Federal Register Vol. 82, No.146,

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplane.

In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds good cause that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On September 28, 2016, LifePort applied for a supplemental type certificate for single- and multiple-occupant side-facing seats in the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane. The Boeing Model 747-8 airplane is a wide-body, four-engine, extended-range jet with a stretched upper deck. This airplane is configured as a private executive jet, not for hire, not for common carriage. The maximum takeoff weight is 987,331 pounds.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, LifePort must show that the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A20WE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane, because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

The Boeing Model 747-8 airplane, as modified by LifePort, will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

Single- and multiple-occupant side-facing seats positioned in the airplane with the occupant facing 90 degrees to the direction of airplane travel.

Side-facing seats are considered a novel design for transport-category airplanes that include §§ 25.562 and 25.785 at Amendment 25-64 in their certification basis, and were not considered when those airworthiness standards were issued. The FAA has determined that the existing regulations do not provide adequate or appropriate safety standards for occupants of side-facing seats. To provide a level of safety that is equivalent to that afforded to occupants of forward- and aft-facing seats, additional airworthiness standards in the form of special conditions are necessary.

On June 16, 1988, 14 CFR part 25 was amended by Amendment 25-64 to revise the emergency-landing conditions that must be considered in the design of transport-category airplanes. Amendment 25-64 revised the static-load conditions in § 25.561, and added a new § 25.562 that required dynamic testing for all seats approved for occupancy during takeoff and landing. The intent of Amendment 25-64 was to provide an improved level of safety for occupants on transport-category airplanes. However, because most seating on transport-category airplanes is forward-facing, the pass/fail criteria developed in Amendment 25-64 focused primarily on these seats. For some time, the FAA granted exemptions for the multiple-place side-facing-seat installations because the existing test methods and acceptance criteria did not produce a level of safety equivalent to the level of safety provided for forward- and aft-facing seats. These exemptions were subject to many conditions that reflected the injury-evaluation criteria and mitigation strategies available at the time of the exemption issuance.

The FAA also issued special conditions to address single-place side-facing seats based on the data available at the time the FAA issued those special conditions. Continuing concerns regarding the safety of side-facing seats prompted the FAA to conduct research to develop an acceptable method of compliance with §§ 25.562 and 25.785(b) for side-facing seat installations. That research has identified injury considerations and evaluation criteria in addition to those previously used to approve side-facing seats (see published report DOT/FAA/AR-09/41, July 2011).

One particular concern that was identified during the FAA's research program, but not addressed in the previous special conditions, was the significant leg injuries that can occur to occupants of both single- and multiple-place side-facing seats. Because this type of injury does not occur on forward- and aft-facing seats, the FAA determined that, to achieve the level of safety envisioned in Amendment 25-64, additional requirements would be needed as compared to previously issued special conditions. Nonetheless, the research has now allowed the development of a single set of special conditions that is applicable to all fully side-facing seats.

On November 5, 2012, the FAA released policy statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1, “Technical Criteria for Approving Side-Facing Seats,” to update existing FAA certification policy on §§ 25.562 and 25.785(a) at Amendment 25-64 for single- and multiple-place side-facing seats. This policy addresses both the technical criteria for approving side-facing seats and the implementation of those criteria. The FAA methodology detailed in PS-ANM-25-03-R1 has been used in establishing a new set of proposed special conditions. Some of the conditions issued for previous exemptions are still relevant and are included in these new special conditions. However, others have been replaced by different criteria that reflect current research findings.

In Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1, conditions 1 and 2 are applicable to all side-facing seat installations, whereas conditions 3 through 16 represent additional requirements applicable to side-facing seats equipped with an airbag system in the shoulder belt. Because the applicant's side-facing seats do not have airbag systems, only conditions 1 and 2 are applicable to, and included in, these special conditions.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane as modified by LifePort. Should LifePort apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate no. A20WE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

1. Additional requirements applicable to tests or rational analysis conducted to show compliance with §§ 25.562 and 25.785 for side-facing seats:

a. The longitudinal test(s) conducted in accordance with § 25.562(b)(2), to show compliance with the seat-strength requirements of § 25.562(c)(7) and (8) and these special conditions, must have an ES-2re anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) (49 CFR part 572, subpart U) or equivalent, or a Hybrid II ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart B as specified in § 25.562) or equivalent, occupying each seat position and including all items (e.g., armrest, interior wall, or furnishing) contactable by the occupant if those items are necessary to restrain the occupant. If included, the floor representation and contactable items must be located such that their relative position, with respect to the center of the nearest seat place, is the same at the start of the test as before floor misalignment is applied. For example, if floor misalignment rotates the centerline of the seat place nearest the contactable item 8 degrees clockwise about the airplane x-axis, then the item and floor representations must be rotated by 8 degrees clockwise also, to maintain the same relative position to the seat place, as shown in Figure 1. Each ATD's relative position to the seat after application of floor misalignment must be the same as before misalignment is applied. To ensure proper occupant seat loading, the ATD pelvis must remain supported by the seat pan, and the restraint system must remain on the pelvis and shoulder of the ATD until rebound begins. No injury-criteria evaluation is necessary for tests conducted only to assess seat-strength requirements.

b. The longitudinal test(s) conducted in accordance with § 25.562(b)(2), to show compliance with the injury assessments required by § 25.562(c) and these special conditions, may be conducted separately from the test(s) to show structural integrity. In this case, structural-assessment tests must be conducted as specified in paragraph 1a, above, and the injury-assessment test must be conducted without yaw or floor misalignment. Injury assessments may be accomplished by testing with ES-2re ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart U) or equivalent at all places. Alternatively, these assessments may be accomplished by multiple tests that use an ES-2re ATD at the seat place being evaluated, and a Hybrid II ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart B, as specified in § 25.562) or equivalent used in all seat places forward of the one being assessed, to evaluate occupant interaction. In this case, seat places aft of the one being assessed may be unoccupied. If a seat installation includes adjacent items that are contactable by the occupant, the injury potential of that contact must be assessed. To make this assessment, tests may be conducted that include the actual item, located and attached in a representative fashion. Alternatively, the injury potential may be assessed by a combination of tests with items having the same geometry as the actual item, but having stiffness characteristics that would create the worst case for injury (injuries due to both contact with the item and lack of support from the item).

c. If a seat is installed aft of structure (e.g., an interior wall or furnishing) that does not have a homogeneous surface contactable by the occupant, additional analysis and/or test(s) may be required to demonstrate that the injury criteria are met for the area that an occupant could contact. For example, different yaw angles could result in different injury considerations and may require additional analysis or separate test(s) to evaluate.

d. To accommodate a range of occupant heights (5th percentile female to 95th percentile male), the surface of items contactable by the occupant must be homogenous 7.3 in. (185 mm) above and 7.9 in. (200 mm) below the point (center of area) that is contacted by the 50th percentile male size ATD's head during the longitudinal test(s) conducted in accordance with paragraphs a, b, and c, above. Otherwise, additional head-injury criteria (HIC) assessment tests may be necessary. Any surface (inflatable or otherwise) that provides support for the occupant of any seat place must provide that support in a consistent manner regardless of occupant stature. For example, if an inflatable shoulder belt is used to mitigate injury risk, then it must be demonstrated by inspection to bear against the range of occupants in a similar manner before and after inflation. Likewise, the means of limiting lower-leg flail must be demonstrated by inspection to provide protection for the range of occupants in a similar manner.

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 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2017 (82 FR 20288). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the lower skin at the skin lap splice lower fastener row is subject to WFD. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking in the skin lap splice at the lower fastener row, and repair if necessary.

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 stated that it concurred with the NPRM.

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 request. 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 final rule 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 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 737-53A1365, dated January 23, 2017. The service information describes procedures for eddy current inspections for cracking at the skin lap splice in the lower fastener row, 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 126 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:

AD 2017-01-12, Amendment 39-18779 (82 FR 5359, January 18, 2017) (“AD 2017-01-12”) requires either replacing the engine exhaust pipes with new design pipes or installing clamps on the old design pipes on Diamond Model DA 42 airplanes. AD 2017-01-12 is based on European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0156R1, dated November 23, 2016. EASA is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community.

After issuance of AD 2017-01-12, we received reports of cracks on the new design engine exhaust pipes. To address this cracking issue, we issued AD 2017-11-08, Amendment 39-18907 (82 FR 24843, May 31, 2017) (“AD 2017-11-08”). AD 2017-11-08 requires repetitively inspecting the new design engine exhaust pipes installed on Diamond Model DA 42 airplanes and replacing any cracked pipes. AD 2017-11-08 is based on EASA AD No. 2017-0090, dated May 17, 2017.

Since issuance of AD 2017-11-08, we received reports of cracks found on the engine exhaust pipe clamps that were installed on the old design engine exhaust pipes as a requirement in AD 2017-01-12. The FAA and EASA are working concurrently on AD action for the United States and Europe. EASA recently issued AD No.: 2017-0120, dated July 13, 2017, to address actions similar to that of this FAA AD.

This condition, if not corrected, could result in hot exhaust gases coming from the fractured pipes and leading to an uncommanded engine in-flight shutdown or overheat damage, which could result in a forced landing, consequent damage, and occupant injury.

Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 42-120/2, dated June 7, 2017, and Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 3, dated July 6, 2017. In combination, the service information describes procedures for installing engine exhaust pipe clamps with spring washers and inspecting the engine exhaust pipe clamps for cracks, with replacement if cracks are found. 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 of the final rule.

We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because affected engine exhaust pipes could crack and cause hot gases to leak from fractured exhaust pipes and lead to an uncommanded engine in-flight shutdown. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2017-0640 and Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-020-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 because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 130 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that will be required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need these replacements:

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.

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 certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2017 (82 FR 20453) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of undamped MLG extension in-service. The NPRM proposed to require replacement of the MLG retraction actuator rod-ends on both MLG assemblies. We are issuing this AD to prevent MLG undamped extensions, which could result in MLG structural failure, resulting in an unsafe asymmetric landing gear configuration.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-36, dated November 22, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 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-2017-0331.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. Air Line Pilots Association, International supported the NPRM.

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.

Bombardier, Inc., issued Service Bulletin 8-32-179, Revision A, dated March 9, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacing the MLG retraction actuator rod-ends on both MLG assemblies with units that fully conform to the design requirements. 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 91 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with 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:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2017 (82 FR 21482).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2016-33, dated October 12, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) 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-2017-0333.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data 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.

Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 215-4457, Revision 3, dated May 8, 2013. The service information describes procedures for installing shims, and, for certain airplanes, modifying the straps of the latch assembly, on the flight crew's oxygen bottles' retaining structure. 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 24 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with 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:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2017 (82 FR 18590) (“the NPRM”).

The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2016-07-01, dated July 18, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. The MCAI states:

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.

Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) requested that the compliance time in the NPRM be revised. ALPA stated that since the Embraer service information was published 19 months prior, operators have been provided ample time to perform inspections to determine whether a corrective action is required. ALPA commented that, therefore, it is in partial support of the NPRM and suggested an inspection compliance time of 12 months or 2,500 flight hours after the effective date of the AD, and a repair compliance time of 24 months or 5,000 hours after the effective date of the AD.

We disagree with the commenter's request. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of inspecting and replacing the gust lock lever. Further, we arrived at the proposed compliance time with operator and manufacturer concurrence. Since the actions specified in the Brazilian AD and service information are not mandatory in the U.S., the FAA must issue a final rule to mandate those actions in order to address the identified unsafe condition. In consideration of all of these factors, we determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents an appropriate time in which the gust lock lever can be inspected and replaced in a timely manner within the fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments 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 have reviewed Embraer Service Bulletin 145-27-0126, dated October 6, 2015. This service information describes procedures for replacement of a certain gust lock lever for one with an alternative format.

We have also reviewed Embraer Service Bulletin 145-27-0115, Revision 03, dated October 5, 2015. This service information describes modification procedures involving replacement of the gust lock lever with a new gust lock lever enabling both engine thrust levers to be advanced at the same angle as that of the electromechanical gust lock lever.

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 668 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

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 certain The Boeing Company Model 787-9 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2016 (81 FR 85448) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that the shoulder bolt used on the outboard clevis of the forward support fitting of the RAT might not be long enough to allow for proper installation of the RAT; therefore, the clevis of the joint could be clamped together, resulting in reduced fatigue life and possible fracture of the clevis. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting for cracking of the clevis of the forward support fitting of the RAT, installing a longer shoulder bolt, and replacing the forward support fitting with a new fitting if any cracking is found. We are issuing this AD to prevent fracture of the clevis of the forward support fitting of the RAT, which could result in the RAT departing the airplane during a dual non-restartable engine loss, and consequent loss of control of the airplane, or injury to maintenance crews during periodic RAT ground tests.

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 Ahmed Ahmed Hamdy concur with the content of the NPRM.

United Airlines (UAL) asked that we clarify the credit language used in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. UAL stated that, as written, paragraph (h) of the proposed AD specifies that previous accomplishment of Boeing Message TBC-CAL-15-0089-01B, dated September 22, 2015 (identified in paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD), provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. UAL noted that if the intent is to give credit for all the actions specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, it's incorrect because that Boeing message only provides procedures to replace the subject bolt; the high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection and fitting replacement are not included in those procedures.

We agree that clarification of paragraph (h) of this AD is necessary. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to provide credit for the shoulder bolt replacement specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if it was performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

UAL asked that we allow replacement of the shoulder bolt before accomplishing the HFEC inspection, which will shorten the time for the replacement. UAL stated that the 12,000-flight-hour or 24-month time limit to accomplish all actions in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD is understandable; however, due to the possibility of extended downtime if the fitting replacement is required, the HFEC inspection must be done during a heavy maintenance check, which could be a considerable amount of time after the effective date of the AD. UAL added that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB290031-00, Issue 001, dated March 25, 2016, does not separate the bolt replacement from the inspection, but the proposed AD should provide that option.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. A fracture of the clevis of the forward support fitting of the RAT will not be addressed by replacing the subject bolt without an HFEC inspection of the fitting. When operators replace the bolt, they must also inspect the fitting. Replacing the bolt without inspecting this fitting could result in undetected cracking in the fitting, which is the cause of the unsafe condition in this AD. Repetitive removal and replacement of the bolt may also cause further stress on the forward support fitting, which could contribute to additional cracking of the fitting, especially if the fitting is already cracked. Paragraph (h) of this AD provides credit to operators that have replaced the subject bolt prior to the effective date of this AD. However, as of the effective date of this AD, when complying with paragraph (g) of this AD, all corrective actions must be done before further flight. We acknowledge that replacing the fitting due to potential inspection findings will require significant effort and downtime; however, only two airplanes of U.S. Registry are affected by the requirements of this AD. With a limited number of airplanes affected and a relatively long compliance time provided, operators should have adequate time to schedule the maintenance for accomplishing the actions required by this AD. Therefore, we have made no changes to this AD in this regard.

One commenter, Julia Stotts, asked that we change the unsafe condition identified in the NPRM from “. . . to prevent fracture of the clevis of the forward support fitting of the RAT, which could result in the RAT departing the airplane during a dual non-restartable engine loss, and consequent loss of control of the airplane, or injury to maintenance crews during periodic RAT ground tests” to “. . . detect and correct fatigue cracking in the forward engine mounts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and could lead to in-flight loss of an engine, possibly resulting in reduced controllability of the airplane.” The commenter suggested the change to encompass both fracture of the clevis and the possibility of the RAT departing from the airplane, which could lead to loss of an engine.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. The commenter provided no justification for revising the unsafe condition to include fatigue cracking in the forward engine mounts and possible loss of an engine. The unsafe condition in this AD stems from a determination that the shoulder bolt used on the outboard clevis of the forward support fitting of the RAT might not be long enough to allow for proper installation of the RAT; therefore, the clevis of the joint could be clamped together, resulting in reduced fatigue life and possible fracture of the clevis causing possible departure of the RAT from the airplane. The suggested change is not related to the identified unsafe condition or the potential end level effect resulting from that unsafe condition. We have made no changes to this AD in this regard.

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 B787-81205-SB290031-00, Issue 001, dated March 25, 2016. The service information describes procedures for inspecting for cracking of the clevis of the forward support fitting of the RAT, installing a longer shoulder bolt, and replacing the forward support fitting with a new fitting if any cracking is found. 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 2 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Discussion

We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes, Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes, and Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2017 (82 FR 12314) (“the SNPRM”). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2016 (81 FR 62026) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the lower area of a certain frame radius for cracking, and corrective action if necessary. The NPRM was prompted by the results of a full stress analysis of the lower area of a certain frame that revealed a crack could occur in the forward fitting lower radius of a certain frame after a certain number of flight cycles. The SNPRM proposed to require extending the area to be inspected for cracking and adding an inspection for previously inspected airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the forward fitting lower radius of a certain frame. Such cracking could reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0179, dated September 12, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), which superseded EASA AD 2016-0085, dated April 28, 2016. EASA AD 2016-0085 was the MCAI referred to in the NPRM.

The MCAI was issued to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes, Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes, and Model A300 F4-600R 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-2016-9055.

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

FedEx and United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that the SNPRM be revised to refer to a service bulletin that Airbus plans to release to replace Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A57W009-16, Rev 01, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated July 13, 2016 (“AOT A57W009-16, Rev 01”). AOT A57W009-16, Rev 01, was identified as the service information to be used to accomplish the actions specified in the SNPRM. UPS noted that the service bulletin would include information based on in-service reports from operators who had accomplished the inspection identified in AOT A57W009-16, Rev 01, and based on the results of a full stress analysis of the frame (FR) 40 lower area. Based on this information Airbus changed the initial inspection compliance time from what was specified in AOT A57W009-16, Rev 01, and established repetitive inspection intervals. FedEx and UPS both mentioned that to reduce the number of alternative method of compliance (AMOC) requests, the SNPRM should be revised to include the service bulletin. UPS also noted that including the service information would benefit the FAA because the FAA could avoid future rulemaking regarding this issue.

We partially agree with the commenters' requests. After the SNPRM was published, Airbus issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6120, dated April 28, 2017. However, instead of removing the reference to AOT A57W009-16, Rev 01, in this AD, we have added paragraph (j) to this AD to allow operators to do the required actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Service Bulletin A300-57-6120, dated April 28, 2017. We have redesignated the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

FedEx requested that paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) be revised to provide flexibility regarding the method of reporting inspection results to Airbus. FedEx stated that to utilize the Airbus online reporting system would require substantial updates to its information technology systems and personnel training; therefore, it is not prepared to utilize the online reporting system at this time. FedEx suggested that the older method of reporting be allowed until it has the computer and personnel resources in place to utilize online reporting.

We agree with the commenter's request. We have determined that operators may use either the online or older reporting method. We have revised paragraph (k) of this AD (paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM)) to allow operators to report inspection findings using the online reporting system or submit the results to Airbus in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6120, dated April 28, 2017.

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 SNPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

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

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

We reviewed Airbus AOT A57W009-16, Rev 01, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated July 13, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a one-time inspection of the forward fitting lower radius of FR 40 for cracking, and corrective action.

We have also reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6120, dated April 28, 2017. This service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the forward fitting lower radius of FR 40 for cracking, and corrective action.

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 94 airplanes of U.S. registry.

Discussion

On April 10, 2017, at 82 FR 17156, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Agusta S.p.A. Model A109S helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require, within 15 hours time-in-service, revising the Limitations section of the RFM by inserting a copy of this AD or by making pen-and-ink changes to add several limitations: Prohibiting flight with a passenger cabin sliding door opened or removed for helicopters with Internal Arrangement part number (P/N) 109-0814-21-101 installed; prohibiting flight with a passenger cabin sliding door open unless modification P/N 109-0814-35 is installed; prohibiting flight with a passenger cabin sliding door open unless the doors are locked; establishing a maximum VNE with a passenger cabin sliding door opened or removed; establishing a maximum airspeed for opening or closing a passenger cabin sliding door during flight; and prohibiting instrument flight rule operation with any door opened or removed.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2015-0227, dated November 19, 2015, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for the AgustaWestland S.p.A. Model A109S helicopters. EASA advises of a report that the right-hand lower cabin liner of Internal Arrangement P/N 109-0814-21-101 detached and hit three M/R blades during a landing with the right-hand door removed. EASA states that this condition, if not corrected, could lead to further occurrences of in-flight lower cabin liner detachment, possibly resulting in damage to or loss of control of the helicopter. Therefore, the EASA AD requires revising the RFM to provide limitations on flights with a passenger cabin sliding door opened or removed. EASA considers its AD an interim action and states further AD action may follow.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

This helicopter has been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval holder is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

We reviewed AgustaWestland A109S RFM, Document No. 109G0040A013, Issue 2, Revision 3, dated April 23, 2015, which adds several limitations regarding flight with a passenger cabin sliding door opened or removed.

We estimate that this AD affects 19 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, revising the RFM takes about 0.5 work-hour, for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter, or $817 for the U.S. fleet.

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 helicopters 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 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 Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as a surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removes Class E airspace designated as an extension of Class D airspace at Kenosha Regional Airport, Kenosha, WI.

On May 19, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 22922) Docket No. FAA-2017-0210, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as a surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and remove Class E airspace designated as an extension of Class D airspace at Kenosha Regional Airport, Kenosha, WI. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Subsequent to publication, the FAA determined that the exclusionary language contained in the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface airspace description is no longer required and has been removed in this action. Additionally, a typographical error was made in the geographic coordinates for the airport in the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface airspace description and has been corrected in this action.

Except for the changes noted above, this final rule is the same as published in the NPRM.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, 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 D and E airspace designations 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:

Modifies the Class D airspace to within a 4.2-mile radius (increased from a 4.1-mile radius) of Kenosha Regional Airport, Kenosha, WI;

Modifies the Class E airspace designated as a surface area to within a 4.2-mile radius (increased from a 4.1-mile radius) of Kenosha Regional Airport, and removes the Kenosha VOR and the 7-mile extension northeast of the airport;

Removes the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Kenosha Regional Airport; and

Modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.7-mile radius (reduced from a 7-mile radius) of Kenosha Regional Airport (formerly Kenosha Municipal Airport), with an extension from the Kenosha Localizer to 10 miles west of the localizer, and updates the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Kenosha VOR and to bring the airspace in compliance with FAA Order JO 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, at this airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

Additionally, this action replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the Class D and Class E surface area airspace legal descriptions.

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 5-6.5.a. 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:

Background

In 1990, the FBI published in the Federal Register a System of Records Notice (SORN) for the FBI system of records titled, “Identification Division Records System,” JUSTICE/FBI-009. JUSTICE/FBI-009 evolved into the “Fingerprint Identification Records System (FIRS),” also referred to as the “Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS),” published at 61 FR 6386 (February 20, 1996), which covered individuals arrested or incarcerated, individuals applying for Federal employment or military service, registered aliens or naturalized citizens, and individuals wishing to place their fingerprints on record for personal identification purposes. The FIRS SORN included the following records:

A. Criminal fingerprint cards and/or related criminal justice information submitted by authorized agencies having criminal justice responsibilities;

B. Civil fingerprint cards submitted by Federal agencies and civil fingerprint cards submitted by persons desiring to have their fingerprints placed on record for personal identification purposes;

C. Identification records sometimes referred to as “rap sheets” which are compilations of criminal history information pertaining to individuals who have criminal fingerprint cards maintained in the system; and

D. A name index pertaining to all individuals whose fingerprints are maintained in the system.

As the system expanded, records continued to fall within the general categories of records specified in the SORN. As a policy matter, however, and in an effort to better detail the enhancements made to the system, the FBI and DOJ determined that JUSTICE/FBI-009 should be modified to more fully describe the features and capabilities of the system, which has since been renamed the Next Generation Identification (NGI) System. Important enhancements to the NGI System include the increased retention and searching of fingerprints obtained for the purposes of licensing, employment, obtaining government benefits, and biometric services such as improved latent fingerprint searching and face recognition technology. Leading up to the publication of the modified SORN and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the NGI System, the FBI conducted a series of Privacy Impact Assessments that detailed the steps taken by the FBI to fully assess the privacy impacts of new and modified NGI System components, addressing potential risks and mitigation techniques.

On May 5, 2016, the FBI issued a Notice of a Modified System of Records for the NGI System in the Federal Register at 81 FR 27284 (May 5, 2016), and an NPRM at 81 FR 27288 (May 5, 2016). In determining whether to claim exemptions, the FBI did not simply rely on exemptions granted to the predecessor system of records, but thoroughly evaluated the NGI System and its various components to determine whether exemptions were necessary. The necessary exemptions were proposed in the NPRM along with supporting rationales, and are to be codified in accordance with the issuance of this final rule.

In its NGI System NPRM and Notice of a Modified System of Records, published on May 5, 2016, the Department invited public comment. The comment periods for both documents were originally set to close on June 6, 2016, but were extended 30 days to allow interested individuals additional time to analyze the proposal and prepare their comments. The FBI received over 100 comments and letters from individuals, and from non-government, public interest, civil liberties, non-profit, and academic organizations. The FBI has closely reviewed and considered these comments. The following discussion is provided to respond to the NPRM comments and provide greater insight into the FBI's assessment of the need to claim exemptions from certain provisions of the Privacy Act for the NGI System.

Many questions and comments were received concerning the breadth and scope of the exemptions claimed. As noted in the NPRM and reiterated here, the following exemptions apply only to the extent information in this system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k). Where compliance with an exempted section of the Privacy Act would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the purposes of the NGI System to support law enforcement and to protect national security, the applicable exemption may be waived by the FBI in its sole discretion.

These exemptions are claimed with respect to the NGI System's records, which are compiled for the purposes of identifying criminal offenders or alleged criminal offenders, criminal investigations, and reports identifiable to an individual compiled throughout the criminal law enforcement process, including fingerprints, as well as associated biographic data, the nature and disposition of any criminal charges, and additional biometrics such as mugshots and palm prints, if available and if provided by the submitting agency. The NGI System records qualify for exemption from sections of the Privacy Act under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) because the FBI's principal function is the enforcement of criminal laws and the records maintained in the NGI System fall into one or more of the categories listed in (j)(2). Due to the evolving nature of identity records and investigations and the scope of the NGI System, certain NGI System records may fall outside the scope of (j)(2) and would qualify for the specific exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (5). The exercise of all exemptions is discretionary and the FBI will not exercise an exemption of any section of the Privacy Act that is not appropriate and necessary.

Some of the comments communicated concerns about claiming exemptions from accounting and audit disclosure requirements. As with exemptions claimed under subsections (c)(4) and (d), exemption from (c)(3) disclosure requirements is necessary to preserve the integrity of ongoing investigations. Revealing this information could compromise ongoing, authorized law enforcement and national security efforts by alerting an individual to collaborative law enforcement and national security investigations as well as the relative interests of the FBI and/or other investigatory agencies. Although the vast majority of NGI System disclosures need not be provided in an accounting request, the FBI must claim this additional exemption to ensure its ability to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations.

It is important to note that, despite claiming this exemption, the Privacy Act does not permit the FBI to exempt this system of records from the requirements codified under subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(1) and (c)(2). As a result, except under limited circumstances as outlined in the Privacy Act, the FBI is obligated to keep an accurate accounting of the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of a record maintained within this system of records, and retain the accounting for at least five years or the life of the record, whichever is longer, after the disclosure for which the accounting is made.

Many of the comments received concerned exemptions regarding the access to and amendment of records pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(1), (2), (3) and (4), (e)(4)(G) and (H), (e)(8), and (f). As with exemptions claimed to (c)(3) and (c)(4), providing access to these records could compromise ongoing investigations. It is necessary for the FBI to claim these exemptions because the NGI System also contains latent fingerprints, as well as other biometrics, and associated personal information that may be law enforcement or national security sensitive. Compliance with these provisions could alert the subject of an authorized law enforcement activity about that particular activity and the interest of the FBI and/or other law enforcement agencies. With that said, as cited in both the SORN and the NPRM, separate federal regulations (see 28 CFR 16.30-16.34 and 28 CFR 20.34) inform individuals of the process to access and amend their criminal history records in the NGI System. These regulations permit any person to receive his or her criminal history record for review and correction. If the individual has no criminal history record in the NGI System, he or she receives a letter confirming the absence of such record. Pursuant to the regulations, after an individual receives his or her criminal history record, he or she may consult both the FBI and the relevant criminal justice agency to correct or update the record. The vast majority of records in the NGI System have been entered by state and local law enforcement and require coordination with those agencies.

In addition, pursuant to 28 CFR 50.12, agencies submitting fingerprints to the FBI for individuals seeking employment, licensing, or similar benefits are required to inform the applicants that their fingerprints will be searched in the NGI System and of the process for access and amendment under 28 CFR 16.30-16.34. The regulation also advises that agencies should afford the applicants the opportunity to correct or complete their records before making licensing or employment decisions. Additionally, for records claiming specific exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k), if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law, or for which he would otherwise be eligible, further access may be available.

Consequently, although the FBI has claimed exemptions to the notification, access, and amendment provisions of the Privacy Act for the NGI System, the FBI generally does not exercise these exemptions when doing so would not interfere with its law enforcement functions and responsibilities.

The comments received also expressed concerns about the FBI's exemption from 5 U.S.C. 552a(g), which grants individuals the right to certain civil remedies under the Privacy Act. As a matter of clarification, the Privacy Act only permits an agency to exempt 5 U.S.C. 552a(g) if the records in the system of records qualify for the general exemption provisions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j). This exemption cannot be, and has not been, claimed for the records within the NGI System that qualify for only the specific exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k).

Additionally, many comments expressed concern that by claiming an exemption from 5 U.S.C. 552a(g), the FBI would somehow absolve itself of meeting even those provisions of the Privacy Act that are not subject to exemption because an individual's right to seek a cause of action for any provisions of the Privacy Act would be exempted. First, the FBI takes all of its constitutional and statutory requirements seriously, and does not limit its compliance to only those provisions of the Privacy Act subject to judicial redress. As addressed throughout this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, even when an exemption is claimed, the FBI takes all reasonable and appropriate steps necessary to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act that would not interfere with its law enforcement functions and responsibilities. The FBI is subject to a number of oversight mechanisms to ensure compliance with its requirements under the Privacy Act, including internal and external audits and inspections.

Second, while the FBI has proposed an exemption from this provision for the NGI System, the exemption regulation is clear that the FBI will only claim exemptions to the extent that information in this system of records is subject to an exemption pursuant to the Privacy Act. Many courts have interpreted an agency's decision to exempt the Privacy Act's civil remedies provisions as only an exemption from a cause of action based on an exempted provision. In those jurisdictions, individuals are still permitted to exercise their right of judicial redress, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(g), for those provisions of the Privacy Act that are not subject to exemption.

Commenters also expressed concerns regarding the exemption from (e)(2) and (3) of the requirement to collect information directly from the individual.

The vast majority of the records in the NGI System are contributed by state and local law enforcement agencies. Because the FBI is neither the arresting official, nor the agency issuing the license, evaluating the individual for employment, or offering the benefit, it is impossible for the FBI to collect information directly from the subject. However, in most circumstances these other agencies create the records using information obtained directly from the subject with his or her knowledge.

Fingerprints and other biometrics and information are collected by other government agencies based on their legal authorities to collect such information and submit it to the FBI. For records created for the purpose of licensing, employment, or to obtain a government benefit, the FBI requires that specific notice be provided to the applicant. This notice, in the form of a Privacy Act statement, discloses the authority which authorizes the solicitation of the information, whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary, the principal purpose for which the information is intended to be used, the routine uses which may be made of the information, and the effects on the individual, if any, of not providing all or any part of the requested information.

The FBI also received a comment concerning exemption of the requirement to disclose sources of records contained in the NGI System. Despite claiming this exemption, the FBI has published in the NGI SORN the categories of sources of records to the extent that such disclosure would not compromise confidential sources or the safety of witnesses. However, to the extent such additional details would be required, it is believed that such detail may interfere with the Department's law enforcement functions and the responsibilities of the FBI. The FBI claims the exemption to (e)(4)(I) because greater specificity than was provided in the NGI SORN cannot be disclosed without compromising confidential sources or the safety of witnesses.

The comments also expressed concerns regarding the NGI System's exemption from the (e)(5) requirements to maintain accurate, relevant, timely, and complete records. When collecting information for authorized law enforcement purposes, it is not always possible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. With time, additional facts, and analysis, information may acquire new significance. Although the FBI has claimed this exemption, it continuously works with its federal, state, local, tribal, and international law enforcement partners to maintain the accuracy of records to the greatest extent possible. The FBI does so with established policies and practices that include the review, audit, and validation of records, and formal agreements with partner agencies that require regular records updates. The law enforcement and national security communities have a strong operational interest in using up-to-date and accurate records and will foster relationships with partners to further this interest. If alterations are made to criminal record sources outside the FBI, we encourage subject individuals to bring said documentation to the FBI's attention to ensure timely modification of an NGI System record.

A few commenters expressed concerns about the safety and security of the system. It should be noted that the FBI is not and cannot claim exemption from 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(10), which requires agencies to establish appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of records and to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to their security or integrity. In compliance with this provision of the Privacy Act and other security mandates, the NGI System has been developed and implemented in compliance with all federal information technology standards designed to safeguard personal information from loss, destruction, or unauthorized access.

Many commenters communicated concerns about the NGI System being used to track the expression of First Amendment rights. The NGI System is a biometric database. It is not utilized to conduct surveillance or track the expression of a citizen's First Amendment rights. It should be noted that the FBI is not and cannot claim exemption from 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(7), which, absent specific authorization or consent, prohibits the maintenance of records describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The FBI is not exempting the NGI System from all provisions of the Privacy Act. The protections of many of the provisions of the Privacy Act and the E-Government Act of 2002 are still in place; only the named Privacy Act exemptions have been claimed, if needed, to protect sensitive law enforcement and national security operations.

Overall, the FBI has made only minor, administrative edits to the rule as originally proposed to ensure accuracy and consistency with the listed authorities and other subsections of 28 CFR part 16. The FBI has made no substantive changes to the rule as it was originally proposed. For the reasons identified in this publication, the Department and the FBI are issuing this final rule.

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order 2940-2008, 28 CFR part 16 is amended as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for the annual SUP3Rivers the Southside Outside event listed in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1, line 29, from 6:30 a.m. through 11:30 a.m. on September 2, 2017. Entry into the regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the area must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.801 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 this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

On June 23, 2017, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Thames River, New London, CT” in the Federal Register (82 FR 28552). Under that temporary deviation, between July 31, 2017 and September 12, 2017, the draw of the Amtrak Bridge would require a two hour advance notice for openings during nighttime hours.

Amtrak, the owner of the bridge, requested a modification of the currently published deviation in order to facilitate installation of a lift span emergency generator. Due to delays in manufacturing Amtrak has requested that the temporary deviation be modified to allow the Amtrak Bridge to require a 2 hour advance notice between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. from July 31, 2017 to September 30, 2017, while a crane barge is present next to the lift span. The presence of the crane barge reduces the horizontal clearance to 70 feet. Additionally, between July 31, 2017 and September 10, 2017, the lift span will be in the down position during daytime hours but will be able to open when requested.

The Amtrak Bridge across the Thames River, mile 3.0 at New London, Connecticut has a horizontal clearance of 150 feet and a vertical clearance of 29 feet at mean high water and 31 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 75 feet in the intermediate raised position and 135 feet in the fully open position at mean high water. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.224. The waterway is transited by recreational traffic, commercial vessels, ferries, and military vessels. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. When the barge is located next to the lift span, the bridge will not be able to open immediately for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge when in the closed position.

The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by this 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 temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

I. Table of Abbreviations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register LIS Long Island Sound NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NAD83 North American Datum 1983 II. Background Information and Regulatory History

This rulemaking establishes a safety zone for the waters around the Pleasure Beach Piers, Bridgeport, CT. Corresponding regulatory history is discussed below.

The Coast Guard was made aware on December 9, 2015, of damage to Pleasure Beach Bridge, the result of which created a hazard to navigation. On December 22, 2015, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule entitled, “Safety Zone; Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT” in the Federal Register (80 FR 79480). On June 23, 2016, the Coast Guard published a second temporary final rule entitled, “Safety Zone; Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT” in the Federal Register (81 FR 40814). On July 25, 2016, the Coast Guard published a third temporary final rule entitled, “Safety Zone; Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT” in the Federal Register (81 FR 48329). On January 19, 2017, the Coast Guard published a fourth temporary final rule entitled, “Safety Zone; Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT” in the Federal Register (82 FR 6250).

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. A solution to remedy the safety hazards associated with this structure was initially projected to be completed prior to the expiration of the current safety zone, but has been delayed. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay promulgating this rule, as it is necessary to protect the safety of waterway users.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231.

On December 9, 2015, the Coast Guard was made aware of damage sustained to Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT that has created a hazard to navigation. After further analysis of the bridge structure, the Coast Guard concluded that the overall condition of the structure restricts, endangers, and interferes with navigation. The COTP LIS has determined that the safety zone established by this temporary final rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways.

The safety zone established by this rule will cover all navigable waters of the entrance channel to Johnsons Creek in the vicinity of the Pleasure Beach Piers, Bridgeport, CT. This safety zone will be bound inside an area that starts at a point on land at position 41-10.2 N., 073-10.7 W. and then east along the shoreline to a point on land at position 41-9.57 N., 073-9.54 W. and then south across the channel to a point on land at position 41-9.52 N., 073-9.58 W. and then west along the shoreline to a point on land at position 41-9.52 N., 073-10.5 W. and then north across the channel back to the point of origin.

This rule prohibits vessels from entering, transiting, mooring, or anchoring within the area specifically designated as a safety zone unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative.

The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the Federal Register, the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 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.

The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) Persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone may do so with permission from the COTP LIS or a designated representative; and (2) the Coast Guard will notify the public of this rule via appropriate means, such as via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners to increase public awareness of this safety zone.

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 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 zone 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 proposed 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 above.

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 temporary rule involves the establishment of a safety zone of limited duration. 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 will be 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:

This is a summary of the Declaratory Ruling, dated June 16, 2017, released June 21, 2017, FCC 17-73, MB Docket No. 16-126. The full text of the Declaratory ruling is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

The Commission issued a Declaratory Ruling, FCC 17-73, on June 21, 2017 that clarifies that cable operators may provide the written notices required by 47 CFR 76.1602(b) via email to a verified email address and must include a telephone number for customers to opt out of email notification at any time and choose to receive paper copies of the notices. The Commission's rule, 47 CFR 76.1602(b), requires cable operators to provide their subscribers with written information that includes the types of products and services offered, the prices for each service, and installation and service maintenance policies. The National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the American Cable Association filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the Commission requesting that the Commission clarify that the notices may be delivered to customers via email. The Media Bureau published a Public Notice seeking comment on the Petition in the Federal Register, 81 FR 24050-01 (April 25, 2016). Permitting cable operators to comply with section 76.1602(b) by delivering the required information via email falls squarely within the language of the rule. It is reasonable to interpret the term “written information” in section 76.1602(b) to include information delivered by email. The benefits of permitting email delivery include the positive environmental aspects of saving substantial amounts of paper annually, increased efficiency and enabling customers to more readily access accurate information regarding their service options. This clarification is consistent with other Commission actions permitting electronic records in lieu of paper records.

Electronic delivery of notices will ease the regulatory burden for all cable operators, including small cable operators. In this Declaratory Ruling, a verified email address is defined as (1) an email address that the customer has provided to the cable operator (and not vice versa) for purposes of receiving communication, (2) an email address that the customer regularly uses to communicate with the cable operator, or (3) an email address that has been confirmed by the customer as an appropriate vehicle for the delivery of notices. Use of a verified email address will ensure that the notices have a high probability of being successfully delivered electronically to an email address that the customer uses, so that the written information is actually provided to the customer. If no verified email contact information is available for a customer, cable operators must continue to deliver the notices by paper copies. Customers must “be informed that they may request and receive a paper version of their section 76.1602(b) notices” instead of email delivery. This option will afford customers the opportunity to opt out of email notification at any time and choose to continue to receive paper copies of the notices. Cable operators must include an opt-out telephone number that is clearly and prominently presented to customers in the body of the originating email that delivers the notices, so that it is readily identifiable as an opt-out option. For the reasons stated above, it is ordered, pursuant to section 632 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 552, and sections 1.2 and 76.1602 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.2, 76.1602, that the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the American Cable Association is granted to the extent indicated herein and is otherwise denied. It is further ordered that this Declaratory Ruling shall be effective upon the date specified in a notice published in the Federal Register announcing Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection requirements pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Office of Management and Budget approved this non-substantive change to the information collection for 47 CFR 76.1602(b) on July 20, 2017.

The coastal migratory pelagic fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and Atlantic regions is managed under the FMP and includes the management of the Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia. The FMP was prepared jointly by the Councils and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). Framework Amendment 5 and this final rule apply to the harvest of king and Spanish mackerel in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf and Atlantic regions.

On March 1, 2017, NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Framework Amendment 5 and requested public comment (82 FR 12187). The proposed rule and Framework Amendment 5 outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the management measures described in Framework Amendment 5 and implemented by this final rule is provided below.

As a result of this final rule, persons aboard vessels with a Federal commercial permit for king or Spanish mackerel may fish for and retain the recreational bag and possession limits of these species during the open recreational season when the commercial season for those species is closed. This final rule removes Federal permit restrictions unique to commercially permitted king and Spanish mackerel vessels and standardizes vessel permit restrictions applicable after a commercial quota closure of king or Spanish mackerel in accordance with the restrictions in other fisheries. In addition, to improve clarity, this final rule makes non-substantive changes to the language in § 622.384(e)(3), renumbered as § 622.384(e)(2), and to § 622.386. Finally, the language aligns with changes to the regulations set forth in the final rule for Amendment 26 to the FMP (82 FR 17387, April 11, 2017), which included revisions to terminology and to the management boundaries for the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic migratory groups of king mackerel.

NMFS received a total of eighteen comments on the proposed rule for Framework Amendment 5 from commercial and recreational fishers. Nine of the comments were in favor of the amendment and the proposed rule, while six were opposed. Three additional comments were submitted that were not related to the proposed action; because those comments were outside of the scope of the actions considered for Framework Amendment 5 and the proposed rule, NMFS is not providing specific responses to those comments in this final rule. The six comments opposed to the amendment expressed concern about relative fishing opportunities for the commercial versus the recreational sectors and about how the final rule might affect future recreational harvest.

Additionally, several commenters (both in support of and not in support of the proposed action) expressed views that reflect a misunderstanding of both current king and Spanish mackerel Federal management and the effect of the rule. In particular, the comments reflected a misunderstanding of whether and when those aboard commercially permitted vessels that also hold a charter or headboat permit will be allowed to retain the recreational bag and possession limits of king or Spanish mackerel. In fact, the final rule does not alter the current ability of persons aboard dual-permitted vessels to fish for and retain the recreational bag and possession limits of the species when the commercial season is closed. Instead, this final rule changes the regulations to allow those aboard commercially permitted vessels for king and Spanish mackerel to fish for and retain the recreational bag and possession limits of the species when the commercial season for those species is closed, regardless of the capacity in which the vessel is operating (i.e., the vessels no longer need to be dual-permitted and operating in a for-hire capacity). With implementation of this rule, persons aboard commercial vessels fishing for king and Spanish mackerel and persons aboard dual-permitted vessels on for-hire trips for king and Spanish mackerel may retain the recreational bag and possession limits of king and Spanish mackerel, as long as the recreational season for those species is open, even if commercial fishing for those species is closed. In addition, nothing in this rule prevents persons aboard commercial vessels that hold multiple commercial permits from fishing for and retaining the recreational bag and possession limits of king and Spanish mackerel during the closed commercial season for king and Spanish mackerel while on a commercial trip for other species, such as snapper-grouper, as long as such fishing is consistent with the Federal commercial permit for each of those other species.

Specific comments related to the action and proposed rule, as well as NMFS' respective responses, are summarized below.

Comment 1: Allowing persons aboard commercial vessels to fish for king and Spanish mackerel recreationally could result in more fish being caught, which could result in additional regulation of the recreational sector.

Response: As described in Framework Amendment 5, the recreational and/or stock ACLs for these species have rarely been exceeded in recent years, and thus the accountability measures have not been triggered frequently. We do not expect a significant increase in recreational landings in light of the additional means of access to recreational harvest allowed in this rule. Any effect from this final rule on recreational landings would likely be minimal, and therefore unlikely to require new recreational management measures.

Comment 2: This final rule will allow recreationally caught fish to be sold by commercially permitted vessels when the commercial season is closed.

Response: The final rule allows commercial fishers with a Federal commercial permit for king or Spanish mackerel to use their permitted vessels to fish for these species and retain the recreational bag and possession limits outside of the commercial seasons for those species. However, under the regulations already in place, the sale or purchase of king or Spanish mackerel taken under the recreational bag and possession limits is prohibited when the commercial season is closed. Thus any fish taken in the circumstances allowed under the rule cannot be sold or purchased.

Comment 3: Additional king mackerel population information is needed to avoid ecological or economic problems in the Gulf and Atlantic before approving these changes to management.

Response: As part of the development of Framework Amendment 5, NMFS and the Councils carried out an analysis of the expected physical, biological, economic, social, and administrative effects of this action. This analysis incorporated data from the September 2014 Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 38 stock assessment, which determined that both the Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of king mackerel are not overfished and are not undergoing overfishing. As explained in Framework Amendment 5, the additional amount of king mackerel that would be harvested as a result of this final rule is not quantifiable because the number of persons aboard commercially permitted vessels who would fish for and retain the recreational bag and possession limits of king and Spanish mackerel once the harvest restriction is removed and the number of days during which they could fish under the recreational bag and possession limits are not known. However, NMFS' analysis demonstrates, and the Councils agree, that minimal impacts to the ecology or economy would be expected as a result of this final rule. The next SEDAR assessment will be completed in the summer of 2018.

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that this final rule is consistent with Framework Amendment 5, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this final rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No public comments were received on the proposed rule regarding the certification, and NMFS has not received any new information that would affect its determination. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none has been prepared.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:

This action partially approves the management measures in Framework Adjustment 56 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The measures implemented in this final rule include:

• 2017 quotas for three shared U.S./Canada stocks (Eastern Georges Bank (GB) cod, Eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder);

• 2017-2019 catch limits for witch flounder;

• An allocation of northern windowpane flounder for the scallop fishery;

• A revised trigger for the scallop fishery's accountability measures for GB yellowtail flounder and northern windowpane flounder; and

• An increase in the GB haddock allocation for the midwater trawl fishery.

This action also implements a number of other measures that are not part of Framework 56, but that were considered under Regional Administrator authority included in the Northeast Multispecies FMP. We are including these measures in Framework 56 for expediency purposes, and because these measures are related to the catch limits implemented in Framework 56. The additional measures implemented in this action are listed below.

• Management measures necessary to implement sector operations plans—This action revises annual catch entitlements for 19 sectors for fishing year 2017 based on the catch limits in Framework 56 and final fishing year 2017 sector rosters.

• Management measures for the common pool fishery—This action adjusts the fishing year 2017 trip limits for witch flounder and American plaice for the common pool fishery, consistent with the final 2017 catch limit for witch flounder in Framework 56.

• 2017 accountability measures for windowpane flounder—This action announces accountability measures (AMs) for northern and southern windowpane flounder that are triggered due to overages of fishing year 2015 catch limits for both stocks. The large AM areas for both northern and southern windowpane flounder will be in effect for groundfish trawl vessels from August 1, 2017, through August 31, 2017. The large AM areas for southern windowpane flounder will be in effect for non-groundfish trawl vessels fishing with a codend mesh size of 5 inches (12.7 cm) and greater until April 30, 2018, unless we remove the AM for these vessels through a subsequent action.

The Northeast Fisheries Science Center conducted a witch flounder benchmark assessment in 2016. The final report for the benchmark assessment is available on the NEFSC Web site: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1703/. The assessment results are discussed in detail in the proposed rule for this action, and are not repeated here. In summary, the peer review panel rejected the 2016 benchmark assessment model for witch flounder, and recommended that neither the 2016 benchmark assessment, nor the previous 2008 benchmark assessment, should be used as a basis for determining witch flounder stock status. Given the lack of an assessment model, the peer review panel recommended an alternative approach to generate catch advice that uses swept-area biomass estimates generated from the NMFS Trawl Surveys. The panel did not have sufficient time to fully review the swept-area biomass approach in the context of the assessment terms of reference, which include the update or redefinition of status determination criteria (SDCs) or proxies.

We approved the existing SDCs for witch flounder in Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP (75 FR 18261; April 9, 2010). The existing criteria state that the witch flounder stock is subject to overfishing if the fishing mortality rate (F) is above the F at 40 percent of maximum spawning potential. The witch flounder stock is overfished if spawning stock biomass falls below 1/2 of the target, which is also calculated using F at 40 percent of maximum spawning potential. This definition was based on the benchmark assessments reviewed during the 2008 Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM III), and is the same as the SDCs currently in place for most of the groundfish stocks with age-based assessments.

The Council relied on the advice from the assessment peer review panel and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to recommend changing the status determination criteria for witch flounder to unknown. The National Standard Guidelines require each FMP to specify objective and measurable SDCs that enable us to monitor stock status. When data are unavailable to specify SDCs based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY) or MSY proxies, the Council and NMFS may use alternative approaches to monitor stock status. As a result, we are disapproving the Council's proposal to change the SDCs to unknown. In the absence of new alternative SDCs following the 2016 benchmark assessment, we intend to maintain the existing criteria until we and the Council are able to generate SDCs based on the swept-area biomass approach or any other alternative approaches. We acknowledge that the existing SDCs are based on a now rejected stock assessment model and recognize that it is critical to work to replace the SDCs.

There is currently a rebuilding plan in place for witch flounder that has an end date of 2017. Prior to the 2016 assessment, and based on the results of the 2015 assessment update, which found that 2014 spawning stock biomass was at 22 percent of the biomass target and that the stock was not expected to reach the 2017 rebuilding target even in the absence of fishing mortality, we anticipated that we would need to notify the Council that it was necessary to revise the rebuilding plan. Although a quantitative status determination relative to the 2016 benchmark assessment results is not possible, there are indications that the stock is still in poor condition, and will continue to need conservative management measures to promote stock growth. We are finalizing our guidance regarding any necessary adjustments to the rebuilding plan and will advise the Council on the next steps prior to the fall 2017 groundfish assessment updates. Additionally, when the stock assessment for witch flounder can provide biomass estimates, these estimates can be used to evaluate progress towards the rebuilding targets.

As described in the proposed rule, eastern GB cod, eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder are jointly managed with Canada under the United States/Canada Resource Sharing Understanding. This action adopts shared U.S./Canada quotas for these stocks for fishing year 2017 based on 2016 assessments and the recommendations of the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee (TMGC) (Table 1). For a more detailed discussion of the TMGC's 2017 catch advice, see the TMGC's guidance document under the “Resources” tab at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies/index.html.

The regulations implementing the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding require that any overages of the U.S. quota for eastern GB cod, eastern GB haddock, or GB yellowtail flounder be deducted from the U.S. quota in the following fishing year. If catch information for fishing year 2016 indicates that the U.S. fishery exceeded its quota for any of the shared stocks, we will reduce the respective U.S. quotas for fishing year 2017 in a future management action, as soon as possible. If any fishery that is allocated a portion of the U.S. quota exceeds its allocation and causes an overage of the overall U.S. quota, the overage reduction would only be applied to that fishery's allocation in the following fishing year. This ensures that catch by one component of the fishery does not negatively affect another component of the fishery.

Last year, Framework 55 (81 FR 26412; May 2, 2016) adopted fishing year 2016-2018 catch limits for all groundfish stocks, except for the U.S./Canada stocks, which are set annually. This rule adopts fishing year 2017-2019 catch limits for witch flounder based on the recent stock assessment and consistent with the recommendations of the Council's SSC. This rule also adopts 2017 shared U.S./Canada quotas (see section “3. Fishing Year 2017 Shared U.S./Canada Quotas”). With the exception of GB cod, GB haddock, GB yellowtail flounder, and witch flounder, the catch limits included in this action are the same as or similar to those previously implemented in Framework 55, and became effective on May 1, 2017. There are changes to the northern windowpane flounder catch limits related to the allocation of northern windowpane flounder to the scallop fishery (see section “5. Allocation of Northern Windowpane Flounder to the Scallop Fishery”). There are also minor changes to the catch limits for GB winter flounder and white hake due to revised estimates of Canadian catch. The catch limits implemented in this action, including overfishing limits (OFLs), acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and annual catch limits (ACLs), can be found in Tables 2 through 9. A summary of how these catch limits were developed, including the distribution to the various fishery components, was provided in the proposed rule and in Appendix II of the Environmental Assessment for Framework 56, and is not repeated here. The sector and common pool sub-ACLs implemented in this action are based on fishing year 2017 potential sector contributions (PSCs) and final fishing year 2017 sector rosters. Sector-specific allocations are in section “8. Sector Measures for Fishing Year 2017.”

Overall fishing effort by both common pool and sector vessels in the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock Special Access Program (SAP) is controlled by an overall Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for GB haddock, which is the target species for this SAP. The maximum amount of GB haddock that may be caught in any fishing year is based on the amount allocated to this SAP for the 2004 fishing year (1,130 mt), and adjusted according to the growth or decline of the western GB haddock biomass in relationship to its size in 2004. Based on this formula, the GB Haddock TAC for this SAP is 10,709 mt for the 2017 fishing year. Once this overall TAC is caught, the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP will be closed to all groundfish vessels for the remainder of the fishing year.

Federal regulations at § 648.82(n)(2)(ii) require the Regional Administrator to close a common pool Trimester Total Allowable Catch (TAC) Area for a stock when 90 percent of the Trimester TAC is projected to be caught. The closure applies to all common pool vessels fishing with gear capable of catching that stock for the remainder of the trimester.

As of July 27, 2017, the common pool fishery is projected to have caught approximately 90 percent of the Trimester 1 TAC (2.9 mt) for Georges Bank (GB) cod. Effective July 28, 2017, the GB Cod Trimester TAC Area is closed for the remainder of Trimester 1, through August 31, 2017, to all common pool vessels fishing on a Northeast multispecies trip with trawl gear, sink gillnet gear, and longline/hook gear. The GB Cod Trimester TAC Area consists of statistical areas 521, 522, 525, and 561. The area reopens at the beginning of Trimester 2, on September 1, 2017.

If a vessel declared its trip through the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) or the interactive voice response system, and crossed the VMS demarcation line prior to July 28, 2017, it may complete its trip within the Trimester TAC Area. A vessel that has set gillnet gear prior to July 28, 2017, may complete its trip by hauling such gear.

Any overage of the Trimester 1 or 2 TACs must be deducted from the Trimester 3 TAC. If the common pool fishery exceeds its total quota for a stock in the 2017 fishing year, the overage must be deducted from the common pool's quota for that stock for fishing year 2018. Any uncaught portion of the Trimester 1 and Trimester 2 TACs is carried over into the next trimester. However, any uncaught portion of the common pool's total annual quota may not be carried over into the following fishing year.

Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery are on our Web site at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/MultiMonReports.htm. We will continue to monitor common pool catch through vessel trip reports, dealer-reported landings, VMS catch reports, and other available information and, if necessary, we will make additional adjustments to common pool management measures.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effectiveness period because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The regulations require the Regional Administrator to close a trimester TAC area to the common pool fishery when 90 percent of the Trimester TAC for a stock has been caught. Updated catch information only recently became available indicating that the common pool fishery is projected to have caught 90 percent of its Trimester 1 TAC for GB cod as of July 27, 2017. The time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, would prevent the immediate closure of the GB Cod Trimester TAC Area. This increases the likelihood that the common pool fishery will exceed its trimester or annual quota of GB cod to the detriment of this stock, which could undermine management objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Additionally, an overage of the trimester or annual common pool quota could cause negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery as a result of overage paybacks deducted from a future trimester or fishing year.

NMFS manages the Pacific mackerel fishery in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast (California, Oregon, and Washington) in accordance with the CPS FMP. The CPS FMP states that each year the Secretary will publish in the Federal Register the specifications for all stocks in the actively managed stock category, which includes Pacific mackerel. In 2013, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) recommended that the harvest specification process for Pacific mackerel move from a 1-year management cycle to a 2-year management cycle beginning in 2015. The Council recommended this revision to the management cycle under the CPS FMP's framework mechanism, which allows such changes by rulemaking without formally amending the fishery management plan itself. NMFS published separate annual specifications for Pacific mackerel for the 2015-16 and the 2016-17 fishing seasons to keep pace with the schedule of the fishery, and is now changing the annual notice requirement under the framework mechanism of the CPS FMP. From now on, NMFS will implement 2 years of harvest specifications with one rulemaking, beginning with the 2017 fishing season.

The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set annual catch levels for the Pacific mackerel fishery based on the annual specification framework and control rules in the CPS FMP. These control rules include the harvest guideline control rule, which in conjunction with the overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable biological catch (ABC) and annual catch limit (ACL) rules in the CPS FMP are used to manage harvest levels for Pacific mackerel, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Annual estimates of biomass are an explicit part of these various harvest control rules, therefore, annual stock assessments are currently conducted for Pacific mackerel to provide annual estimates of biomass. Then, during public meetings each year, the estimated biomass for Pacific mackerel from these assessments is presented to the Council's CPS Management Team (Team), the Council's CPS Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and the biomass and the status of the fishery are reviewed and discussed. The biomass estimate is then presented to the Council along with recommendations and comments from the Team, Subpanel and SSC. Following review by the Council and after hearing public comment, the Council adopts a biomass estimate and makes its catch level recommendations to NMFS. Based on these recommendations, NMFS implements these catch specifications for each fishing year and publishes the specifications annually. Over recent years, little new information has been available for informing Pacific mackerel stock assessments from one year to the next. Therefore, stock assessment scientists at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC), along with the SSC, concluded that conducting stock assessments annually is not necessary to manage Pacific mackerel sustainably; conducting assessments every 2 years can provide the necessary scientific information to continue to manage the stock sustainably. Annual landings of Pacific mackerel have also remained at historically low levels with landings averaging 5,000 mt over the last 10 years, well below the annual quotas over this time period. This highlights that the biomass of this stock is not being greatly impacted by fishing pressure. Low landings since 2011 are also one of the limitations of the recent stock assessments because they result in limited fishery-dependent sample information for use in the stock assessment. Based on this information, and in light of the monetary and personnel costs associated with conducting and reviewing each stock assessment as well as adopting specifications each year, the Council established a new Pacific mackerel management and assessment schedule under which full stock assessments would be conducted every 4 years, and in the second year of each cycle, the assessment will be updated using catch-only projection estimates. Each of these assessments would provide the biomass estimate for the current year as well as a projection of what the biomass will be in the following year. Those biomass estimates would then be used in the harvest control rules for Pacific mackerel, which the Council would use to provide NMFS with recommendations for the OFL, ABC and ACL for the following 2 years.

This final rule changes the review and implementation schedule for setting Pacific mackerel harvest specifications, allowing NMFS to implement 2 years of catch specifications with a single notice and comment rulemaking. Reviewing biomass estimates and implementing catch specifications for 2 years at a time instead of 1 allows NMFS and the Council to use available time and resources in a more efficient manner, while still preserving the conservation and management goals of the CPS FMP, and using the best available science. NMFS will set biennial specifications from the 2017 fishing season forward in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The proposed rule stated that this rulemaking would change the review and implementation schedule for Pacific mackerel, and the stock assessment cycle. That was an error: NMFS did not intend to propose to change the stock assessment cycle by rulemaking, as the Council already acted on that change. The action by this rule is only to allow the agency to implement 2 separate years of harvest specifications through a single notice and comment rulemaking process.

On January 4, 2017, a proposed rule was published for this action and public comments solicited (82 FR 812) with a comment period that ended on February 3, 2017. NMFS received three comments regarding the amendment to change Pacific mackerel specifications to be set biennially instead of on an annual basis. No changes were made in response to the comments received. NMFS summarizes and responds to those comments below.

Comment 1: Two of the comments voiced a similar concern that, in moving from an annual stock assessment process to a biennial process, the harvest specifications would not be based on the best possible information. One commenter stated that keeping the current system of setting management specifications every year would provide better information to manage Pacific mackerel and allow the agency to be better positioned if more rapid adjustments are needed to either protect against overfishing, while the second commenter was concerned that if the stock greatly increased during one of the interim assessment years, that the industry might endure a missed opportunity.

Response: As described above, based on recommendations from its SSC and scientists from the SWFSC, the Council has determined that as a matter of practice doing new stock assessments every year for Pacific mackerel was not providing significantly better information with which to manage the stock and prevent overfishing compared to the proposed approach. Based on this determination, the Council established a Pacific mackerel management and assessment schedule under which full stock assessments will be conducted every 4 years, and in the second year of each cycle the assessment will be updated using catch-only projection estimates. Each of these assessments would provide the biomass estimate for the current year as well as a projection of what the biomass will be in the following year. Those biomass estimates would then be used in the harvest control rules for Pacific mackerel and the Council provides NMFS with recommendations for the OFL, ABC and ACL for the following 2 years. The action being taken by NMFS through this rule is to allow the agency to implement those 2 separate years of harvest specifications through a single notice and comment rulemaking process. Additionally, this action does not change the control rules used to set the annual catch limits, including the ABC control rule under which scientific uncertainty in the OFL is considered in estimating ABC at a level that is intended to buffer against overfishing.

Comment 2: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) submitted a comment expressing general support for the proposed rule and streamlining the process for setting specifications for Pacific mackerel.

Response: CDFW is an important co-manager of CPS and NMFS appreciates its input. NMFS agrees with the CDFW that annual stock assessments are not necessary to manage Pacific mackerel sustainability. NMFS is supportive of the expanded efforts by CDFW to collect baseline biological and fishery data through their dockside sampling program to help inform ongoing and future assessment efforts of the various CPS stocks.

The Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, determined that the FMP Amendment to Regulations Implementing the CPS FMP; Change to Pacific Mackerel Management Cycle from Annual to Biennial is necessary for the conservation and management of the Pacific mackerel fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS is amending 50 CFR part 660 as follows: