecting the following coordinates in Washington 46°38.17′ N. lat., 124°15.88′ W. long., 46°16.00′ N. lat., 124°15.88′ W. long. and connecting to the boundary line approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour in Oregon. The nearshore fishery opens Monday, May 8, and continues 3 days per week (Monday-Wednesday) until the nearshore allocation is taken, or September 30, whichever is earlier. The all-depth fishing season commences on Thursday, May 4, and continues 4 days a week (Thursday-Sunday) until 12,799 lb (5.81 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or September 30, whichever is earlier. Subsequent to this closure, if there is insufficient quota remaining in the Columbia River subarea for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred inseason to another Washington and/or Oregon subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline. Any remaining quota would be transferred to each state in proportion to its contribution.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) finds there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be unnecessary and contrary to public interest. Notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because this action corrects inadvertent errors in regulations for a fishery that opens on May 4, and immediate notice of the error and correction is necessary to prevent confusion among participants in the fishery that could result from the existing conflict between state and tribal regulations and the final rule. To effectively correct the error, this correction must go into effect as soon as possible, as the affected Pacific halibut sport fisheries open May 4. Thus, there is not sufficient time for notice and comment due to the imminent opening of the fishery. In addition, notice and comment is unnecessary because this action makes only minor changes of which the public, states, and IPHC staff are already aware. This correction will not affect the results of analyses conducted to support management decisions in the Pacific halibut fishery nor change the total catch of Pacific halibut. No change in operating practices in the fishery is required.

For the same reasons stated above, the AA has determined that good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Because prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be provided for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required for this rule and none has been prepared.

This final rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the reef fish fishery of the Gulf, which includes greater amberjack, under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf (FMP). The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All greater amberjack weights discussed in this temporary rule are in round weight.

The commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for Gulf greater amberjack is 464,400 lb (210,648 kg), as specified in 50 CFR 622.41(a)(1)(iii). The commercial quota (equivalent to the commercial ACT) is 394,740 lb (179,051 kg), as specified in 50 CFR 622.39(a)(1)(v).

Under 50 CFR 622.41(a)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for greater amberjack when the commercial ACT is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined the commercial ACT will be reached by June 20, 2017. Accordingly, the commercial sector for Gulf greater amberjack is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, June 20, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018.

The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish with greater amberjack on board must have landed, bartered, traded, or sold such greater amberjack prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, June 20, 2017. During the commercial closure, the sale or purchase of greater amberjack taken from the EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of greater amberjack that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, June 20, 2017, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. The commercial sector for greater amberjack will reopen on January 1, 2018, the beginning of the 2018 greater amberjack commercial fishing season.

During the commercial closure, the bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.38(b)(1) apply to all harvest or possession of greater amberjack in or from the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ). However, the recreational sector for greater amberjack closed on March 24, 2017, until the start of the next fishing year on January 1, 2018 (82 FR 14477, March 21, 2017). During this recreational closure, the bag and possession limits for greater amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ are zero.

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf greater amberjack and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.41(a)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for greater amberjack constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing the closure provisions was subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the greater amberjack stock. The capacity of the commercial sector allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota, and prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in harvest exceeding the commercial ACL.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).