Federal Register Vol. 82, No.183,

The NRC published a notice of opportunity for public comment on this RIS in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5445). The NRC received comments from two commenters. The NRC considered all comments, which resulted in changes to the RIS. The evaluation of these comments and the resulting changes to the RIS are discussed in a publicly-available memorandum which is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17165A178.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain GE CT7-8A and CT7-9B model turboshaft engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2017 (82 FR 27634). The NPRM was prompted by reports from the manufacturer that the HPC impeller installed on these engines may have suffered from material degradation during the manufacturing process. The NPRM proposed to require removal of the affected HPC impellers. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC impeller, uncontained HPC impeller release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane/helicopter.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. 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 final rule as proposed.

We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) CT7-TP S/B 72-0524, dated June 16, 2016. The SB describes procedures for replacing the affected HPC impellers.

We estimate that this AD affects 1 engine installed on a helicopter 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.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

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.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68371) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an analysis of the cam support assemblies of the MCD that indicated that the existing maintenance program for the cam support assemblies is not adequate to reliably detect cracks before two adjacent cam support assemblies could fail. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine part numbers, repetitive inspections to detect cracking of affected cam support assemblies of the MCD, and replacement if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the cam support assemblies of the MCD, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the MCD and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.

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

Boeing, Delta Air Lines (DAL), European Air Transport Leipzig GmbH (EAT), DHL Express (DHL), FedEx Express (FedEx), and United Airlines (UAL) requested that we revise the proposed AD applicability. DAL and UAL requested that airplanes that do not have a MCD be excluded from the AD applicability.

Three of these commenters requested that the actions of the service information be applicable only to airplanes in the service information effectivity. These commenters explained that the service information effectivity includes only airplanes that have a MCD installed by Boeing, either as a Boeing factory-delivered freighter or as a Boeing Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)-converted freighter, and not airplanes that have been converted to a freighter by a non-Boeing STC.

EAT and DHL requested that we revise the applicability of the proposed AD to exclude Model 757 airplanes with passenger to freighter modification STC ST01529SE by Precision Conversions.

FedEx requested that we either withdraw the NPRM and issue a new one, to include a separate section for airplanes modified under VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering STC ST03562AT, or exempt the airplanes modified by that STC from the NPRM and issue a new NPRM for airplanes modified by that STC. FedEx also requested that we revise the NPRM to mandate, for Model 757-200 airplanes modified in accordance with STC ST03562AT, VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering Service Bulletin MAE757SF-SB-52-l 601, Revision 0, dated April 15, 2016, or a subsequent revision, instead of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0094, dated December 23, 2015. FedEx explained that the MCD that is installed by the Precision Conversion STC is different than that installed by Boeing or VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering and does not have the affected cam support fittings installed. FedEx stated that it prefers the VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering service information for modifying airplanes instead of the Boeing service information, since Boeing does not provide support for the VT Mobile Aerospace STC, and any discrepancies or questions on the Boeing service information would be addressed by Boeing based on goodwill, rather than by contractual agreement.

We partially agree with the commenters' requests. We agree that the unsafe condition does not apply to Model 757-200 airplanes that do not have a MCD and to airplanes modified from passenger to freighter in accordance with Precision Conversions STC ST01529SE. The unsafe condition applies only to MCD cam support assemblies with the specified part numbers.

We disagree that the AD should apply only to Boeing converted freighters. We also disagree that a separate AD should be issued to address Model 757-200 freighters modified by STC ST03562AT or any of the other passenger-to-freighter modification STCs because these support assemblies having affected part numbers could be installed during original aircraft manufacture, or during passenger-to-freighter modification. The unsafe condition applies only to airplanes with certain part number cam support assemblies installed, and it does not apply to Model 757-200 airplanes that do not have a MCD.

Paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD list the part numbers of the cam support assemblies that have the unsafe condition. We have confirmed that the cam support assemblies having affected part numbers are not installed on Model 757 airplanes as part of the Precision Conversions STC ST01529SE passenger-to-freighter conversion. We have revised the SUMMARY section, Discussion section, and paragraph (c) of this AD to state that the AD applies to all Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes equipped with a MCD, except those airplanes that have been converted from a passenger to freighter configuration in accordance with STC ST01529SE.

We expect that the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0094, Revision 2, dated May 2, 2017 (“ASB 757-52A0094, R2”), can be accomplished on airplanes that are not identified in that service information. In addition, we do not consider it appropriate to include various provisions in an AD applicable only to an operator's unique configuration of affected airplanes. However, if an operator with a Model 757-200 freighter cannot accomplish the required actions specified in the service information, or prefers to use different service information that is specific to their design (such as FedEx's request to use VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering Service Bulletin MAE757SF-SB-52-l 601, Revision 0, dated April 15, 2016), an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) can be requested in accordance with paragraph (j) of this AD.

Boeing and FedEx requested that we revise the compliance time in paragraph (g)(l) of the proposed AD from “18,000 total flight cycles” to “18,000 door flight cycles.” The commenters explained that some of the affected airplanes have been converted from passenger to freighter airplanes, and for these converted airplanes, the cam support assemblies were installed at the time of the aircraft conversion, not when the airplanes were produced. The commenters stated that, for these converted airplanes, the initial compliance time for inspection should be based on the number of flight cycles since the part has been installed. In addition, Boeing stated that ASB 757-52A0094, R2, was revised to change the inspection threshold for Boeing converted freighter airplanes to total flight cycles after freighter conversion redelivery.

We agree with the commenters' request. For airplanes that have been converted to freighters, the compliance time for the initial inspection should be based on the number of cycles the cam support assembly has been in service. We have revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD accordingly.

FedEx requested that we withdraw the NPRM and issue a new NPRM to require compliance with ASB 757-52A0094, R2, instead of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0094, dated December 23, 2015.

We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree with the commenter's request to reference ASB 757-52A0094, R2, as the appropriate source of service information. Revision 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0094, dated April 21, 2016 (“ASB 757-52A0094, R1”), removed one airplane from the effectivity and updated some references and publications affected. ASB 757-52A0094, R2, removed non-Boeing-STC-converted freighter airplanes from the effectivity and changed the initial compliance time for the converted freighter airplanes to flight cycles after freighter conversion redelivery.

We disagree with withdrawing the NPRM and reissuing a new NPRM requiring compliance with ASB 757-52A0094, R2, because doing so would unnecessarily delay issuance of the final rule. Additionally, the compliance time can be corrected in the final rule without the need for a supplemental NPRM since the corrected compliance time will provide additional time for the converted freighter airplanes and will not reduce the initial compliance time for any airplane. We have revised this AD to refer to ASB 757-52A0094, R2, as the appropriate source of service information. We have also added paragraph (i) to this AD to provide credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0094, dated December 23, 2015; or ASB 757-52A0094, R1. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to specify use of Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) 52-32-11 in lieu of Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) 52-32-03 for the cam and bell-crank assembly installation. UPS explained that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0094, dated December 23, 2015, included an incorrect manual reference.

We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree that the manual reference is incorrect in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0094, dated December 23, 2015. The incorrect reference was changed in ASB 757-52A0094, R2, and, as explained previously, ASB 757-52A0094, R2, is referenced as the appropriate source of service information in this AD. No further change is necessary in this regard.

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

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

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

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

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-52A0094, Revision 2, dated May 2, 2017. This service information describes procedures for an ultrasonic inspection of the cam support assemblies of the main cargo door, and replacement of the cam support assemblies. 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 will affect 212 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 these replacements:

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 is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2016-17-02, Amendment 39-18615 (81 FR 55366, August 19, 2016) (“AD 2016-17-02”). AD 2016-17-02 applied to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2017 (82 FR 24606).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2016-0130-E, dated July 5, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX 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-2017-0494.

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 available 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.

Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F900EX-464, dated June 20, 2016; and Service Bulletin F2000EX-393, dated June 20, 2016. This service information describes procedures for an inspection of the wing anti-ice system ducting and re-identification or replacement of the wing anti-ice system ducting. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 52 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The action required by AD 2016-17-02, and retained in this AD, takes about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the action that is required by AD 2016-17-02 is $85 per product.

We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $17,680, or $340 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 19 work-hours and require parts costing $24,000, for a cost of $25,615 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

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 is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2017 (82 FR 26403) (“the NPRM”).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-17R2, dated June 29, 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-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The MCAI states:

Required actions include an inspection to identify the serial number, to serialize, and to record the accumulated life of the side brace fitting shaft of the MLG. The unsafe condition is the loss of structural integrity of the affected part. 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-2017-0511.

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.

We have reviewed the following service information. This service information describes the life limits for the side brace fitting shaft and side brace-to-airplane fitting pin of the MLG. This service information is distinct since it applies to different airplane models in different configurations.

• Section 5-10-10, Time Limits (Structural), of the Airworthiness Limitations, of the Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Publication No. PSP 605, Revision 37, dated April 29, 2016.

• Section 5-10-10, Time Limits (Structural)—Pre SB 601-0280, of the Airworthiness Limitations, of the Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 42, dated April 22, 2014.

• Section 5-10-10, Time Limits (Structural), of the Airworthiness Limitations, of the Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Publication No. PSP 601A-5, Revision 38, dated April 22, 2014.

• Section 5-10-10, Life Limits (Structures), of Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Bombardier Challenger CL-604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Publication No. CH 604 TLMC, Revision 26, dated June 9, 2016.

• Section 5-10-10, Life Limits (Structures) to Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Bombardier Challenger CL-605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Publication No. CH 605 TLMC, Revision 14, dated June 9, 2016.

We have also reviewed the following service information. This service information describes procedures for an inspection to identify the serial number, to serialize, and to record the accumulated life of the side brace fitting shaft of the MLG. The service bulletins are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 600-0768, dated September 9, 2014.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0636, Revision 01, dated May 10, 2016.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-57-005, dated September 9, 2014.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-57-003, dated September 9, 2014.

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 133 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.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Soldotna Airport, Soldotna, AK, to conform the airspace size necessary for the current instrument flight rules (IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport.

On March 23, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 14839) Docket FAA-2016-9588 a notice of proposed rulemaking to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Soldotna Airport, Soldotna, AK. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received to the proposed rule.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B 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 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Soldotna Airport, Soldotna, AK. The segment extending from the 10.1-mile radius of the airport within 4 miles either side of the 270° bearing of the Soldotna NDB is revised from 4 miles to 2.4 miles with the reference to the NDB changed to the Soldotna Airport.

The segment extending from the 10.1-mile radius to 21 miles west of Soldotna Airport is modified to 11 miles west of the airport.

The segment within 4 miles south of the 090° bearing of Soldotna Airport is revised to 3.5 miles. This action is necessary because the airspace as previously configured exceeded the minimum size required for current arrivals and departures.

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

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

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

I. Background on the Indiana Plan II. Submission of the Amendment III. OSMRE's Findings IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments V. OSMRE's Decision VI. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Indiana Plan

The Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program (AML) was established by Title IV of the Act, in response to concerns over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining activities. The program is funded by a reclamation fee collected on each ton of coal that is produced. The money collected is used to finance the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and for other authorized activities. Section 405 of the Act allows States and Indian Tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for reclamation activity within the State or on Indian lands if they develop and submit, to the Secretary of the Interior for approval, a program (often referred to as a Plan) for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. You can find background information on the Indiana Plan, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the approval of the Plan in the July 26, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 32108). You can find later actions concerning the Indiana Plan and amendments to the Indiana Plan at 30 CFR 914.20 and 914.25.

By letter dated March 14, 2016 (Administrative Record No. IN-1773), Indiana sent OSMRE an amendment to the Indiana Plan at its own initiative.

On July 14, 2016, we announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the Federal Register (81 FR 45425). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment period ended on August 15, 2016. We did not receive any public comments.

We are approving the amendment as described below. The following are the findings we made concerning Indiana's amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 884.14 and 884.15. Any revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concerning non-substantive wording or editorial changes can be found in the full text of the Plan amendment available at www.regulations.gov.

Indiana resubmitted a 1981 letter from the Governor designating the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (Indiana DNR) as the agency responsible for the abandoned mine lands reclamation program in the state of Indiana. This letter was submitted and approved as part of the original proposed Indiana Plan and is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(1).

Indiana resubmitted a 1981 legal opinion from the Attorney General of Indiana authorizing the Indiana DNR, under the legal authority of the Indiana Code, to conduct its reclamation program in accordance with the requirements of Title IV of the Act. This legal opinion was submitted and approved as part of the original proposed Indiana Plan and is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(2).

Part 884.13(c)(1) of the Indiana Plan, states that the goal of its AML program is to address the adverse effects of past coal mining conducted prior to August 3, 1977, which impact public health, safety, or general welfare, and cause environmental degradation. The stated objectives of the AML program are to identify and prioritize these adverse impacts, provide planning procedures, and ensure their ultimate reclamation. Indiana also stated that, although the primary purpose of the program is the reclamation of coal mine lands, any non-coal AML issues will be dealt with in accordance with OSMRE policies. Indiana DNR sets aside a percentage of each year's allocation of AML funds into separate funds for both the restoration of eligible lands and waters and for the abatement of the causes and treatment of the effects of acid mine drainage. Both funds are used in accordance with the requirements and priorities of SMCRA. These program goals and objectives are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(i). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

Part 884.13(c)(2) of the Indiana Plan, describes the priority system and the specific criteria for identifying and ranking all sites eligible for reclamation under Title IV of the Act. Examples of eligible site problems include: Open and unprotected mine entries; water filled, or partially filled shafts; dangerous highwalls and other steep embankments; hazardous mine structures; underground mine subsidence; trash dumps; water bodies impaired by coal mine drainage; coal refuse areas; spoil areas; and any other mine related danger. The sites given highest priority are those exhibiting extreme danger of adverse effects of coal mining practices. The sites given the second highest priority are those adversely impacting public health and safety. The sites given third priority are those which cause the environmental degradation of soil, water, air quality, woodlands, fish and wildlife, recreational resources, and agricultural productivity. Indiana also describes Indiana DNR's data acquisition procedures in determining site eligibility, which include the review of past mining records, surveys, field investigations, and public input. Indiana explains that site priority will be determined for all eligible sites, regardless of resource recovery potential, and that any resource recovery will be undertaken in accordance with Federal rules. Any remined sites will remain eligible for AML reclamation. Part 884.13(e)(1)(2) of the Indiana Plan, includes a list of documents and data sources concerning known or suspected eligible lands and waters within the state of Indiana. These descriptions are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(ii). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

Part 884.13(c)(3) of the Indiana Plan describes Indiana DNR's coordination with other agencies. Indiana DNR coordinates with the Sycamore Trails Resource Conservation & Development Group, a non-profit organization that maintains its own AML program. The two programs share information via a liaison and an Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System database, which lists sites identified by personnel from both programs. Eligibility of these potential sites for the expenditure of AML funds is determined by committee review. Additional coordination with local tribes is not necessary because there are no known Indian lands within the Indiana Coal Region. Indiana also describes the purpose of its AML Emergency Program, which is to stabilize the emergency aspects of an AML problem by eliminating the immediate danger to public health, safety, or general welfare. The AML Emergency Program is discussed further in Section 8, “Rights of Entry.” This description of agency coordination is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(iii). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

Part 884.13(c)(4) of the Indiana Plan describes its policies and procedures regarding land acquisition, management, and disposal. Under the Indiana Plan, all lands that have been adversely affected by coal mining activity are eligible for acquisition, if deemed necessary. These acquisition, management, and disposition policies and procedures are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(iv). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

Part 884.13(c)(5) of the Indiana Plan describes Indiana's policies and procedures for reclamation on private land. Under the Indiana Plan, the Indiana DNR has the authority to place or waive a lien against private property if the owner has consented to, participated in, or exercised control over the mining operation, and if reclamation will result in a significant increase in property value. If an initial evaluation suggests an increase in property value of $25,000 or more, the land appraisal may be conducted by an independent appraiser. These policies and procedures are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(v). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

Part 884.13(c)(6) and Part 884.13(c)(3) of the Indiana Plan states its policies and procedures regarding rights of entry to lands or property. Indiana DNR will take all reasonable actions to obtain advanced written consent from the property owner for the purposes of reclamation. In the event that permission cannot be obtained on property where reclamation is needed and there is an immediate danger to public health, safety, or general welfare, police power entry is authorized under the AML Emergency Program. If police power entry is necessary, a written notice shall be mailed to the property owner at least 30 days prior to entry. If the property owner's address is not known, the notice shall be posted on the property and advertised in the newspaper. These policies and procedures are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(vi). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

Part 884.13(c)(7) of the Indiana Plan, describes its public participation policies in the development and operation of the Indiana Plan. Indiana DNR encourages the public to contact their office with any questions or concerns regarding mining related problems or the AML program. For future projects, Indiana DNR distributes informational letters to Federal, State, and local elected officials, and publishes public notices to news outlets within the county where the proposed activity is located. If sufficient public response is received, DNR will offer public meetings to provide information on proposed activities. Additional public involvement in the preparation of any revisions or amendments to the Indiana Plan will be coordinated and executed by OSMRE during the public comment and review period. These policies and procedures are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(vii). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

Part 884.13(d)(1) of the Indiana Plan describes the organization of the Indiana DNR and its relationship to other state organizations that may become involved in Indiana's AML program. The Indiana DNR Division of Reclamation reports to the DNR Director, via the Deputy Director to the Regulatory Management Team. The Indiana DNR Director reports directly to the Governor. The AML program also coordinates with other DNR divisions on proposed projects and reclamation activities. This description of agency organization is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(i). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

Part 884.13(d)(2) of the Indiana Plan describes Indiana's personnel staffing policies that will govern the assignment of personnel to its AML program. The program's staff is selected on the basis of applicable academic and professional experience. The Indiana DNR will be responsible for complying with all pertinent Federal and State laws. This description of agency personnel policies is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(ii). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

Part 884.13(d)(3) of the Indiana Plan states that the purchasing and procurement systems used by the Indiana DNR will be in accordance with the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102, Attachment 0 and the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments (43 CFR part 12, subpart C). Indiana also described its AML Applicant/Violator System, which ensures that no company owners, director, or major shareholders bidding on AML federally-funded projects have any Federal coal mining violations or state cessation orders that would render them ineligible. These systems are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(iii). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

Part 884.13(d)(4) of the Indiana Plan describes Indiana DNR's accounting system, including procedures for the operation of the Indiana Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. AML projects are grant-funded, and detailed financial records are maintained for auditing purposes, in accordance with 30 CFR 886 and OMB Circular A-102. This system description is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(iv). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

Part 884.13(e)(3) of the Indiana Plan describes the problems occurring on known or suspected lands and waters which require reclamation. A report published by Indiana DNR describes these problems and the suggested reclamation techniques to restore the site to an environmentally stable condition. These descriptions are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(5)(ii) and 30 CFR 884.13(a)(5)(iii). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

Part 884.13(f)(1) of the Indiana Plan, describes the economic base for Indiana's primary coal producing region, including population size, market accessibility, economic activities, such as agricultural products and manufacturing, and available mining resources. This description is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(6)(i). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

Part 884.13(f)(2) of the Indiana Plan describes the aesthetic, historic, and recreational values of southwestern Indiana. Indiana DNR stated that, to ensure that all potential impacts of the reclamation process are mitigated, the Division of Reclamation will consult with the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. This statement is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(6)(ii). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

Indiana stated that, during the planning stages of proposed AML reclamation projects, evaluations are conducted by Indiana DNR to determine the presence of wetlands, endangered species, and other environmental concerns. Recommendations are then provided to enhance or improve wetlands and critical wildlife habitat. During this process, Indiana DNR consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether the project will adversely affect any Federally-listed threatened or endangered species. Indiana DNR also coordinates with the Indiana Division of Nature Preserves to identify any unique natural habitats for protection and mitigation. These descriptions are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(6)(iii). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

Indiana included a map showing the general location of known or suspected eligible lands and waters within Indiana which require reclamation. This map is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(5)(i). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

OSMRE solicited public comments and provided an opportunity for a public hearing on the amendment of the Indiana Plan. No public comments were received and because no one requested an opportunity to speak at a public hearing, no hearing was held.

On May 4, 2016, under 30 CFR 884.14(a)(2), we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Indiana plan (Administrative Record No. IN-1773). We did not receive any comments.

On May 4, 2016, we requested comments on the Indiana Plan amendment (Administrative Record No. IN-1773), from the SHPO and the ACHP, but neither responded to our request.

Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Indiana sent us on March 14, 2016 (Administrative Record No. IN-1773).

To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 914, which codify decisions concerning the Indiana Plan. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, this rule will take effect 30 days after the date of publication. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.

This rulemaking does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation.

This rulemaking is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rulemaking meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State AML programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific state, not by OSMRE. Under section 405 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1235) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 884.14 and 884.15, decisions on proposed State AML programs and program amendments submitted by the states must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR part 884 have been met.

This rulemaking does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and state governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that state laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that state programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rulemaking on Federally-recognized Tribes and have determined that the rulemaking does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Tribes. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on a state AML program and does not involve Federal regulations involving Indian lands.

Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rulemaking that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rulemaking is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because it is deemed a categorical exclusion within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). It is documented in the DOI Departmental Manual 516 DM 13.5(B)(29), that agency decisions on approval of state reclamation plans for abandoned mine lands do not constitute major Federal actions.

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).

The Department of the Interior certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rulemaking, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.

This rulemaking is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rulemaking: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rulemaking, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rulemaking.

This rulemaking will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rulemaking, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 914 is amended as set forth below:

The City of Vallejo has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Mare Island Drawbridge, mile 2.8, over Napa River, at Vallejo, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 13 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.169(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. through 11:30 a.m. on October 8, 2017 to allow the community to participate in the Waterfront Weekend Triathlon. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway 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 the temporary deviation.

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

On June 1, 2017 (82 FR 25211), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Delaware. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of portions of Delaware's December 14, 2015 SIP revision which address for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS the following infrastructure elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA will take separate action, at a future date, on the remaining portion of the December 14, 2015 SIP revision that addresses requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (interstate transport of emissions) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, the proposed rulemaking action did not include action on section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and will be addressed in a separate process if necessary.

Because the technical support document (TSD) was erroneously omitted from the docket for this rulemaking at the time EPA published the NPR on June 1, 2017 (82 FR 25211), EPA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR) extending the comment period on June 22, 2017 to allow further opportunity for public comment on our proposed approval of portions of Delaware's December 14, 2015 SIP revision addressing infrastructure requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 82 FR 28432.

EPA reviewed the December 14, 2015 SIP submittal from Delaware and determined that it addressed for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS the following infrastructure elements in section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA. A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for approving Delaware's submittal may be found in the TSD for this rulemaking action, which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0152.

Although Delaware's December 14, 2015 SIP submission also contained provisions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, EPA did not propose any action on the portion of the submittal pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding the interstate transport of emissions. EPA intends to take later separate action on this portion of Delaware's submittal.

Other specific requirements of Delaware's submittal for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure requirements and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. EPA received one comment which is addressed below.

EPA received a comment in response to the June 1, 2017 NPR. The commenter noted that the TSD was not available online and requested a restart of the comment period. Additionally, the commenter expressed support for EPA and concerns about the removal of environmental regulations.

Response: On June 22, 2017, EPA made the TSD available online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0152. In our June 22, 2017 SNPR, EPA subsequently extended the comment period. 82 FR 28432. While EPA appreciates the supportive comments and expression of concern for environmental regulations in general, these comments are not germane to this rulemaking and do not identify any specific actions or provisions that EPA should address differently. Therefore, EPA does not provide further response.

EPA is approving portions of Delaware's December 14, 2015 SIP revision that address the following elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). Delaware's SIP revision addressing section 110(a)(2)(A-C), (D)(i)(II) and (D)(ii), (E-H), and (J-M) provides the basic program elements specified in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA will take later separate action on the portion of the SIP revision addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (interstate transport of emissions) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This final rulemaking action does not include action on section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and will be addressed in a separate process if necessary.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 21, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action to approve portions of Delaware's December 14, 2015 SIP revision for section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.

The background for this action is discussed in detail in the July 19, 2017 (82 FR 33026) proposal. In that document, the EPA proposed to conditionally approve revisions to the Texas SIP that the TCEQ submitted to EPA in its Appendix F (a component of the 2008 8-Hour DFW ozone nonattainment area plan) of the July 10, 2015 DFW SIP submittal. The July 19, 2017 Federal Register (FR) action proposed to conditionally approve revisions to the Texas SIP addressing NOX RACT for the Martin Marietta (MM) cement manufacturing plant in Ellis County. See section 110(k)(4) of the Clean Air Act (CAA, Act), and section II.F of the Proposal.

We proposed to fully approve revisions to the Texas SIP addressing NOX RACT for all other affected sources in the ten county DFW 2008 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area. See section II.B of the Proposal.

We also proposed to approve NOX RACT negative declarations for the nitric acid and adipic acid manufacturing operations within the ten County DFW 2008 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area. See section II.C of the Proposal.

The Proposal and the Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared in conjunction with that FR action provide detailed description and the rationale for the proposed decisions. Please see the docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0496 for the TSD and other documents regarding the Proposal.

The public comment period for the July 19, 2017 (82 FR 33026) proposal expired on August 19, 2017, and we received relevant comments from Holcim, TCEQ, and Ash Grove on the proposed actions during this period. Our response to relevant comments received during public comment period is below.

Comment #1: Holcim supported EPA's action on the Proposal.

Response: We appreciate the support.

Comment #2: TCEQ requested clarification on its SIP revision process addressing conditional approval for the MM cement manufacturing plant through a voluntary Agreed Order (AO) or rulemaking action.

Response: State has the option of choosing what mechanism, for example; a voluntary AO or rulemaking action, to use when revising its SIP as long as a revision is made in conformance with section 110 of the Act and applicable State law. No change to our NOX RACT determination is made as a result of this comment.

Comment #3: Ash Grove supported EPA's action, stating its NOX limit is driven by 40 CFR 60.62 (New Source Performance Standards—NSPS). The commenter contends that its air permit is not a part of a federally enforceable SIP submittal.

Response: We appreciate the support. The NOX RACT emission limitation of 1.5 lb/ton of clinker produced is required per 40 CFR 60.62(a) or NSPS subpart F that is consistent with limits established in Ash Grove's consent decree. We agree with the comment that its air permit was not a component of TCEQ SIP submittal; however, inclusion of air permit in record was intended to create a thorough and complete docket. No change to our NOX RACT determination for this plant is made as a result of this comment.

This concludes our response to comments received. Based on our evaluation and responses, no changes to the Proposed NOX RACT determinations have been made. Therefore, we are finalizing the 82 FR 33026 proposal as published on July 19, 2017.

We are conditionally approving NOX RACT for the MM cement manufacturing plant in Ellis County, Texas. We are fully approving revisions to the Texas SIP addressing NOX RACT for all other affected sources in the ten county DFW 2008 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area. We are also approving NOX RACT negative declarations for the nitric acid and adipic acid manufacturing operations within the ten County DFW 2008 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area.

The EPA had previously approved RACT for all affected NOX sources under the 1-Hour and the 1997 8-Hour ozone standards. Based on our approval of 30 TAC Chapter 117 rules for control of nitrogen compounds on April 13, 2016 (81 FR 21747), and the Proposed RACT action of July 19, 2017 (82 FR 33026), Texas is implementing RACT for all affected NOX sources in the ten County DFW area under the 2008 8-Hour ozone standard.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 21, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 17-111, MD Docket No. 17-134, adopted on September 1, 2017 and released on September 5, 2017. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from the Commission's Web site at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0906/FCC-17-111A1.pdf.

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),1 the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) relating to this Report and Order. The FRFA is located towards the end of this document.

2. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

3. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

4. The Report and Order adopts a schedule of regulatory fees to assess and collect $356,710,992 in regulatory fees for fiscal year (FY) 2017, pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act) and the Commission's FY 2017 Appropriation.2 The schedule of regulatory fees for FY 2017 adopted here is listed in Table 4. These regulatory fees are due in September 2017. The FY 2017 regulatory fees are based on the proposals in the FY 2017 NPRM, 3 considered in light of the comments received and Commission analysis.

5. Congress adopted a regulatory fee schedule in 1993 4 and authorized the Commission to assess and collect annual regulatory fees pursuant to the schedule, as amended by the Commission.5 The Commission annually reviews the regulatory fee schedule, proposes changes to the schedule to reflect changes in the amount of its appropriation, and proposes increases or decreases to the schedule of regulatory fees.6 The Commission makes changes to the regulatory fee schedule “if the Commission determines that the schedule requires amendment to comply with the requirements” 7 of section 9(b)(1)(A) of the Act.8 The Commission may also add, delete, or reclassify services in the fee schedule to reflect additions, deletions, or changes in the nature of its services “as a consequence of Commission rulemaking proceedings or changes in law.” Regulatory fees must also cover the costs the Commission incurs in regulating entities that are statutorily exempt from paying regulatory fees,9 entities whose regulatory fees are waived,10 and entities that provide nonregulated services. Thus, for each fiscal year, the Commission proposes a fee schedule in the annual Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that reflects changes in the amount appropriated for the performance of the Commission's regulatory activities, changes in the industries represented by the regulatory fee payors, changes in FTE 11 levels, and any other issues of relevance to the proposed fee schedule.12 After reviewing the comments, the Commission issues a Report and Order adopting the fee schedule for the fiscal year and sets out the procedures for payment of fees.

6. The Commission calculates the fees by first determining the number of FTEs performing the regulatory activities specified in section 9(a), “adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities . . . .” 13 FTEs are categorized as “direct” if they are performing regulatory activities in one of the “core” bureaus, i.e., the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Media Bureau, Wireline Competition Bureau, and part of the International Bureau. All other FTEs are considered “indirect.” 14 The total FTEs for each fee category is calculated by counting the number of direct FTEs in the core bureau that regulates that category, plus a proportional allocation of indirect FTEs. Next, the Commission allocates the total amount to be collected among the various regulatory fee categories. This allocation is based on the number of FTEs assigned to work in each regulatory fee category. Each regulatee within a fee category pays its proportionate share based on an objective measure, e.g., revenues, number of subscribers, or licenses.15

7. As part of its annual review, the Commission seeks to improve its regulatory fee analysis.16 For example, in the FY 2013 Report and Order, the Commission updated FTE allocations to more accurately reflect the number of FTEs working on regulation and oversight of the regulatees in the various fee categories; 17 reallocated some FTEs from the International Bureau as indirect; 18 combined the UHF and VHF television stations into one regulatory fee category; 19 and added Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) to the cable television fee category.20 In the FY 2014 Report and Order, the Commission adopted a new fee subcategory for toll free numbers in the Interstate Telecommunications Service Provider (ITSP) 21 fee category; 22 increased the de minimis threshold to $500 for annual regulatory fee payors; 23 and eliminated several categories from the regulatory fee schedule.24 In the FY 2015 Report and Order, the Commission reduced the regulatory fee for submarine cable, terrestrial, and satellite international bearer circuits.25 The Commission also adopted a regulatory fee for DBS, as a subcategory of the cable television and IPTV fee category,26 and for toll-free numbers 27 and reallocated four International Bureau FTEs from direct to indirect.28 In the FY 2016 Report and Order, the Commission adjusted regulatory fees for radio and television broadcasters, based on the type and class of service and on the population served; 29 adopted an increase in the regulatory fee for DBS providers within the cable television and IPTV regulatory fee category; 30 and adopted an across the board fee increase for the Commission's moving expenses.31 In this proceeding, the Commission continues to improve and reform the regulatory fee process.

8. In our FY 2017 NPRM, we proposed to collect $356,710,992 in regulatory fees and included a detailed, proposed fee schedule. We received 17 comments and six reply comments.32

9. In this FY 2017 Report and Order, we adopt a regulatory fee schedule for FY 2017, pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act and the 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act 33 in order to collect $356,710,992 in regulatory fees.34 Of this amount, we project approximately $22.17 million (6.22 percent of the total FTE allocation) in fees from the International Bureau regulatees; 35 $88.69 million (24.86 percent of the total FTE allocation) in fees from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatees; 36 $115.58 million (32.40 percent of the total FTE allocation) from Wireline Competition Bureau regulatees; 37 and $130.27 million (36.52 percent of the total FTE allocation) from the Media Bureau regulatees.38 These regulatory fees are due in September 2017. The schedule of regulatory fees for FY 2017 adopted here is listed in Table 4.

10. Under section 9 of the Act, regulatory fees are to “be derived by determining the full-time equivalent number of employees performing” these activities, “adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities . . . ” 39 As a general matter, we reasonably expect that the work of the FTEs in the core bureaus should remain focused on the industry segment regulated by each of those bureaus. The work of the FTEs in the indirect bureaus and offices benefits the Commission and the telecommunications industry and is not specifically focused on the regulatees and licensees of a core bureau. Given the significant implications of reassignment of FTEs in our fee calculation, we make changes to FTE classifications only after performing considerable analysis and finding the clearest case for reassignment.40

11. In the FY 2017 NPRM, we proposed to reallocate 38 FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau associated with Universal Service Fund work as indirect and to reallocate four FTEs from the Wireline Competition Bureau that work on wireless numbering issues to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau due to the changes to the Universal Service regulatory landscape that no longer affect only ITSPs and the fact that approximately half the benefit of the work done by FTEs on numbering issues accrue to the CMRS industry.

12. In the FY 2017 NPRM, the Commission explained that changes to the Universal Service Fund regulatory landscape require us to reexamine the treatment of Universal Service Fund FTEs as direct FTEs. There are currently approximately 51 FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau, including the bureau front office, working on Universal Service Fund issues, with 13 of those FTEs focused on the High-Cost program. Currently, there are approximately three FTEs in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, including the bureau front office, implementing the Mobility Fund, a universal service High-Cost support mechanism devoted exclusively to mobile services.41 These Wireline Competition Bureau and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau FTEs are considered direct FTEs for regulatory fee purposes. Other FTEs throughout the Commission working on universal service issues are indirect FTEs, including the FTEs working on universal service issues in the Enforcement Bureau, the Office of the Managing Director, the Office of the Inspector General, and the Office of the General Counsel.

13. In the FY 2017 NPRM, we proposed to reallocate the 38 FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau assigned to work on the non-high-cost programs of the Universal Service Fund as indirect for regulatory fee purposes, for several reasons.42 The 38 FTE count is based on coordination between the Office of Managing Director and Wireline Competition Bureau staff which analyzed how many FTEs work on each of the USF programs.43 In doing so, we noted that contributions to the Universal Service Fund are required from service providers using any technology that has end-user interstate telecommunications.44 As we discussed in the FY 2017 NPRM, continuing changes in the universal service fund regulatory landscape requires us to reexamine the appropriateness of treating the FTEs working on universal service issues as Wireline Competition Bureau direct FTEs.45 Initially, universal service programs were focused on wireline services, but now wireless carriers, and more recently broadband providers, are involved in the E-Rate, 46 Lifeline,47 and Rural Healthcare 48 programs.

In addition, three of the universal service fund programs—E-Rate, Lifeline, and Rural Healthcare—tie funding eligibility to the beneficiary, i.e., a school, a library, a low-income individual or family, or a rural healthcare provider, and not to Commission regulatees.49 Wireless carriers now serve a substantial, if not majority, of Lifeline subscribers.50 Also, satellite operators, Wi-Fi network installers, and fiber builders may all receive funding through the E-Rate and Rural Healthcare universal service programs.51 Similarly, multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), who also provide supported services, receive universal service funding through participation in both the E-rate and Rural Healthcare programs because they provide telecommunications and Internet access services that are eligible for support in those programs.52 And given that the applicants in these programs are not even regulatees—instead, they are the schools and libraries and healthcare providers—the bulk of the Commission's oversight of these programs (i.e., the costs incurred that create a need for regulatory fees) are not generated by regulatees. Indeed, seven of the ten E-Rate forms that make up the bulk of the Commission's oversight of the program are filed by schools and libraries, not service providers. Similarly, seven of the nine rural healthcare program forms are filed by healthcare providers, not service providers. In other words, ITSPs are not the sole or even majority contributors or beneficiaries of these three programs. Reallocating these Wireline Competition Bureau FTEs as indirect FTEs would be more consistent with how FTEs working on universal service issues are treated elsewhere in the Commission, e.g., similar to the 10 FTEs working on USF matters in the Enforcement Bureau, the 5 FTEs in the Office of the Managing Director, the 10 FTEs in the Office of the Inspector General, and the 5 FTEs in the Office of the General Counsel.53

14. ITTA and Frontier support the proposal in the FY 2017 NPRM to reallocate 38 Wireline Competition Bureau FTEs as indirect, and CTIA argues that if the Commission reclassifies any of these FTEs, they should be reallocated as indirect.54 CenturyLink also agrees with this proposal and observes that the concern that the reallocation would impose a burden on broadcasters which do not participate in the universal service program is misplaced “as there is no completely pure way to precisely allocate every Commission FTE.” 55 After consideration of the record on this issue and for the reasons discussed in the FY 2017 NPRM, i.e., that ITSPs are no longer the sole contributors or beneficiaries of the E-Rate, Lifeline, and Rural Healthcare programs and allocating these Wireline Competition Bureau FTEs as indirect FTEs would be more consistent with how FTEs working on universal service issues are treated elsewhere in the Commission, we adopt the proposal to reallocate 38 FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau assigned to work on the non-high-cost programs of the Universal Service Fund as indirect. The regulatory fee rates set forth in Appendix C reflect this reallocation of FTEs for regulatory fee purposes.

15. We disagree with SIA's argument that such a reallocation of FTEs from direct to indirect is “premature” because satellite operators do not yet benefit from the contributions of the FTEs working on universal service fund issues.56 The FTEs working on these universal service issues have already devoted substantial time to making sure that satellite operators are eligible to participate in these programs, such as by becoming ETCs or being eligible for funding under the Rural Healthcare program or E-Rate. Permitting satellite operators into the USF programs uses FTE resources at the beginning of a satellite operators' participation. And some satellite providers have begun to take advantage of that eligibility in, for example, the Rural Healthcare program. Thus, these FTEs are both overseeing satellite operators and benefiting satellite operators, making reallocation appropriate.

16. ITTA and Frontier suggest that we also reallocate to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and/or Media Bureau direct FTEs working on universal service high cost issues.57 Frontier argues that we should reallocate FTEs working on High-Cost Fund issues as indirect FTEs because all universal service programs, including the High-Cost Fund, “benefit the public and all members of the Internet ecosystem, not specifically or uniquely wireline companies.” 58 CTIA opposes the proposal to reallocate FTEs working on High-Cost issues, and observes that ITTA and Frontier have failed to show a clear case for reclassification of the Wireline Competition Bureau FTEs.59 We agree with CTIA that the case for reallocation has not been made at this time.

17. Several parties also ask that we go farther. For example, ITTA argues that the Wireline Competition Bureau FTEs are “no longer focused exclusively on ITSPs” 60 and the Commission “must make adjustments to ensure that its regulatory fees reflect its actual costs by industry sector.” 61 Similarly, ITTA, Frontier, and CenturyLink also argue that we should combine CMRS into the ITSP category.62 We do not believe the case has been made for such large changes at this time, because (among other things) advocates of such changes have not fully accounted for the substantial differences in regulatory oversight between different groups of regulatees nor the fact that allocating regulatory fees is not and cannot be an exact science. On the last point, it would be nigh impossible to determine the precise costs attributable to FTEs and the precise benefits flowing from Commission regulation to any one regulatee, let alone a particular cross-section of regulatees or even an entire industry—not to mention the complications associated with regulatees statutorily exempt from paying regulatory fees (such as governmental licensees) and with beneficiaries (such as schools and libraries) that are not regulatees, all of whom nonetheless create costs that must be recovered. As such the Commission has long taken an incrementalist approach, requiring substantial and specific evidence about regulatory burdens and benefits before making changes to the allocation of fees. And those seeking to change our allocations even further have not yet made the case for doing so.

18. After reviewing the record, we conclude that our proposal in the FY 2017 NPRM to reallocate 38 FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau assigned to work on the non-high cost programs of the Universal Service Fund as indirect for regulatory fee purposes is warranted and consistent with section 9 of the Act. We therefore adopt the proposal in the FY 2017 NPRM. The regulatory fee rates set forth in Table 4 reflect this reallocation of FTEs.

19. In the FY 2017 NPRM, we estimated that seven to eight FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau work on numbering issues.63 We proposed to reallocate for regulatory fee purposes four of these direct FTEs from the Wireline Competition Bureau to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau “to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities . . . .” 64 Specifically, we estimated approximately half of the benefit of the work of these FTEs accrue to Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatees.65 Commenters agree with our proposal to reallocate four of the Wireline Competition Bureau FTEs that work on numbering issues to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau as direct FTEs for regulatory fee purposes.66

20. After reviewing the record, we conclude that reallocating four FTEs in the Wireline Competition Bureau assigned to work on numbering issues to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau for regulatory fee purposes is warranted and consistent with section 9 of the Act. Reallocating four direct FTEs from the Wireline Competition Bureau to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will “take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities” 67 because approximately half of the benefit of the work of these FTEs accrue to Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatees.68 We therefore adopt our proposal to reallocate for regulatory fee purposes four direct FTEs from the Wireline Competition Bureau to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. The regulatory fee rates set forth in Appendix C reflect this reallocation of FTEs.

21. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic dish antenna at the subscriber's location. The two DBS providers, AT&T 69 and DISH Network, are MVPDs.70 Following the 2012 GAO Report, in which the GAO observed that an evaluation of Media Bureau FTEs was long overdue,71 the Commission concluded that the Media Bureau FTEs regulate the DBS industry together with the other MVPDs.72 Subsequently, the Commission adopted a regulatory fee for DBS as a subcategory in the cable television and IPTV category, of 12 cents per year per subscriber.73 This regulatory fee subcategory was based on Media Bureau FTE activity involving regulation and oversight of all MVPDs, which included DBS providers.74

22. As the Commission discussed in the FY 2015 NPRM, the DBS providers were established as large MVPDs by 2015 and significant Media Bureau FTE resources were used in regulation and oversight of all MVPDs, including DBS.75 The Commission concluded there was no reasonable basis to continue to exclude DBS providers from sharing in the cost of MVPD oversight and regulation with cable television and IPTV. In lieu of directly including DBS providers in the cable television/IPTV category at the same regulatory fee rate, the Commission elected to phase in the new Media Bureau-based regulatory fee for DBS, starting at 12 cents per subscriber, per year. Since then, the Commission has increased the DBS regulatory fee each year, to bring it closer to the per-subscriber rate paid by cable television and IPTV. In the FY 2016 regulatory fee proceeding, the Commission increased the regulatory fee for DBS providers to 24 cents, plus an across-the-board increase of three cents for the Commission's moving expenses, for a total of 27 cents per subscriber, per year.76 In the FY 2017 NPRM, the Commission noted that the Media Bureau resources focused on MVPD proceedings (including DBS) supported continuing to bring the DBS rate closer to the cable television/IPTV per subscriber rate.77 At that time, we proposed a regulatory fee rate of 36 cents per subscriber per year, plus two cents due to the increase in the Commission's budget for moving expenses, for a total of 38 cents per subscriber per year for FY 2017.78 As we discuss below, we are adopting the proposed rate of 38 cents per subscriber, per year in this Report and Order, in our effort to bring the DBS rate closer to the cable television/IPTV per subscriber rate.

23. We agree with the commenters representing the cable television industry that the Media Bureau resources utilized by the DBS providers are similar to those used by the cable television and IPTV industry,79 and for this reason we have been phasing in the regulatory fee for DBS providers each year. Commenters representing the cable television industry observe that despite the Commission's prior commitment to ensuring “an appropriate level of regulatory parity with cable television and IPTV” the proposed rate is far below the 96 cents proposed rate for cable television and IPTV.80 These commenters argue that there is no justification for this disparity, due to the fact that DBS operators impose regulatory costs and receive benefits from the Media Bureau that affect all MVPDs; 81 that the proposed fees impose competitive and technological disparities, favoring DBS over cable television and IPTV; 82 and that there is no evidence in the record to support the disparity in fees.83 The Media Bureau FTEs regulate the DBS industry together with the other MVPDs and the burden that DBS imposes on Media Bureau FTEs is roughly the same. For example, since October 1, 2016, the Media Bureau has opened 17 proceedings that affect MVPDs; seven of those proceedings are focused on cable operators, six are focused on DBS, and four cover all MVPDs (with three of those also covering other media services like broadcasters). Thus, these regulatees—MVPDs—are a group that includes DBS. In order to continue to bring the DBS fee closer to the cable television/IPTV fee, we are adopting the proposed rate of 38 cents per subscriber, which still remains substantially below the cable television/IPTV fee we adopt today.

24. We reject the argument raised by DISH and AT&T, the two DBS providers, who contend that a fee increase would “harm DBS customers.” 84 We do not accept the DISH and AT&T unsupported contention that a regulatory fee increase of several cents per subscriber, per month would “harm” their customers, as such an increase is a negligible fraction of a monthly bill.85

25. AT&T and DISH also argue that several recent proceedings involving MVPDs do not justify an increase in regulatory fees.86 We disagree. The examples of recent proceedings involving MVPDs illustrate that Media Bureau FTEs work on significant MVPD issues that include DBS. DBS, cable television, and IPTV all receive oversight and regulation as a result of the work of Media Bureau FTEs on MVPD issues. This regulatory fee is not based on specific recent proceedings, but that a significant number of Media Bureau FTEs work on MVPD issues that include DBS.87 We listed examples of several recent proceedings to illustrate that the Media Bureau is involved in numerous MVPD issues.88 The fee increase we adopt today is not based on particular Media Bureau proceedings, but is an effort to bring the regulatory fee closer to the cable television/IPTV per subscriber fee.

26. AT&T and DISH contend that there is no evidence that DBS providers “usurped the work of such a significant amount of Media Bureau FTEs sufficient to justify this increase.” 89 The DBS commenters are misunderstanding the basis for including DBS in the cable television/IPTV regulatory fee.90 The Commission has never said that the DBS industry “usurped the work” of the Media Bureau staff. The regulatory fee is based on the fact that Media Bureau staff work on significant issues involving MVPDs, including DBS. The DBS regulatory fee is based on the Media Bureau's regulation and oversight of the MVPD industry (including DBS), not on a particular number of FTEs focused solely on DBS. The Commission has specifically rejected the argument that section 9 of the Act requires us to “show that DBS and cable occupy a comparable number of FTEs.” 91

27. Finally, AT&T and DISH contend that there is no legal basis to charge DBS providers the same regulatory fees as cable television and IPTV operators.92 We disagree. We recognize that DBS is not identical to cable television and IPTV. Services that are not technologically identical nevertheless warrant placement in the same regulatory fee category, e.g., ITSP includes a range of carriers that may not be regulated identically but must pay fees on the same basis.93 When interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers were added to the ITSP category in a permitted amendment the Commission observed that “the costs and benefits associated with our regulation of interconnected VoIP providers are not identical as those associated with regulating interstate telecommunications service and CMRS.” 94 Indeed, IPTV is not regulated in all the same ways as cable television, and yet the Commission requires them to pay fees on the same basis.95 We recognize that DBS is not identical to cable, but the Media Bureau FTEs work on MVPD issues that include DBS. Although DBS is not identical to cable television and IPTV, the services all receive oversight and regulation as a result of the work of Media Bureau FTEs on MVPD issues, and the burden imposed on the Commission is similar.

28. After considering the comments filed in this proceeding, we conclude that moving the DBS rate is supported by the data and analysis, and therefore adopt a regulatory fee rate of 38 cents, per subscriber, per year for FY 2017.

29. In the FY 2017 NPRM, the Commission proposed to revise the table for AM and FM broadcasters.96 The proposed table had revised ratios so that the difference between each tier would be proportional. We also sought comment on whether the regulatory fees should be reduced further for the AM and FM broadcasters in the two lowest tiers.

30. We received two comments on this issue. CRC, an AM station licensee, contends that the proposed fees for AM stations are too high.97 CRC observes that small AM stations must compete against FM stations and other media and they generate significantly less revenue than FM stations.98 CRC argues that the economic disparities between AM and FM facilities should be reflected in the regulatory fee schedules, particularly in the top tiers where the disparity in revenues is much greater than in the smaller markets.99 Arso contends that the FY 2017 NPRM does not go far enough in alleviating the hardship imposed on small broadcasters and urges the Commission to adopt a fast track waiver process for stations in economically depressed areas, such as Puerto Rico.100

31. We agree with the commenters that small independent broadcasters face hardship today. As the Commission explained in the FY 2016 Report and Order, “[e]xtending some relief to these small radio broadcasters may facilitate their continued ability to stay in business and serve their small and rural communities.” 101 After reviewing the record, and due to the economic hardship faced by many small rural independent radio stations, we are adopting a revised version of the proposed table in the FY 2017 NPRM and reducing the regulatory fees in the two lowest population tiers for AM and FM broadcasters from the amounts proposed. In FY 2018, we will again review the status of these small radio broadcast stations to see if further relief is warranted. Below is the table we adopt today:

32. Broadcast television satellite stations pay a lower regulatory fee than standalone full service broadcast television stations, and some of these stations are designated as such pursuant to note 5 to § 73.3555 of the Commission's rules.102 For purposes of regulatory fees, we historically have identified as satellite stations those so listed in the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System (CDBS), the Television and Cable Factbook, or BIA/Kelsey MEDIA Access Pro.103 In the FY 2017 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on basing the categorization of television satellite stations for regulatory fee payments on authorization under note 5 of § 73.3555 of the Commission's rules, and noted that the Television and Cable Factbook may identify some stations as satellite stations that are not listed in the Media Bureau's records.104 We received limited comments on the issue and do not have adequate support to change the methodology for determining which stations are satellites at this time. We recognize that regulatees rely on consistency of treatment. Therefore, for FY 2017 regulatory fees we treat broadcast television satellite stations as satellite stations that are listed as such in CDBS, the 2017 Television and Cable Factbook, or BIA/Kelsey MEDIA Access Pro, or paid regulatory fees as a satellite station in FY 2016.105 In the future, we intend to continue examining the appropriate methodology for categorizing when a station should only be assessed regulatory fees at the satellite station level. In doing so, as with other fee reforms, the Commission will work to ensure that any proposed changes to our fee structure are equitable, administrable, and sustainable.106

33. The Coalition, a group of submarine cable operators, objects to the proposed FY 2017 regulatory fees for the submarine cable industry, observing that the total amount the Commission is collecting for FY 2017 ($356,710,992) is less than the amount collected for FY 2016 ($384,012,497, of which $44,168,497 was to offset facilities reduction costs), yet the regulatory fee for the highest tier submarine cable system was $133,200 for FY 2016 and the rate proposed for FY 2017, for the highest tier, is $135,700.107 The Coalition states that the FY 2017 NPRM does not adequately justify the proposed increase in fees for submarine cable systems.108 The Coalition argues that the FY 2016 rate included a one-time facilities reduction charge and the FY 2017 rate should be less than the FY 2016 rate because the number of payment units are the same.109 The Coalition contends that the Commission is subsidizing unrelated activities to the detriment of the submarine cable operators.110

34. We disagree with the Coalition's argument. The increase in regulatory fee rates for the International Bureau regulatees is due to the reallocation of 38 Wireline Competition Bureau direct FTEs as indirect in FY 2017, as discussed above. Although the amount collected overall is less in FY 2017 than in FY 2016, the allocation percentage of regulatory fees for the International Bureau increased from 5.6 percent in FY 2016 111 to 6.22 percent for FY 2017,112 due to the increase in indirect FTEs. We also note that the regulatory fees paid by the submarine cable operators cover, in addition to the services that the International Bureau provides to submarine cable operators, the services provided to common carriers using submarine cable circuits.113 The International Bureau provides many services on behalf of common carriers using submarine cable circuits, such as benchmarks enforcement,114 protection from anticompetitive actions by foreign carriers, section 310(b) foreign ownership rulings, international section 214 authorizations, and representation of U.S. interests at bilateral and multilateral negotiations and international organizations.115 After reviewing the record, including the comments from the submarine cable industry, we are adopting the fee proposed in the FY 2017 NPRM for submarine cable systems.

35. In 2009,116 the Commission adopted a new methodology for calculating submarine cable international bearer circuits regulatory fees by: (i) Eliminating the distinction between common carriers and non-common carriers 117 and (ii) assessing a flat per cable landing license fee 118 for all submarine cable systems with higher fees for larger submarine cable systems and lower fees for smaller systems.119 The Commission concluded that the new methodology would be more equitable and would encourage better compliance with the regulatory fee requirements.120 The Commission did not revise the terrestrial and satellite IBC regulatory fee methodology at that time because of the “complexity of the legal, policy and equity issues involved.” 121

36. In the FY 2016 NPRM, the Commission revisited the disparate treatment of terrestrial and satellite IBCs vis-à-vis submarine IBCs,122 but subsequently decided that the record was insufficient to change the fee methodology.123 In the FY 2017 NPRM, the Commission again sought comment on how to update and improve the regulatory fee assessment for terrestrial and satellite IBCs. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on several issues raised by Level 3:124 Adopting a flat, per-provider fee, similar to the submarine cable regulatory fee methodology, based on capacity 125 and including all terrestrial IBCs, i.e., both common carrier and non-common carrier, for regulatory fee purposes.126 We also sought comment on eliminating the IBC regulatory fee for satellite IBCs and whether we should continue to assess regulatory fees based on IBCs that were active as of December 31 of the prior year.127

37. We agree with the commenters, Level 3 and AT&T, that a methodology for terrestrial and satellite IBC regulatory fees based on circuits should be consistent with the submarine cable methodology and include common carrier and non-common carrier terrestrial IBCs. Level 3 explains that including non-common carrier IBCs will “eliminate a major incentive and opportunity providers currently have to underreport the number of IBCs they have in service.” 128 As AT&T observes, such an approach treats all terrestrial IBC providers equitably and reduces fees by increasing the payment units.129 For these reasons, we find no reason to continue excluding non-common carrier terrestrial IBCs from regulatory fees and adopt our proposal to include both common carrier and non-common carrier terrestrial IBCs, consistent with the submarine cable regulatory fee methodology.

38. Adding non-common carrier terrestrial IBCs to the regulatory fee schedule is a permitted amendment, as defined in section 9(b)(3) of the Act,130 and pursuant to section 9(b)(4)(B),131 must be submitted to Congress at least 90 days before it will be effective. For that reason, this new fee will be included in the regulatory fee proceeding for FY 2018.

39. In the FY 2017 NPRM, we sought comment on whether to eliminate the IBC regulatory fee for satellite providers of IBCs.132 SIA contends that the fee should be eliminated because it does not correspond with substantive work by the Commission and is overly burdensome for satellite operators to calculate.133 According to SIA, calculating the number of circuits takes at least ten hours for in-house counsel and additional personnel in other departments are responsible for collecting data for this calculation.134 The flat fee methodology for terrestrial and satellite IBCs should significantly reduce any burden of collecting data described by SIA. After reviewing the record, we do not see any reason to eliminate this fee category. Instead, we are moving toward a more consistent regulatory fee methodology for all IBCs and a less burdensome process for all regulatees.

40. In the FY 2017 NPRM, we sought comment on whether to assess the number of active circuits on systems active as of December 31 of the prior year or assess fees on IBCs that were active at any point during the preceding calendar year.135 Level 3 and AT&T argue that the Commission should continue to assess regulatory fees based on IBCs that were active as of December 31 of the prior year because it is significantly less burdensome for carriers to identify circuits that are active at a fixed point in time as opposed to at any point during the preceding year.136 We agree that the burdens associated with requiring providers to count the number of active circuits at any point during the preceding year does not outweigh the benefits. Therefore, we will retain the current requirement of assessing fees on systems active as of December 31 of the prior year.

41. Under the Commission's current de minimis rule for regulatory fee payments, a regulatee is exempt from paying regulatory fees if the sum total of all of its regulatory fee liabilities for annual regulatory fees is $500 or less for the fiscal year.137 The Commission increased the de minimis threshold from $10 to $500 in the FY 2014 Report and Order. 138 The higher threshold reflected the estimated costs of collecting an unpaid regulatory fee, i.e., at least $350 in direct costs. The Commission's estimate of approximately $350 per unpaid fee excluded overhead or other costs involved in regulatory fee collection.139 In addition, the Commission observed that setting the de minimis threshold at $500 was unlikely to reduce fee collections to an amount below the full amount of the Commission's annual appropriation.140

42. In the FY 2014 regulatory fee proceeding, commenters had argued the threshold should be increased to $750 or $1,000.141 In response, the Commission adopted a new threshold of $500 for annual regulatory fee and committed to further monitor the de minimis threshold and consider whether to increase the threshold or revise on some other basis.142 In the FY 2017 NPRM, we sought comment on increasing the de minimis threshold to $1,000 to improve the cost effectiveness of the Commission's collection of regulatory fees.143 Commenters support an increase in the de minimis threshold.144

43. In general, we believe the Commission's operational costs associated with processing and collecting these smaller fees, outweigh the benefits of such payments. For example, payors between $500 and $1,000 account for less than one percent of all regulatory fee payments. And yet processing and collecting these fees generates a disproportionate amount of work for Commission staff. Specifically, the cost of researching, creating a bill to send to a non-payor, and completing all follow-up discussion and correspondence has increased since 2014's $350 estimate, and that does not even include the cost of overhead and administering the regulatory fee program.145 The Commission has found that smaller entities with regulatory fees that fall within this range are less likely to pay on a timely basis and consequently use more Commission resources for fee collection.146 Nonpayment by these small entities then often results in the escalation of the Commission's administrative costs and a disproportionate use of FTE resources. As such, the marginal benefit to Commission operations of assessing, billing, and collecting regulatory fees on regulatees that would owe less than $1,000 is minute. In addition, setting the threshold at $1,000 is unlikely to reduce fee collections to an amount below the full amount of the Commission's annual appropriation because the additional amount that would no longer be collected is relatively small. We conclude that raising the de minimis threshold to $1,000 is justified by reducing the Commission's cost in collection of regulatory fees, thus allowing a more efficient allocation of Commission resources.

44. We also sought comment on whether we should include multi-year wireless licenses in the de minimis threshold. EWA explains, and we agree, that it would be difficult to administer a de minimis threshold for multi-year licenses.147 ACA proposes that we adopt a de minimis threshold for small cable and IPTV operators of 1000 or fewer subscribers.148 After analyzing this issue we conclude that it would be administratively difficult to have both a per subscriber de minimis threshold and a $1000 de minimis threshold at the same time. Many cable operators also have CARS licenses and offer other services, such as VoIP, and it would be difficult to calculate if they exceed the de minimis threshold with two different thresholds.

45. Accordingly, the de minimis threshold we adopt today applies only to filers of annual regulatory fees for FY 2017 and not multi-year filings.149 This de minimis exemption from the payment of regulatory fees applies to the sum of all annual regulatory fee obligations that a regulatee has for all applicable fee categories; not to individual payments for each category separately. The Commission will implement the de minimis threshold of $1,000 beginning immediately. The de minimis status is not a permanent exemption from regulatory fees. Rather, each regulatee will need to reevaluate annually to determine whether its total liability for annual regulatory fees falls at or below the threshold given any changes that the Commission may make in its regulatory fees from year to year.

46. Pursuant to an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directive,150 the Commission is moving towards a paperless environment, extending to disbursement and collection of select federal government payments and receipts.151 In 2015, the Commission stopped accepting checks (including cashier's checks and money orders) and the accompanying hardcopy forms (e.g., Forms 159, 159-B, 159-E, 159-W) for the payment of regulatory fees.152 All regulatory fee payments must be made by online Automated Clearing House (ACH) payment, online credit card, or wire transfer. Any other form of payment (e.g., checks, cashier's checks, or money orders) will be rejected. For payments by wire, a Form 159-E should still be transmitted via fax so that the Commission can associate the wire payment with the correct regulatory fee information.

47. Since June 1, 2015, in accordance with U.S. Treasury Announcement No. A-2014-04 (July 2014), the amount that can be charged on a credit card for transactions with federal agencies has been limited to $24,999.99.153 Transactions greater than $24,999.99 will be rejected. This limit applies to single payments or bundled payments of more than one bill. Multiple transactions to a single agency in one day may be aggregated and treated as a single transaction subject to the $24,999.99 limit. Customers who wish to pay an amount greater than $24,999.99 should consider available electronic alternatives such as Visa or MasterCard debit cards, ACH debits from a bank account, and wire transfers. Each of these payment options is available after filing regulatory fee information in Fee Filer.

48. During the fee season for collecting FY 2017 regulatory fees, regulatees can pay their fees by credit card through Pay.gov,154 ACH, debit card,155 or by wire transfer. Additional payment instructions are posted at http://transition.fcc.gov/fees/regfees.html. The receiving bank for all wire payments is the U.S. Treasury, New York, New York. When making a wire transfer, regulatees must fax a copy of their Fee Filer generated Form 159-E to the Federal Communications Commission at (202) 418-2843 at least one hour before initiating the wire transfer (but on the same business day) so as not to delay crediting their account. Regulatees should discuss arrangements (including bank closing schedules) with their bankers several days before they plan to make the wire transfer to allow sufficient time for the transfer to be initiated and completed before the deadline. Complete instructions for making wire payments are posted at http://transition.fcc.gov/fees/wiretran.html.

49. Regulatees whose total FY 2017 annual regulatory fee liability, including all categories of fees for which payment is due, is $1,000 or less are exempt from payment of FY 2017 regulatory fees. The de minimis threshold applies only to filers of annual regulatory fees (not regulatory fees paid through multi-year filings), and is not a permanent exemption. Regulatees will need to reevaluate their total fee liability each fiscal year to determine whether they meet the de minimis exemption.

50. The Commission will accept fee payments made in advance of the window for the payment of regulatory fees. The responsibility for payment of fees by service category is as follows:

• Media Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for initial construction permits that were granted on or before October 1, 2016 for AM/FM radio stations, VHF/UHF full service television stations, and satellite television stations. Regulatory fees must be paid for all broadcast facility licenses granted on or before October 1, 2016.

• Wireline (Common Carrier) Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2016. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2016, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date. Audio bridging service providers are included in this category.156 For Responsible Organizations (RespOrgs) that manage Toll Free Numbers (TFN), regulatory fees should be paid on all working, assigned, and reserved toll free numbers, as well as toll free numbers that are in any other status as defined in § 52.103 of the Commission's rules.157 The unit count should be based on toll free numbers managed by RespOrgs on or about December 31, 2016.

• Wireless Services: CMRS cellular, mobile, and messaging services (fees based on number of subscribers or telephone number count): Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2016. The number of subscribers, units, or telephone numbers on December 31, 2016 will be used as the basis from which to calculate the fee payment. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2016, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

• Wireless Services, Multi-year fees: The first eight regulatory fee categories in our Schedule of Regulatory Fees in Table 4 pay “small multi-year wireless regulatory fees.” Entities pay these regulatory fees in advance for the entire amount period covered by the five-year or ten-year terms of their initial licenses, and pay regulatory fees again only when the license is renewed or a new license is obtained. We include these fee categories in our rulemaking to publicize our estimates of the number of “small multi-year wireless” licenses that will be renewed or newly obtained in FY 2017.

• Multichannel Video Programming Distributor Services (cable television operators, CARS licensees, DBS, and IPTV): Regulatory fees must be paid for the number of basic cable television subscribers as of December 31, 2016.158 Regulatory fees also must be paid for CARS licenses that were granted on or before October 1, 2016. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2016, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date. For providers of DBS service and IPTV-based MVPDs, regulatory fees should be paid based on a subscriber count on or about December 31, 2016. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 31, 2016, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the due date.

• International Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for (1) earth stations and (2) geostationary orbit space stations and non-geostationary orbit satellite systems that were licensed and operational on or before October 1, 2016. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2016, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

• International Services: (Submarine Cable Systems): Regulatory fees for submarine cable systems are to be paid on a per cable landing license basis based on circuit capacity as of December 31, 2016. In instances where a license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2016, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the license as of the fee due date. For regulatory fee purposes, the allocation in FY 2017 will remain at 87.6 percent for submarine cable and 12.4 percent for satellite/terrestrial facilities.

• International Services: (Terrestrial and Satellite Services): Regulatory fees for Terrestrial and Satellite International Bearer Circuits are to be paid by facilities-based common carriers that have active (used or leased) international bearer circuits as of December 31, 2016 in any terrestrial or satellite transmission facility for the provision of service to an end user or resale carrier. When calculating the number of such active circuits, the facilities-based common carriers must include circuits used by themselves or their affiliates. In addition, non-common carrier satellite operators must pay a fee for each circuit they and their affiliates hold and each circuit sold or leased to any customer, other than an international common carrier authorized by the Commission to provide U.S. international common carrier services. For these purposes, “active circuits” include backup and redundant circuits as of December 31, 2016. Whether circuits are used specifically for voice or data is not relevant for purposes of determining that they are active circuits.159 In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2016, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date. For regulatory fee purposes, the allocation in FY 2017 will remain at 87.6 percent for submarine cable and 12.4 percent for satellite/terrestrial facilities.160

51. The Commission will compile data from the Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) report that is based on “assigned” telephone number (subscriber) counts that have been adjusted for porting to net Type 0 ports (“in” and “out”).161 This information of telephone numbers (subscriber count) will be posted on the Commission's electronic filing and payment system (Fee Filer) along with the carrier's Operating Company Numbers (OCNs).

52. A carrier wishing to revise its telephone number (subscriber) count can do so by accessing Fee Filer and follow the prompts to revise their telephone number counts. Any revisions to the telephone number counts should be accompanied by an explanation or supporting documentation.162 The Commission will then review the revised count and supporting documentation and either approve or disapprove the submission in Fee Filer. If the submission is disapproved, the Commission will contact the provider to afford the provider an opportunity to discuss its revised subscriber count and/or provide additional supporting documentation. If we receive no response from the provider, or we do not reverse our initial disapproval of the provider's revised count submission, the fee payment must be based on the number of subscribers listed initially in Fee Filer. Once the timeframe for revision has passed, the telephone number counts are final and are the basis upon which CMRS regulatory fees are to be paid. Providers can view their final telephone counts online in Fee Filer. A final CMRS assessment letter will not be mailed out.

53. Because some carriers do not file the NRUF report, they may not see their telephone number counts in Fee Filer. In these instances, the carriers should compute their fee payment using the standard methodology that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless services (i.e., compute their telephone number counts as of December 31, 2016), and submit their fee payment accordingly. Whether a carrier reviews its telephone number counts in Fee Filer or not, the Commission reserves the right to audit the number of telephone numbers for which regulatory fees are paid. In the event that the Commission determines that the number of telephone numbers that are paid is inaccurate, the Commission will bill the carrier for the difference between what was paid and what should have been paid.

54. To be considered timely, regulatory fee payments must be made electronically by the payment due date for regulatory fees. Section 9(c) of the Act requires us to impose a late payment penalty of 25 percent of the unpaid amount to be assessed on the first day following the deadline for filing these fees.163 Failure to pay regulatory fees and/or any late penalty will subject regulatees to sanctions, including those set forth in § 1.1910 of the Commission's rules,164 which generally requires the Commission to withhold action on “applications, including on a petition for reconsideration or any application for review of a fee determination, or requests for authorization by any entity found to be delinquent in its debt to the Commission” and in the DCIA.165 We also assess administrative processing charges on delinquent debts to recover additional costs incurred in processing and handling the debt pursuant to the DCIA and § 1.1940(d) of the Commission's rules.166 These administrative processing charges will be assessed on any delinquent regulatory fee, in addition to the 25 percent late charge penalty. In the case of partial payments (underpayments) of regulatory fees, the payor will be given credit for the amount paid, but if it is later determined that the fee paid is incorrect or not timely paid, then the 25 percent late charge penalty (and other charges and/or sanctions, as appropriate) will be assessed on the portion that is not paid in a timely manner.

55. Pursuant to the “red light rule,” we will withhold action on any applications or other requests for benefits filed by anyone who is delinquent in any non-tax debts owed to the Commission (including regulatory fees) and will ultimately dismiss those applications or other requests if payment of the delinquent debt or other satisfactory arrangement for payment is not made.167 Failure to pay regulatory fees can also result in the initiation of a proceeding to revoke any and all authorizations held by the entity responsible for paying the delinquent fee(s).168 Pursuant to a pilot program, we have initiated procedures to transfer debt to the Centralized Receivables Service at the U.S. Treasury, as described below.

56. Under section 9 of the Act, Commission rules, and federal debt collection laws, a licensee's regulatory fee is due on the first day of the fiscal year and payable at a date established in the Commission's annual regulatory fee Report and Order. In October 2015, the Commission, under revised procedures, began transferring unpaid regulatory fee receivables directly to the CRS at the U.S. Treasury rather than trying to collect the debt itself and then transferring the remaining unpaid debts to Treasury. Under revised procedures, the Commission can transfer delinquent debt to Treasury for further collection action within 120 days after the date of delinquency.169 However, regulatees will not likely see any substantial change in the current procedures of how past due debts are to be paid, except that the debts will be handled by CRS (U.S. Treasury) rather than by the Commission.

57. Providing a 30-day period after Federal Register publication before this Report and Order becomes effective as required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) will not allow sufficient time to collect the FY 2017 fees before FY 2017 ends on September 30, 2017. For this reason, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find there is good cause to waive the requirements of section 553(d), and this Report and Order will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register. Because payments of the regulatory fees will not actually be due until late September, persons affected by this Report and Order will still have a reasonable period in which to make their payments and thereby comply with the rules established herein.

Regulatory fees in the top seven fee categories are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.