Federal Register Vol. 82, No.204,

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 983, both as amended (7 CFR part 983), regulating the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175.

This rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the order now in effect, California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable pistachios beginning September 1, 2017, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2017-18 and subsequent production years from $0.0010 to $0.0001 per pound of assessed weight pistachios.

The order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachios. The Committee also has a public member and an alternate public member who have no proprietary involvement with the industry. The producers and handlers are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2016-17 and subsequent production years, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from production year to production year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

The Committee met on July 10, 2017, and unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $672,900, and met again on August 1, 2017, to deliberate and recommend the 2017-18 assessment rate. At that time, the Committee recommended an assessment rate of $0.0001 per pound of assessed weight pistachios by majority vote. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $922,500, and the assessment rate was $0.0010 per pound of pistachios. The assessment rate of $0.0001 is $0.0009 lower than the rate currently in effect.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 production year include $351,000 for salaries and benefits, $125,000 for research, and $80,400 for general and administrative expenses. Budgeted expenses for these items in the 2016-17 production year were $351,000, $375,000, and $80,000, respectively.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachios. Pistachio shipments for the production year are estimated at 550 million pounds which should provide $55,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income, California Pistachio Research Board (CPRB) management income, and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve will be kept within the maximum limit permitted by the order, which is approximately two production years' budgeted expenses as stated in § 983.74(a)(2).

The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each production year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2017-18 production year budget and those for subsequent production years will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are 18 handlers subject to regulation under the order and approximately 1,236 producers of pistachios in the production area. The Small Business Administration defines small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 and small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Based on Committee data, it is estimated that about 50 percent of the handlers annually ship less than $7,500,000 worth of pistachios. Nine of the 18 (50 percent) regulated handlers received enough pistachios at an average price of $2.50 per pound to be considered large handlers, leaving the percentage of small handlers at 50 percent.

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 2012 data on pistachio farm size indicates that there were 1,305 pistachio farms, of which 945, or 72 percent, were less than 100 acres. NASS 2016 annual production data indicates that the per-acre production of pistachios was 3,750 pounds. At an average value of $1.68 per pound, each acre of pistachios could return $6,300. In order for a producer to have $750,000 in annual receipts, the producer would have to have at least 119 acres. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers in the production area may be classified as small entities.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2017-18 and subsequent production years from $0.0010 to $0.0001 per pound of pistachios handled. The Committee unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $672,900, and recommended an assessment rate of $0.0001 per pound of assessed weight pistachios, by majority vote. The new assessment rate is $0.0009 lower than the rate currently in effect. The quantity of assessable pistachios for the 2017-18 production year is estimated at 550 million pounds. Thus, the $0.0001 rate should provide $55,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler's assessments, along with interest income, CPRB management income, and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover expenses for the 2017-18 production year.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 production year include $351,000 for salaries and benefits, $125,000 for research, and $80,400 for general and administrative expenses. Budgeted expenses for these items in the 2016-17 production year were $351,000, $375,000, and $80,000, respectively.

The assessment rate decrease is necessary to ensure the Committee's financial reserve remains within the limit specified under the order.

In addition, the Committee had funded research pertaining to Sterile Insect Technology (SIT) for Navel Orangeworm control during the 2016-2017 production year. Beginning with the 2017-18 production year, the CPRB will fully fund the SIT research, removing that financial burden from the committee. For this reason, the Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate from $0.0010 to $0.0001, by majority vote. The income generated from the lower assessment rate combined with interest income, CPRB management income, and funds from the financial reserve should provide sufficient income to cover anticipated 2017-18 expenses and maintain the financial reserve within the limit specified under the order.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed, based upon the relative value of various activities to the pistachio industry. The Committee ultimately determined that the 2017-18 production year expenses of $672,900 were prudent, and the assessment income provided by the reduced rate, interest income, CPRB management income, and funds from the financial reserve, would permit the Committee to meet its expenses, while not adding to the financial reserve.

According to data from NASS, the season average producer price was $3.29 per pound of assessed weight pistachios in 2015 and $1.68 per pound in 2016. A review of historical and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming production year indicates that the producer revenue for the 2017-18 production year could range between $924,000,000 and $1,809,500,000. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2017-18 production year as a percentage of total producer revenue could range between 0.00003 and 0.00006 percent.

This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. Additionally, the Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the July 10, 2017, and August 1, 2017, meetings were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0215, “Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders.” No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because handlers are aware of this rule, which was recommended at a public meeting. This interim rule provides for a 60-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule. The decreased assessment rate is necessary to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program, while keeping the funds in the reserve within the maximum limit permitted by the order. Moreover, the decreased assessment rate reduces the economic burden on handlers.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 983 is amended as follows:

Section 2 of DIDRA, which added section 1123 to Title XI of FIRREA,1 authorizes the agencies to make exceptions to statutory and regulatory appraisal requirements for certain transactions. These exceptions are available for transactions involving real property located in an area in which the President has determined a major disaster exists, pursuant to section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,2 provided that the exception would facilitate recovery from the major disaster and is consistent with safety and soundness.

On August 25, 2017, the President declared a major disaster existed in areas in the state of Texas 3 due to extensive damage that occurred as a result of severe storms and subsequent flooding in connection with Hurricane Harvey. On September 7, 2017, the President declared a major disaster existed in areas in the U.S. Virgin Islands 4 as a result of the severe storms and subsequent flooding from Hurricane Irma. On September 10, 2017, the President declared a major disaster existed in areas in the state of Florida 5 and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 6 as a result of the severe storms and subsequent flooding from Hurricane Irma. Further, on September 15, 2017, the President declared a major disaster existed in areas in the state of Georgia as a result of the severe storms and subsequent flooding related to Hurricane Irma.7

In addition, on September 20, 2017, and September 21, 2017, the President declared a major disaster existed in areas in Puerto Rico 8 and the U.S. Virgin Islands,9 respectively, as a result of the severe storms and subsequent flooding from Hurricane Maria. The agencies believe that granting relief from the appraisal requirements set forth in Title XI of FIRREA, and in the agencies' appraisal regulations, for real estate-related financial transactions in areas declared a major disaster is consistent with the provisions of DIDRA.

The agencies have determined that the disruption of real estate markets in each of the areas declared a major disaster interferes with the ability of depository institutions to obtain appraisals that comply with Title XI statutory and regulatory requirements. Further, the agencies have determined that the disruption may impede institutions in making loans and engaging in other transactions that would aid in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the affected areas. Accordingly, the agencies have determined that recovery from these major disasters would be facilitated by exempting transactions involving real estate and requiring the services of an appraiser located in the area directly affected by the severe storms and flooding from the real estate appraisal requirements of Title XI of FIRREA and its implementing regulations.10

We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2015-05-02, Amendment 39-18112 (80 FR 15152, March 23, 2015) (“AD 2015-05-02”). AD 2015-05-02 applied to all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2017 (82 FR 22910) (“the SNPRM”). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2016 (81 FR 29198) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH, which indicates that principal structural elements and certain life limited parts are subject to WFD. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised structural inspection requirements. The SNPRM proposed to require more restrictive airworthiness limitations and add Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes to the applicability. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and WFD, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0239, dated December 2, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

The required action is revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new or revised structural inspection requirements. The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and WFD, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6429.

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

American Airlines (AAL) requested that we revise the SNPRM to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI), Revision 05, dated April 6, 2017, including Variations 5.1 and 5.2; and Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT—ALI), Revision 06, dated April 10, 2017.

We partially agree with AAL's request. We agree that operators should use the latest service information, and we agree to account for AAL's request in this AD. However, we do not agree to require the revised service information in this final rule since it would expand the scope, requiring additional notice and comment. We find that delaying this action would be inappropriate in light of the identified unsafe condition. We are considering further rulemaking to supersede this final rule to require incorporating the revised service information.

We have added paragraph (l)(1)(iii) to this AD to specify that the previous alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that are approved for AD 2015-05-02 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD. The previous AMOCs include Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI), Revision 05, dated April 6, 2017, including Variations 5.1 and 5.2; and Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT—ALI), Revision 06, dated April 10, 2017.

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

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

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

Airbus has issued the following service information.

• A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI), Revision 04, dated June 20, 2016. This service information describes mandatory instructions and airworthiness limitations for the “safe-life” structure.

• A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT—ALI), Revision 05, dated July 8, 2016. This service information describes mandatory instructions and airworthiness limitations arising from fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation of damage tolerant structural elements.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 1,182 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2015-05-02, and retained in this AD, take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2015-05-02 is $170 per product.

We also estimate that it will take about 2 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 $200,940, or $170 per product.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

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:

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

We are adopting a new AD for Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters with a Flight Control Computer (FCC) part number 92900-01802-112 installed. The FCC is part of the Search and Rescue (SAR) Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS). During laboratory testing, Sikorsky discovered a defect in the FCC software that results in the FD decoupling in all three axes when pilot input is made to transition between two SAR AFCS modes. When the AFCS is engaged in SAR Approach 2 (APP2) with an indicated airspeed below VMINI (50 KIAS), the decoupling will occur if the pilot initiates a transition to Velocity Hover Hold (VHLD) mode by pressing the VHLD button on the Mode Select Panel (MSP). The decoupling is annunciated to the pilot but only after a three-second delay. During the delay, the rotorcraft may pitch up with the rate of descent increases to as much as 450 fpm. Because of this, the pilot must take immediate manual control of the rotorcraft after decoupling. This condition could result in loss of control of the helicopter and flight into terrain. According to Sikorsky, the root cause of the failure is under investigation.

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

Sikorsky has issued SA S92A-RFM-003 RFM Supplement (RFMS) No. 4 (Sikorsky SA S92A-RFM-003 RFMS No. 4), Revision 1, approved October 6, 2017, for the Model S-92A helicopter SAR AFCS. This revision of the RFMS prohibits engaging VHLD during coupled SAR APP2 mode via MSP soft key, adds a warning explaining the decoupling event and subsequent aircraft behavior, and adds a note regarding correctly activating VHLD mode with the cyclic trim release switch or selecting VHLD during Mark-On-Top (MOT).

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.

Sikorsky has issued letter CCS-92-APL-17-0001, dated July 31, 2017, for Model S-92A helicopters, which describes the conditions that result in the FD decoupling and provides instructions on how to avoid it. This service information further provides instructions for re-engaging the FD if decoupling occurs.

This AD requires revising the Operating Limitations section of Sikorsky SA S92A-RFM-003 RFMS No. 4 by prohibiting engaging VHLD via either MSP soft key during coupled SAR APP2 mode, adding a warning describing the decoupling event and subsequent AFCS and aircraft behavior, and adding a note regarding correctly activating VHLD mode with the cyclic trim release switch or selecting VHLD during MOT.

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

We estimate that this AD will affect 87 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.

Revising the RFMS will take about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $3,741 for the U.S. fleet.

Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective actions must be completed within 10 hours time-in-service.

Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

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

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

Upon request, FDA has classified the device to detect and measure non-microbial analyte(s) in human clinical specimens to aid in assessment of patients with suspected sepsis as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.

The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act).

FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i)). We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and part 807 (21 U.S.C. 360(k) and 21 CFR part 807, respectively).

FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.

Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).

Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.

Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.

We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.

On March 4, 2015, B·R·A·H·M·S GmbH, part of Thermo Fisher Scientific, submitted a request for De Novo classification of the B·R·A·H·M·S PCT sensitive KRYPTOR. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Therefore, on February 20, 2016, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 866.3215. We have named the generic type of device, device to detect and measure non-microbial analyte(s) in human clinical specimens to aid in assessment of patients with suspected sepsis, and it is identified as an in vitro device intended for the detection and qualitative and/or quantitative measurement of one or more non-microbial analytes in human clinical specimens to aid in the assessment of patients with suspected sepsis when used in conjunction with clinical signs and symptoms and other clinical and laboratory findings.

FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.

FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In order for a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, the collections of information in part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073, and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 866 is amended as follows:

I. Background

Upon request, FDA has classified the mass spectrometer system for clinical use for the identification of microorganisms as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.

The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act).

FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i)). We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and part 807 (21 U.S.C. 360(k) and 21 CFR part 807, respectively).

FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.

Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).

Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.

Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.

We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application (PMA) in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.

On January 3, 2013, bioMérieux, Inc. submitted a request for De Novo classification of the Vitek® MS. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Therefore, on August 21, 2013, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 866.3361. We have named the generic type of device mass spectrometer system for clinical use for the identification of microorganisms, and it is identified as a qualitative in vitro diagnostic device intended for the identification of microorganisms cultured from human specimens. The device is comprised of an ionization source, a mass analyzer, and a spectral database. The device is indicated for use in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings to aid in the diagnosis of bacterial and fungal infections.

FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.

FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In order for a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. The device is subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k).

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073, and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 866 is amended as follows:

Upon request, FDA has classified the zinc transporter 8 autoantibody immunological test system as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.

The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act).

FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and part 807 (21 U.S.C. 360(k) and 21 CFR part 807, respectively).

FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.

Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).

Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.

Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)). Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.

We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application (PMA) in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.

For this device, FDA issued an order on May 21, 2014, finding the KRONUS Zinc Transporter 8 Autoantibody (ZnT8Ab) ELISA Assay not substantially equivalent to a predicate not subject to PMA. Thus, the device remained in class III in accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act when we issued the order.

On June 16, 2014, KRONUS Market Development Associates, Inc., submitted a request for De Novo classification of the KRONUS Zinc Transporter 8 Autoantibody (ZnT8Ab) ELISA Assay. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Therefore, on August 20, 2014, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 866.5670. We have named the generic type of device zinc transporter 8 autoantibody immunological test system, and it is identified as a device that consists of reagents used to measure, by immunochemical techniques, the autoantibodies in human serum samples that react with Zinc Transporter 8 (ZnT8). The measurements aid in the diagnosis of Type 1 diabetes mellitus (autoimmune mediated diabetes) in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings.

FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.

FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In order for a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k).

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073, and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 866 is amended as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register OMB Office of Management and Budget NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On April 6, 2017, we published a temporary deviation entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Beach Bridge, Reynolds Channel, Lawrence, NY” in the Federal Register (see 82 FR 06735). Although we did not request public comments, outreach conducted with mariners utilizing the waterway indicated no objections to the temporary deviation. No complaints have been submitted during the current temporary deviation.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. Due to unanticipated difficulties and delays impacting the schedule and pace of bascule leaf reconstruction and painting, additional time is required to finalize and complete the work necessary to restore the bridge to full operational capacity. We must modify the operation schedule of the bridge by October 15, 2017 to allow the completion of bascule leaf reconstruction and painting. Due to the circumstances of this repair project, we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the modification.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the Atlantic Beach Bridge across Reynolds Channel, mile 0.4, at Lawrence, New York. The Atlantic Beach Bridge is a double-leaf bascule bridge offering mariners a vertical clearance of 25 feet at mean high water and 30 feet at mean low water in the closed position. Work platforms installed underneath the bascule spans have reduced the available vertical clearance to 21.5 feet at mean high water in the closed position and to 26.5 feet at mean low water in the closed position.

The existing drawbridge regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(e). The Nassau County Bridge Authority, the bridge owner, has requested this modification as additional time is required to complete the final reconstruction and painting of the bascule leaves.

The Nassau County Bridge Authority has also requested that the Atlantic Beach Bridge be allowed to open on signal only one of two bascule spans for bridge openings with the understanding that dual lift-span operations will occur for vessels requiring such an opening provided a 48 hour advance notice, and receipt of 24 hour advance confirmation, from 7 a.m. Monday through 6 p.m. Friday. The bridge will operate normally and open fully upon signal on weekends from 6 p.m. Friday through 7 a.m. Monday.

The bridge generally opens four times per week for routine passage of towing vessels with tank barges or dry cargo barges. The bulk of remaining vessel traffic is recreational not requiring an opening in order to proceed through the draw. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is an alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge when in the closed position.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule, which permits a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Atlantic Beach Bridge across Reynolds Channel, mile 0.4, at Lawrence, New York. The rule is necessary to accommodate the completion of bascule leaf reconstruction and painting. This rule allows for single-leaf operations upon signal during the week, Monday through Friday. Dual lift-span operations will be provided for vessels requiring such an opening given 48 hours of advance notice and provided a 24 hour advance confirmation. The bridge will operate normally during weekends.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This regulatory action determination is based on the ability of the majority of vessels to successfully transit through the draw of the bridge without an opening or with a single-leaf opening. Vessels requiring dual lift-span operations during the week may continue to transit the draw provided submission of advance notice.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this interim rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. Commercial mariners requiring dual lift-span operations during the week have been able to transit the draw following provision of advance notice. Single-leaf operations will be furnished on signal for those vessels requiring such an opening.

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

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

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this rule.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

On June 27, 2017, the U. S. Coast Guard District One Bridge Branch issued a permit approving the construction of the Beals Island Bridge across the Moosabec Reach in Jonesport, Maine. On September 11, 2017, the contractor selected for the project submitted their request to the Waterways Management Division of U. S. Coast Guard Sector Northern New England. The COTP Sector Northern New England has determined that an RNA will be required to enforce speed, wake, and beam restrictions, as well as provide for intermittent closure of the waterway during the construction of the replacement bridge and subsequent demolition of the original structure.

This project will start on October 15, 2017, and be completed by January 31, 2021. During this project, replacement and removal of the original structure will take place. To accomplish these tasks, a temporary structure will be built under the original structure to facilitate construction. This temporary structure will require all vessel traffic to use the main navigational channel, beneath the bridge's center span, to transit through the bridge. The temporary structure will continue to limit vessels transiting through the bridge to a beam of less than 75 feet. The temporary structure will be lit every 50 feet and the foundation will encroach on the new navigational channel. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM) with as much advanced notice as possible for any period of waterway closure or as soon as practicable in response to an emergency. If the project is completed prior to January 31, 2021, enforcement of the RNA will be suspended and notice given via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The late finalization of project details did not give the Coast Guard enough time to publish an NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before the construction work is set to begin. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay promulgating this rule as it is necessary to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the bridge replacement project beginning on October 15, 2017.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, delaying the implementation of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The Coast Guard First District Commander has determined that potential hazards exist associated with the bridge replacement project starting on October 15, 2017, and continuing through January 31, 2021. This rule is needed to control vessel movement, and to protect all persons, vessels, construction crews, and the marine environment during the Beals Island Bridge replacement and demolition project on the Moosabec Reach between Jonesport, ME, and Beals Island, ME.

This rule establishes a Regulated Navigation Area from October 15, 2017, through January 31, 2021. The RNA will cover all navigable waters from surface to bottom of the Moosabec Reach within 150 yards of the Beals Island Bridge, ME.

The vessels operating within the RNA are subject to a “Slow-No Wake” speed limit. More specifically, vessels may not produce a wake and may not attain speeds greater than five (5) knots unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain steerageway. This RNA also establishes a beam restriction on vessels transiting the regulated area and prohibits vessels whose beam exceeds 75 feet from transiting the Beals Island Bridge unless authorized by the First District Commander or the COTP, Sector Northern New England. Vessels will be limited to using only the main navigational channel, under the bridge's center span, to transit through the bridge. While the majority of construction activities during the span of this project will not require waterway closures, certain tasks can only be completed in the channel and will require closing the waterway. Currently, we only expect two closures lasting less than 8 hours each. The Coast Guard may also need to close the RNA described in this rule to all vessel traffic during any circumstance that poses an imminent threat to waterway users operating in the area. Complete waterway closures will be made with as much advanced notice as possible.

The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this RNA through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine Channel 16 (VHF-FM) in advance of any closure.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive order 13771.

The Coast Guard has determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action. The RNA only impacts a small designated area of the Moosabec Reach and permits the majority of typical vessel traffic on the Moosabec Reach to continue to transit the waterway. Additionally, it is currently anticipated the RNA will be closed to all traffic on two brief occasions, each lasting less than 8 hours. Any other periods during which the RNA is closed to all traffic will be infrequent and as short in duration as possible. The Coast Guard will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule via appropriate means, such as via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary RNA for the navigable waters within 150-yards of Beals Island Bridge between Jonesport, ME, and Beals Island, ME. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration for Categorically Excluded Actions is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape this rulemaking. We may change this rule in view of them. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

Documents mentioned in this TFR as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts; you will be notified when comments are posted or if a revised final rule is published.

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

On October 11, 2017, the Coast Guard established a safety zone in the navigable waters of Mamala Bay, Oahu, HI, due to the October 10, 2017 grounding of the fishing vessel PACIFIC PARADISE. The purpose of the safety zone was to protect personnel, vessels and the marine environment from the hazards associated with the ongoing operations to salvage a grounded fishing vessel near Waikiki's Kaimana Beach. Ongoing challenges with the salvage efforts necessitate a two-week extension to the TFR. Once the vessel is removed from the reef for final disposition, the safety zone shall shift from a stationary zone to a moving safety zone. The 500 yard distance in all directions from the vessel shall remain in force at all times until the tow operation is complete and the zone is terminated.

The Coast Guard is extending the existing TFR safety zone without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the initial estimate to salvage the vessel from the grounding was estimated at one week or less. Immediate action remains needed to respond to the safety hazards associated with this fishing vessel salvage effort for an estimated additional two weeks. Therefore, publishing an NPRM is impracticable and contrary to public interest.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1231. On October 10, 2017, the Coast Guard was informed the fishing vessel PACIFIC PARADISE, ran aground in Mamala Bay, Oahu, Hawaii, near Waikiki's Kaimana Beach. Coast Guard COTP Sector Honolulu determined that potential hazards associated with the salvage and removal operations constituted a safety concern for anyone within the designated safety zone. This rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment within the navigable waters of the safety zone during ongoing salvage and removal operations. Salvage and removal operations involve removing the grounded vessel from a reef in high winds and seas; hazards include the risk of fire and those associated with towing the disabled vessel for disposition.

This rule is effective from 8:00 a.m. on October 18, 2017 through 8:00 a.m. on November 1, 2017, or until salvage operations are complete, whichever is earlier. If the safety zone is terminated prior to 8:00 a.m. on November 1, 2017, the Coast Guard will provide notice via a broadcast notice to mariners.

The temporary safety zone encompasses all waters extending 500 yards in all directions around the location of ongoing vessel salvage operations located 350 yards southwest of Kaimana Beach near position: 21°15.69′ N.; 157°49.49′ W. This zone extends from the surface of the water to the ocean floor. The safety zone is currently stationary around the grounded vessel. During the salvage and removal process, the safety zone will become a moving zone and remain so until the salvage towing operation is complete. The zone shall continue to encompass 500 yards in all directions around the fishing vessel and remain so until the operation is complete. When salvage operations commence, the Coast Guard will provide notice via a broadcast notice to mariners. The zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters from potential hazards associated with the salvage and removal of the fishing vessel. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone absent the express authorization of the COTP Honolulu or his designated representative.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this stationary or moving safety zone, including during the salvage tow, which would impact only a small designated area of the waters off Waikiki Beach where vessel traffic is normally low and open space exists in the area. Moreover, vessels wishing to enter the zone may seek permission as set forth below.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. The safety zone is limited in size and duration, and the location of the grounded vessel is not in an actively used navigable waterway. Once the vessel is free from the reef, the tow evolution will not impact existing waterway users. Furthermore, mariners may request to enter the zone by contacting the COTP.

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

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone extension for duration of two additional weeks, providing for an overall three week estimated safety zone or until the salvage operations is suspended. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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

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

Pursuant to its authorities under Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 State 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps is amending restricted area regulations at 33 CFR part 334 by adding § 334.784 to establish a danger zone along the East Pearl River. The amendment to this regulation will allow the Commanding Officer of Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mississippi (or his/her designee) to restrict passage of persons, watercraft, and vessels in the waters within the danger zone during Department of Defense training for conducting coastal and riverine special operations in support of global military missions. This area is referred to as a danger zone due to the use of short-range training ammunition within riverine areas.

The proposed rule was published in the December 14, 2016 edition of the Federal Register (81 FR 90292) with the docket number COE-2016-0014 and one comment was received. The commenter requested additional information on frequency or likely frequency of the utilization of the danger zone and suggested the description of the danger zone implied some portion of the river would be open for boat traffic during training exercises. The training has been occurring within the proposed danger zone since 2004 and the formal establishment of the zone would not increase or decrease the frequency of training, change the type of training, or expand training. A vessel that needs to transit the danger zone when it is activated may do so if the operator of the vessel obtains permission from the Commanding Officer, Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport or his or her designees. Furthermore, the description of the danger zone has been modified to omit reference to “left descending bank” to avoid confusion.

On December 14, 2016, the Corps' Vicksburg District issued a public notice soliciting comments on the proposed rule from all known interested parties and one comment was received. The commenter requested training be limited during posted hunting seasons. The establishment of the danger zone is for the purpose of public safety and to preserve current military training vital to ensuring combat ready forces, so training cannot be limited during posted hunting seasons.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

The Corps has made a determination this rule is not a significant regulatory action. This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration, and location of the danger zone. The danger zone occupies a small portion of the waterway and will only be activated during naval training exercises. A vessel that needs to transit the danger zone when it is activated may do so if the operator of the vessel obtains permission from the Commanding Officer, Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport or his or her designees.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Corps certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels that intend to transit the danger zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in paragraph (a) above this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. In addition, the danger zone is necessary to protect public safety during training exercises. Small entities can utilize navigable waters outside of the danger zone when the danger zone is activated. Small entities may also transit the danger zone when it is activated, as long as they obtain permission from the Commanding Officer, Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport or his/her designees. After considering the economic impacts of this danger zone regulation on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared. We have concluded that the establishment of the restricted area will not have a significant impact to the quality of the human environment and, therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required. The final EA and Finding of No Significant Impact may be reviewed at the District Office listed at the end of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, above.

This rule does not impose an enforceable duty among the private sector and, therefore, is not a Federal private sector mandate and is not subject to the requirements of Section 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Public Laws 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). We have also found, under Section 203 of the Act, that small governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this rule.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Corps is amending 33 CFR part 334 as follows:

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this interim final rule. We will consider comments on the delayed effective date only and will not consider comments on the wording or substance of the final regulations. See ADDRESSES for instructions on how to submit comments.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this interim final rule by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in Room 6W245, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week, except Federal holidays. If you want to schedule time to inspect comments, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this interim final rule. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

On May 24, 2017, the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools (CAPPS) filed a Complaint and Prayer for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Court) challenging the final regulations in their entirety, and in particular those provisions of the regulations pertaining to the standard and process for the Department to adjudicate borrower defense claims, requirements pertaining to financial responsibility standards, provisions requiring proprietary institutions to provide warnings about their students' loan repayment rates, and prohibitions against institutions including arbitration or class action waivers in their agreements with students. Complaint and Prayer for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools v. DeVos, No. 1:17-cv-00999 (D.D.C. May 24, 2017). As of the date of this interim final rule, the litigation is ongoing.

In light of the pending litigation, on June 16, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a notification of the partial delay of effective dates under section 705 of the APA (5 U.S.C. 705) (82 FR 27621) (705 Notice), to delay the effectiveness of certain provisions of the final regulations until the legal challenge is resolved. The 705 Notice postponed the effective date of the regulations to preserve the regulatory status quo while the litigation is pending and the Court makes a decision. As explained in the 705 Notice, the plaintiff has raised serious questions concerning the validity of certain provisions of the final regulations and has identified substantial injuries that could result if they go into effect before those questions are resolved. Given the legal uncertainty, maintaining the status quo is critical. For instance, if the final regulations took effect, institutions participating in programs under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), would have been required, as of July 1, 2017, to modify their contracts in accordance with the arbitration and class action waiver regulations. Postponing the final regulations avoids the cost that institutions would incur in making these changes while the final regulations are subject to judicial review. Meanwhile, the Department is continuing to process borrower defense claims under the existing regulations that will remain in effect during the postponement.

Because the final regulations have been postponed beyond July 1, 2017, pursuant to the 705 Notice, the postponement of the final regulations must be for at least one year to comply with section 482 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1089). That section imposes a requirement (the “master calendar requirement”) on the Department for the effective date of regulations affecting programs under title IV of the HEA. Under the master calendar requirement, a regulatory change that has been published in final form on or before November 1 prior to the start of an award year—which begins on July 1 of any given year—may take effect only at the beginning of the next award year, or in other words, on July 1 of the next year. Any regulatory change that has not been published in final form by November 1 prior to the start of an award year may not become effective until the beginning of the second award year after the November 1 date.

The master calendar requirement provides that regulatory changes affecting the title IV programs must become effective at the beginning of an award year and does not authorize the Department to make a regulatory change affecting the title IV programs effective in the middle of an award year.1 Accordingly, regulations promulgated under title IV of the HEA have an effective date of July 1. Congress enacted the master calendar requirement to ensure that institutions have sufficient notice of the timing of any regulatory change in order to implement regulatory changes at the start of each award year. In this way, institutions avoid incurring the costs of compliance on a rolling basis throughout the year and avoid any disruption to the timely delivery of title IV funds. See S. Rep. No. 99-296, at 11 (1986); see also Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, 1985: Hearings Before the S. Subcomm. On Educ., Arts and Humanities, 99th Cong. 10 (1985) (statement of the Conference on Higher Education) (“Although progress will always require updating, there is an equally important need for stability so that proper planning by all those involved—including families, aid administrators, and agency officials—can be achieved.”).

Congress has been clear that “the effective dates of all regulations on Title IV are driven by the Master Calendar requirements in Section 482,” H.R. Rep. No. 102-447, at 77 (1992), and it has reaffirmed the breadth of the master calendar requirement by providing express waivers of the requirement only in specific limited circumstances. See, e.g., Higher Education Opportunity Act, Public Law 110-315, sec. 402(b), 122 Stat. 3078, 3191 (2008); Higher Education Act—Technical Corrections, Public Law 111-39, sec. 409, 123 Stat. 1950, 1953 (2009). Accordingly, the Department has consistently interpreted and applied the master calendar requirement to provide that any regulatory change relating to student financial aid programs may take effect only at the beginning of an award year.

With respect to the final regulations, implementing this substantial regulatory change in the middle of an award year would frustrate the notice objectives of the HEA and deny schools the assurance of the master calendar. For the July 1, 2017, postponement to be consistent with the HEA, therefore, the effective date must be July 1, 2018 (or July 1 of a later year). Because the 705 Notice does not establish a specific effective date but is tied to the pending litigation, this interim final rule provides the public and regulated parties notice that even if the litigation concludes before July 1, 2018, the final regulations will not take effect until that date consistent with the master calendar requirement.

Separately, we note that the delayed effective date is consistent with the Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” published in the Federal Register on January 24, 2017 (Memorandum), which was intended to ensure that the President's appointees or designees have the opportunity to review any new or pending regulations and where appropriate to suggest changes. Among other things, the Memorandum directed the heads of executive departments and agencies to consider temporarily postponing the effective dates of all regulations that had been published in the Federal Register but had not yet taken effect. In addition, on February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, which requires each agency head to consider recommendations to repeal, replace, or modify existing regulations, consistent with applicable law. In accordance with these evaluative efforts, we announced on June 16, 2017, our intent to engage in negotiated and notice-and-comment rulemaking on the topics addressed by the final regulations on (82 FR 27640). The Department is reevaluating its regulations in this area and the burdens on regulated parties may change.

To provide adequate notice to these parties in accordance with the HEA's master calendar requirement, the Department has determined that it is necessary to delay until July 1, 2018, the effective date of the revisions to or additions of the following provisions of the final regulations in title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):

• § 668.14(b)(30), (31), and (32) Program participation agreement.

• § 668.41(h) and (i) Reporting and disclosure of information.

• § 668.71(c) Scope and special definitions.

• § 668.90(a)(3) Initial and final decisions.

• § 668.93(h), (i) and (j) Limitation.

• § 668.171 General.

• § 668.175(c), (d), (f), and (h) Alternative standards and requirements.

• Part 668 subpart L, Appendix C.

• § 674.33(g)(3) and (g)(8) Repayment.

• § 682.202(b)(1) Permissible charges by lenders to borrowers.

• § 682.211(i)(7) Forbearance.

• § 682.402(d)(3), (d)(6)(ii)(B)(1) and (2), (d)(6)(ii)(F) introductory text, (d)(6)(ii)(F)(5), (d)(6)(ii)(G), (d)(6)(ii)(H) through (K), (d)(7)(ii) and (iii), (d)(8), and (e)(6)(iii) Death, disability, closed school, false certification, unpaid refunds, and bankruptcy payments.

• § 682.405(b)(4)(ii) Loan rehabilitation agreement.

• § 682.410(b)(4) and (b)(6)(viii) Fiscal, administrative, and enforcement requirements.

• § 685.200(f)(3)(v) and (f)(4)(iii) Borrower eligibility.

• § 685.205(b)(6) Forbearance.

• § 685.206(c) Borrower responsibilities and defenses.

• § 685.212(k) Discharge of a loan obligation.

• § 685.214(c)(2), (f)(4) through (7) Closed school discharge.

• § 685.215(a)(1), (c)(1) through (c)(8), and (d) Discharge for false certification of student eligibility or unauthorized payment.

• § 685.222 Borrower defenses.

• Part 685 subpart B, Appendix A Examples of borrower relief.

• § 685.300(b)(11), (b)(12), and (d) through (i) Agreements between an eligible school and the Secretary for participation in the Direct Loan Program.

• § 685.308(a) Remedial actions.

In addition, in connection with this delay, the Department interprets all references to “July 1, 2017” in the text of the above-referenced regulations to mean the effective date of those regulations. The regulatory text included references to the specific July 1, 2017, date in part to provide clarity to readers in the future as to when the regulations had taken effect. Because the regulations have not taken effect on July 1, 2017, we will read those regulations as referring to the new effective date established by this delay, i.e., July 1, 2018.

We do not intend to delay the effective dates of the regulatory provisions published in 81 FR 75926 which: (1) Expand the types of documentation that may be used for the granting of a discharge based on the death of the borrower; (2) amend the regulations governing the consolidation of Nursing Student Loans and Nurse Faculty Loans so that they align with the statutory requirements of section 428C(a)(4)(E) of the HEA; (3) amend the regulations governing Direct Consolidation Loans to allow a borrower to obtain a Direct Consolidation Loan regardless of whether the borrower is also seeking to consolidate a Direct Program or FFEL loan, if the borrower has a loan type identified in 34 CFR 685.220(b); (4) address severability; and (5) make technical corrections. As established in 81 FR 75926, 34 CFR 682.211(i)(7) and 682.410(b)(6)(viii) remain designated for early implementation, at the discretion of each lender or guaranty agency.

Waiver of Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking, Negotiated Rulemaking, and Delayed Effective Date under the APA: Under the APA (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations and publishes rules not less than 30 days before their effective dates. In addition, under section 492 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098a), all regulations proposed by the Department for programs authorized under title IV of the HEA are subject to negotiated rulemaking requirements. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking or delay effective dates when the agency, for good cause, finds that the requirement is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and (d)(3)). In addition, section 492(b)(2) of the HEA provides that negotiated rulemaking may be waived for good cause when doing so would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Section 492(b)(2) of the HEA also requires the Secretary to publish the basis for waiving negotiations in the Federal Register at the same time as the proposed regulations in question are first published.

The Department determined under the APA and the HEA that notice-and-comment and negotiated rulemaking are unnecessary and impracticable and therefore is waiving both requirements in this interim final rule. As noted previously, the 705 Notice delayed the effective date of the final regulations to maintain the status quo pending the outcome of the litigation, which could not be resolved before July 1, 2017. Given that delay, the next possible date for the regulations to become effective would be July 1, 2018, in accordance with the HEA's master calendar requirement. Thus, even if the litigation were resolved before July 1, 2018, under the HEA, July 1, 2018, would be the earliest the regulations could take effect. Given the Department's limited discretion to set an effective date under the master calendar requirement, the Department determined that both notice-and-comment and negotiated rulemaking are unnecessary. The Department also determined that it was impracticable to conduct notice-and-comment and negotiated rulemaking before the original July 1, 2017, effective date. The litigation was initiated on May 24, 2017; the Department would not have been able to conduct negotiated rulemaking or notice-and-comment rulemaking to obtain comment on a possible new effective date in the short amount of time between May 24, and July 1, 2017. And, once the July 1, 2017, date passed, under the master calendar requirement, the Department did not have any discretion to set an effective date earlier than July 1, 2018. For the same reasons, we are also waiving the 30-day delay of the effective date of this interim final rule under the APA. However, the Department is providing a 30-day comment period and invites interested persons to comment on the delay of the effective date of the final regulations from July 1, 2017, to July 1, 2018. In addition, the Department plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to seek public comment on further delaying the effective date of the final regulations until July 1, 2019, to allow for completion of the negotiated rulemaking process before regulatory changes become effective in this area (see 82 FR 27640). The Department will seek public comments on whether such a further delay is desirable to avoid the costs to regulated parties of implementing regulations that may be subject to change in the near future.

Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

The Department estimates the quantified annualized economic and net budget impacts of the delay of the effective date to be −$18.6 million in reduced costs to institutions and the Federal government. These reduced costs result from the delay of the borrower defense rules on the 2017 and 2018 loan cohorts, as well as from the delayed paperwork burden on institutions, and the delayed execution of the closed school automatic discharge. This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing this interim final rule only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this interim final rule is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, or Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive Orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action.

The quantified economic effects and net budget impact associated with the delayed effective date are not expected to be economically significant.

As indicated in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) published with the final regulations on November 1, 2016, the final regulations were economically significant with a total estimated net budget impact of $16.6 billion over the 2017-2026 loan cohorts in the primary estimate scenario, including a cost of $381 million for cohorts 2014-2016 attributable to the provisions for a three-year automatic closed school discharge. As the net budget impact is based on the net present value of the cash flows of the relevant cohorts over a forty-year timeframe, simply delaying the final regulations for a year will have a much more limited effect, as discussed below. This analysis is limited to the effect of delaying the effective date of the final regulations, and does not account for any potential future substantive changes in the final regulations.

Even with the delayed effective date, borrowers will still be able to submit claims. The provisions of the final regulations pertaining to the process for review and determination of claims were not limited to specific cohorts designated by the effective date so the delay will not result in specific cohorts of borrowers being excluded from the process reflected in the final regulations, when implemented. Once in effect, the protection generated by the financial protection provisions will be available to be applied to claims from loans originated earlier, including the period from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. Loans made before July 1, 2017, were always subject to the State-based standard and their ability to bring claims under that standard is unchanged by the delay. For claims filed after the effective date of the regulations, the Federal standard established in the final regulations would apply. As discussed previously, the Department interprets all references to “July 1, 2017” in the text of the regulations to mean the effective date of the regulations. As a result, the delayed effective date means that loans made between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018, will be subject to the current State-based standard. As we noted in the final regulations, the Federal standard was designed to address much of the conduct already covered by the State-based standard, so the vast majority of claims associated with loans made between July 1, 2017, and the delayed effective date could be made under the current, State law-based standard as well.

In addition to borrowers, institutions are also affected by the delayed effective date. As indicated in the RIA for the final regulations, institutions bear the major costs of compliance, paperwork burden, and providing financial protection. The financial protection provisions of the final regulations depend on the effective date, so institutions will not incur these costs until the final regulations are in effect. In terms of cost savings for institutions, the estimated annual paperwork burden was approximately $9.4 million in the initial year of the final regulations. In the revised scenario developed to estimate the effect of the one-year delay in the effective date, transfers from institutions to students, via the Federal government, would be reduced by approximately $1.3 million for the 2017 and 2018 loan cohorts. The costs of providing financial protection were not quantified in the final regulations, and the Department has no additional data to estimate costs institutions may avoid from the delayed effective date of the financial protection provisions.

There is some uncertainty as to the regulatory baseline against which this interim final rule's impacts should be assessed. As noted previously, the 705 Notice delayed the effectiveness of certain provisions of the 2016 final regulations until a legal challenge is resolved. If the legal resolution were to be reached on or after July 1, 2018, then the 705 Notice would provide for the delay of effectiveness between now and then, and the interim final rule would not have any impact. By contrast, if the legal resolution were to be reached earlier, this interim final rule could have substantial impacts associated with the avoidance of confusion and legal ambiguity regarding the interaction among the 705 Notice, the master calendar, and the 2016 final regulations. Although an analysis of a simple one-year delay does not exactly capture this collection of impacts (due to, among other reasons, the fact that July 1, 2018, is already less than a year away and thus this interim final rule cannot have a full year's impact), it can provide a general sense of the magnitude of upper bound effects.

In order to estimate the net budget impact of the one-year delay in the effective date, the Department developed a scenario that revised the primary estimate assumptions from the final regulations from the affected 2017 and 2018 loan cohorts. The assumptions for the primary scenario from the 2016 final regulation were the basis for the President's Budget 2018 (PB2018) baseline that assumed the regulation would go into effect on July 1, 2017. The scenario developed for this interim final rule is designed to capture the incremental change from the PB2018 baseline associated with the one-year delay in the effective date. Table 1 presents assumptions for the primary estimate from the final regulations and the revised estimate for the one-year delay in the effective date. In this scenario, the conduct percent is 90 percent of the primary scenario from the final regulation and the borrower percent is the same. The financial protection provided was always expected to increase over time so the delayed effective date in the near term is not expected to significantly affect the amount of recoveries over the life of any particular loan cohort, limiting any net budget impact from the delay. To estimate the potential reduction in recoveries related to the delayed effective date, we reduced recoveries for the affected portion of the 2017 and 2018 cohorts by five percent for the private not-for-profit and proprietary sectors. As in the final regulations, recoveries from public institutions were held constant at 75 percent across scenarios.

The net budget impact associated with these effects of the one-year delay in the effective date on the borrower defense provisions only is approximately −$37.7 million from the 2017 and 2018 loan cohorts.

As the amount and composition of borrower defense claims and estimated recoveries over the lifetime of the relevant loan cohorts are not expected to change greatly due to the delayed effective date, the Department does not estimate an economically significant net budget impact from the delay itself, with a potential net budget impact related to borrower defense claims of −$37.7 million in reduced costs.

The closed school automatic discharge provisions were the other significant source of estimated net budget impact in the final regulations. Under credit reform scoring, the modification to older cohorts for the automatic discharge provision estimated to cost $364 million was expected to occur in FY 2017 in the President's Budget for FY 2018 (PB2018). As a result of the delay in the effective date, the Department will not execute the modification in FY 2017.

The Department does expect to incur the costs associated with the three-year automatic discharge after the delayed effective date, but moving the execution of the modification beyond FY 2017 will require a new cost analysis with economic assumptions from the fiscal year of the execution. This will result in a change of cost, but at this point it is not possible to know the discount rates in future fiscal years, so the cost of the modification will be determined in the year that it is executed. While the actual cost of the future modification cannot be determined at this time, the Department did approximate the effect of the delay by shifting the timing of the relevant discharges back by a year and recalculating a modification using the discount rates and economic assumptions used for the calculation of the PB2018 modification. When calculated in this manner, the delay in the modification is expected to result in estimated savings of less than $10 million.

As the delay does not change the substance of the automatic discharge, we would expect the amount and composition of loans affected by the automatic discharge not to change significantly. The closed school three-year automatic discharge provisions were applicable to loans made on or after November 1, 2013, and were not linked to the effective date of the final regulations. Therefore, delaying the effective date of those provisions will not change the set of loans eligible for this automatic discharge. Additionally, borrowers would have the ability to apply for a closed school discharge before July 1, 2018, if they did not want to wait for the automatic discharge to be implemented. For future cohorts, the delay is not significant as the three-year period will fall beyond the delayed effective date. Any significant change to the estimated net budget impact associated with the closed school automatic discharge depends on any substantive changes made to the provisions as a result of the upcoming rulemaking and changes to economic assumptions when the modification is executed.

Consistent with Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), we have estimated that this interim final rule will result in cost savings. Therefore, this interim final rule is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.

In evaluating whether a regulation is economically significant, a key consideration is whether the annual effect in any given year is over $100 million. To evaluate this, the Department looked at the difference in the undiscounted cashflows related to the death, disability, and bankruptcy (DDB) claims in which borrower defense claims are included for the PB2018 baseline and the one-year delay scenario described in the Net Budget Impacts section of this interim final rule. The difference from subtracting the one-year delay scenario from the baseline for the 2017 and 2018 cohorts for FY2017 to FY 2026 is summarized in Table 2.

On October 17, 2016, VA published in the Federal Register an interim final rule (81 FR 71382) amending its adjudication regulation regarding compensation for disabilities suffered by veterans who served in the Southwest Asia Theater of Operations during the GW. In order to ensure that benefits established by Congress are fairly administered, VA extended the evaluation period in which disabilities associated with undiagnosed illnesses and chronic multi-symptom illnesses must become manifest in order for a veteran to be eligible for compensation. Accordingly, VA removed the date, December 31, 2016, from 38 CFR 3.317(a)(1)(i) and added, in its place, December 31, 2021.

VA invited interested persons to submit written comments on or before December 16, 2016. VA received 22 comments in response to the interim final rule. VA received comments from military service members, veterans, family members, and one veteran service organization, which was Veterans of Foreign Wars. Some comments addressed more than one issue. In those instances, VA reviewed and considered each issue independently. VA also grouped together by similar topic all of the issues raised by the commenters that concerned at least one portion of the rule. VA organized the responses to the comments by topic. VA responds to all commenters as follows.

VA received five comments expressing support for the extension. One commenter provided personal testimony as a GW veteran that his symptoms had a delayed-onset; therefore, an extension was appropriate and justified. Another commenter provided personal testimony as a spouse of a GW veteran stating that her husband's symptoms have “steadily gotten worse over the years”. VA appreciates the feedback and support. VA makes no change based on these comments.

The majority of commenters, some of whom thanked VA for the extension, asserted that VA should eliminate the expiration date. One commenter stated, “I think that the deadline for [GW] presumptive claims should be totally taken away since there is still not an official end to the [GW] and we do not know when there will be one.” Another stated, “It took about 5 years after getting out to see a pattern of illness and at a level to make me concerned. It took even longer to see and feel the full extent of my conditions.” Additionally, Veterans of Foreign Wars requested an open-ended presumptive period “without an artificial time limit”.

VA makes no change based on these comments. Section 102(7) of the Persian Gulf War Veterans' Benefits Act, Title I of the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-446, states Congress' finding that further research must be undertaken to determine the causes of GW veterans' illnesses and that

In section 1117(b), Congress provided the Secretary with discretion to prescribe a presumptive period based upon, among other things, a review of credible medical or scientific evidence. As stated in the interim final rule, there is a lack of scientific certainty surrounding the cause of illnesses suffered by GW veterans. Accordingly, VA believes that extending the presumptive period for a significant, but not indefinite, period to permit further investigation is consistent with the goals of this statutory scheme. Thus, the Secretary is exercising his discretion under section 1117 and extending the presumptive period to December 31, 2021, in order to provide more time for scientific and medical research regarding diseases and illnesses that may be related to service in the Southwest Asia Theater of Operations.

One commenter expressed concern about how the expiration date may be perceived as inconsistent with the important missions of the VA War Related Illness and Injury Study Center (WRIISC) and the Department of Defense Gulf War Illness Research Program (GWIRP). The WRIISC develops and provides post-deployment health expertise to veterans and their health care providers through clinical care, research, education, and risk communication. The GWIRP focuses on funding innovative, competitively peer-reviewed research to provide a better understanding of the pathobiology underlying GW illness and to improve methods of diagnosis and treatment. Extending the manifestation period for purposes of compensation to December 31, 2021, would have no negative impact on the missions of WRIISC or GWIRP. As we noted above, continuing research while also setting an ending date for the presumptive period is fully consistent with Congress's intent to compensate veterans who are seriously ill but where more research is needed to understand the nature and cause of the illnesses. We note that this final rule does not foreclose further extensions of the presumptive period in the future if more time is needed for research beyond the currently prescribed expiration date.

One commenter advocated for a longer extension period. This commenter stated, “I think it would be a mistake to close enrollment so soon.” He further stated that some GW veterans might be in the beginning stages of illnesses, while others have been “suffering symptoms in silence”. However, the commenter did not suggest a different date. The three previously established extensions, implemented by VA for medically unexplained chronic multi-symptom illnesses and undiagnosed illnesses that appeared in GW veterans, were 5-year periods. VA determined that it was appropriate to extend the period again by 5 years consistent with the extensions that have occurred in the past. Therefore, VA makes no change based on this comment.

VA also notes that the rule does not “close enrollment.” The time limit prescribes when the claimed illness must become manifest. The rule does not impose a limit on when a claim may be filed. For example, a future claimant will be allowed to present evidence showing manifestation that occurred within the time limit even if the claim is filed after the time limit has passed.

Two comments stated that VA should add more presumptive conditions to the list, but did not mention specific conditions. As scientific and medical research continues, VA will consider this issue for future regulatory updates. However, because VA regulations must be evidence-based in accordance with available scientific and medical research, it cannot amend the current list based on these comments. Therefore, VA makes no change to this rule based on these comments.

Several comments discussed the need for additional research. One such commenter discussed a study that is currently underway in regards to “biomarkers associated with the conditions linked to service in the Gulf War” and stated, “[M]ore must be done.” Another commenter discussed other current studies and stated, “[F]ollow-on research is needed to further develop findings.” VA recognizes the need for further investigation, inclusive of scientific and medical research. To allow time for further research, this rulemaking finalizes an extension of the period in which manifestations of undiagnosed illnesses and medically unexplained chronic multi-symptom illnesses must appear in GW veterans to be presumed as service-connected diseases. VA, therefore, makes no change based on these comments.

VA received general comments that were not associated with the extension of the period for VA to continue to evaluate undiagnosed illnesses and medically unexplained chronic multi-symptom illnesses in GW veterans. One commenter requested VA move the elements of 38 CFR 3.317(c) to 38 CFR 3.307 and 3.309. This commenter also expressed concerns that private physicians completing GW General Medical Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) examinations will not know that GW undiagnosed illness and medically unexplained chronic multi-symptom illness do not apply to Afghanistan service; he was concerned that they would not know that only GW infectious disease presumptions apply to Afghanistan service. VA understands and agrees with this concern. For this reason, VA does not accept DBQs from private doctors for initial GW examinations; a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) clinician must perform the initial GW examination. This commenter also expressed concerns that Afghanistan was being included in the definition of the Southwest Asia theater of operations. In accordance with 38 U.S.C. 1117(f), VA acknowledges that the term “`Persian Gulf veteran' means a veteran who served on active duty in the Armed Forces in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War,” and as reflected in 38 CFR 3.317(e)(2), “[t]he Southwest Asia theater of operations refers to Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the neutral zone between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, the Gulf of Aden, the Gulf of Oman, the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea, and the airspace above these locations.” As such, VA requires the claims processors to verify qualifying locations of service prior to requesting a GW examination. Any concerns unrelated to extending the date for manifestation of undiagnosed illness or medically unexplained chronic multi-symptom illness are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, VA makes no changes based on these comments.

Another comment requested “clarity and consistency” concerning the definitions of GW undiagnosed illness and medically unexplained chronic multi-symptom illness. Although the medical community has not settled on standardized case definitions, VA applies the legal definitions of these conditions, which are outlined in 38 U.S.C. 1117(a)(2) and (g). Another comment discussed historical events regarding the Agent Orange Act of 1991. One commenter expressed concerns regarding the definition of “presumptive” and provided personal testimony. Another commenter expressed concerns that her children (parented by an affected GW veteran) may have been biologically affected. These comments are not relevant to the current rule amendment; therefore, VA makes no changes to the rule based on these comments.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.” The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Secretary hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This rule will not affect any small entities. Only VA beneficiaries could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any year. This rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number and title affected by this rule is 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on September 25, 2017, for publication.

The interim rule amending 38 CFR part 3, published October 17, 2016, at 81 FR 71382, is adopted as final without change.

On June 30, 2017, the Postal Service filed a notice of price adjustment with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) seeking approval of price and classification changes related to the Address Quality Measurement and Assessment Process, and the extension of no-fee ACS to mailers who enter qualifying mailpieces.

On August 23, 2017, the PRC approved the price and classification changes related to the Address Quality Assessment and Measurement Assessment Process, including the 0.5 percent error threshold, and Move Update assessment charge. In addition, the PRC approved extending no-fee ACS to certain Basic automation and non-automation mailpieces that are submitted by qualifying mailers. The prices approved by the PRC are available under Docket Number R2017-7 on the PRC's Web site at www.prc.gov, and these changes will take effect on January 21, 2018. This final rule adopts the conforming changes to the DMM, which were previously noticed for public comment in a proposed rule (79 FR 76930-76931) and two subsequent revisions.

The Postal Service issued its first revised proposed rule on July 6, 2016 (81 FR 43965-43971). Subsequently, on February 27, 2017, the Postal Service elected to issue a second, revised proposed rule (82 FR 11871-11878) in order to further clarify the proposal, more thoroughly respond to mailer comments, and clearly outline the ways in which the proposal had changed since the previous proposed rule. In response, the Postal Service received valuable feedback from the mailing industry. Although the substance of the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process has not changed since the proposed rule of February 27, 2017, the Postal Service has buttressed the level of detail provided on the mechanics of the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process in DMM 602.5.3, given that it now has obtained regulatory approval.

The following subheadings are intended to provide a snapshot of the forthcoming Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process.

For purposes of clarification, the Postal Service provides the following definitions of several terms used in this document:

eDoc Submitter: The electronic documentation (eDoc) Submitter is determined using the Customer Registration IDentifier (CRID) number that is used to upload the eDoc to the Postal Service for processing. The eDoc submitter most often is the Mail Preparer but can also be the Mail Owner. All results of the Address Quality Measurement will be displayed on the scorecards for the eDoc Submitter and Mail Owner; however, any additional postage assessments will be presented to the eDoc submitter.

Legal Restraint: Mailers of First-Class Mail pieces who assert that they are restricted by law from incorporating Postal Service change of address (COA) information onto their mailpieces without permission from addressees; these mailers may request Postal Service approval to meet the requirements for Move Update by using the Legal Restraint alternate method. Such mailers must be able to clearly demonstrate how the use of a primary Move Update method would violate the law. For details, consult Guide to Move Update at: http://beta.postalpro.usps.com/node/1116. Pieces that meet the requirements for the Legal Restraint method will be excluded from the Mailer Scorecard and the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, as long as the mailpieces use the appropriate CRID or Mailer IDentifier (MID).

Mailer: The term mailer within this document encompasses Mail Owners, Mail Preparers, and Mail Service Providers (MSPs).

Mailer Scorecard: This is an electronic report that contains mail quality measurements and assessments on mailings over a calendar month for Move Update, Full Service Intelligent Mail, eInduction® and Seamless Acceptance. The Scorecard is accessible through the Business Customer Gateway (BCG) and provides views for eDoc submitters, MSPs, and Mail Owners.

Non-qualifying Mailings: The non-qualifying mailpieces listed below will be excluded from the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process and the Mailer Scorecard:

• Mailpieces that are undeliverable due to an address change that is Temporary, Foreign, Moved Left No Address (MLNA), and Box Closed No Order (BCNO).

• Mailpieces that are priced as single-piece.

• Mailpieces that qualify for the Legal Restraint method.

• Mailpieces without the documentation submitted electronically.

Qualifying Mailings: An eDoc submitter is eligible for the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process when at least one of its mailings qualifies for Full Service in a calendar month. Thereafter, when mailers enter eligible mailings of letter- and flat-size pieces of First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail that meet the requirements for Basic or Full Service mailings in a subsequent calendar month, the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process will be used, if the postage statement and supporting documentation are submitted electronically and a unique Intelligent Mail barcode (IMb®) is included in the eDoc.

The Postal Service appreciates all of the comments that were provided by the mailing industry in response to the revised proposal of February 27, 2017. These comments and replies can serve as frequently asked questions (FAQs) to help clarify the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. The mailers' comments and corresponding Postal Service responses are outlined as follows:

Mailers are unable to effectively determine the success of the new measurement and assessment process, because the Postal Service has not provided sufficient information (i.e., statistical analysis) regarding how the error threshold will be set or modified. Therefore, mailers are not confident that mailings will be measured appropriately. Additionally, the determination of the assessment charge is not clearly outlined. We feel that the PRC should review both the proposed assessment charge along with the error threshold percentage and prior to the Postal Service publishing a final rule, then revisit the requirements of the proposed rule in light of the determinations made in that docket.

As previously stated, on August 23, 2017, the PRC approved the 0.5 percent error threshold and Move Update assessment charge under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. The Postal Service will implement the changes on January 21, 2018, which provides mailers nearly five months to adopt a USPS-approved Move Update method pursuant to the Move Update standard. In addition, this lead time will enable mailers to monitor COA errors via the Mailer Scorecard before the assessment process begins.

Why are mailers required to adhere to specific approved Move Update methods? If the USPS decides this is a necessary requirement, can they enact “safe harbor” provisions that protect mailers who are consistently meeting the criteria for the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process from further liability resulting from United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) investigations?

The DMM provides that certain commercial mailings must comply with the Move Update standard, regardless of whether the mail is verified for Move Update compliance presently under the Mail Evaluation Readability Lookup Instrument (MERLIN®) method, or will be subject to the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process when it takes effect on January 21, 2018. Failure to meet the Move Update standard may result in an additional postage assessment. The purpose of the Move Update standard is to correct mailpieces bearing an old address for which the Postal Service has a new address on record to help ensure that such mailpieces reach their intended recipients. Move Update requirements aim to bring down the incidence of UAA mail, which is costly to both the Postal Service and its customers.

As noted in the proposed rule of July 6, 2016, there are three USPS-approved methods for satisfying the Move Update requirement, and mailers must use one of those approved methods unless a USPS-approved alternate method is used. There are two USPS-approved alternative methods (99 Percent Accuracy and Legal Restraint), which are available under very limited circumstances for mailers who enter First-Class Mail. By contacting the USPS National Customer Support Center (NCSC), eligible mailers may apply for the following USPS-approved alternative methods:

99 Percent Accuracy: This method is available to mailers who enter First-Class Mail and demonstrate that their internal list management maintains address quality at 99 percent or greater accuracy for COAs. Mailpieces that meet the criteria for the USPS-approved 99 Percent Accuracy method are subject to the new Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process.

Legal Restraint: This method is available to mailers who enter First-Class Mail and First-Class Mail Package Service pieces and demonstrate that a legal restriction prevents them from updating their customer's address without direct contact from the customer. Mailpieces that meet the conditions of the USPS-approved Legal Restraint method are excluded from the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process.

For more information related to Move Update alternative methods, see the Guide to Move Update at https://postalpro.usps.com/node/1116.

Why is the Postal Service measuring compliance and applying assessments at the eDoc submitter and CRID level rather than at the Mail Owner level? The Postal Service requires by/for and Mail Owner information with all eDoc for Full Service mailings, which means that they have the necessary information to determine the Mail Owners with whom any identified address quality errors are associated. Therefore, Mail Owners with less volume are concerned that they will be overshadowed by larger Mail Owners who dominate the MSP's volume.

The Postal Service will measure compliance and apply assessments at the eDoc submitter and CRID level, because it is the eDoc submitter who submits the mail to the Postal Service; this allows USPS to remain consistent with the current verification process. As previously stated in the proposed rule of February 27, 2017, the Postal Service is providing specific data to assist eDoc submitters with identifying the Mail Owners who exceed the Census error threshold and contribute to the assessment charge. These data are provided throughout the calendar month to allow eDoc submitters and Mail Owners to discuss assessments before and during the 10-day mailer review period.

It would be beneficial if USPS would provide sufficient notice to eDoc submitters who are at risk of losing free ACS so that they can take action to avoid disruption and continue to use the program.

Once the extension of the no-fee ACS proposal takes effect on January 21, 2018, the Postal Service will monitor Full Service compliance for these mailers on a quarterly basis. If a mailer's average Full Service volume drops below the 95 percent threshold for a given quarter, that mailer will receive a notification of its removal from receiving no-fee ACS in the next billing cycle.

How many locations, if any, will still be using MERLIN once this new Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process is implemented? What is the transition plan to convert any remaining MERLIN sites?

As stated in the proposed rule of February 27, 2017, upon implementation of the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, the MERLIN Move Update verification process will terminate for all sites.

When the new Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process becomes effective, will USPIS, USPS, and mailers all be using the exact same, transparent Move Update compliance data for proof of Move Update compliance?

All mailings using postage prices that require compliance with the Move Update standard, regardless of whether they qualify for verification under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, may be subject to a separate assessment in the event that they do not comply with the Move Update standard pursuant to DMM 602.5. A mailer has not complied with the Move Update standard if a USPS-approved Move Update method (DMM 602.5.2) was not used to update the mailer's address list with correct addresses (unless the mail bears an alternative address format under DMM 602.3). In those circumstances, the mailer did not qualify for the Presort or Automation price claimed on the postage statement or eDoc. The separate assessment could be applied to every mailpiece in a mailing for which the mailer did not comply with the Move update standard, and would be limited to the difference between the postage previously paid (including the Move Update assessment charge, if applicable) and the applicable First-Class Mail single-piece price.

The Postal Service should further clarify how it will reconcile different results from NCOALink, MPE NCOALink, and ACS. Those systems do not always return the same results.

As clarified in the proposed rule of February 27, 2017, the COA data for NCOALink and ACS are from the same source, the moving customer, and are in sync. If the mailer has a record with a name or address that cannot be matched to the addressee's COA request, the update may not be provided via NCOALink but may be available through ACS. These scenarios are encompassed within the threshold.

We disagree with the 95 percent Full Service threshold required to access the free ACS data. When free ACS data for non-Full Service mail was proposed several years ago, USPS representatives promised to provide free ACS for the non-Full Service portion of all Full Service mailings. Additionally, the proposed threshold is applied to a MSP vs. the actual mail owner, which may result in a Mail Owner losing out on ACS data through no fault and no control of their own.

In order to further encourage the adoption of Full Service and to increase the number of mailers who receive address quality information, the Postal Service is extending no-fee ACS to mailers who enter qualifying Basic automation and non-automation mailpieces that meet the criteria of the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process and to mailers who meet a Full Service threshold of 95 percent along with other requirements. As consistent with all other program measurements, this is determined at the eDoc submitter and CRID level.

When the new process is implemented, the Federal Register indicated that all mail would be scanned through the MPE and not just randomly sampled. Therefore, if the Move Update percentage falls below the threshold, will any charges be assessed at the time of the mailing like it's currently done or will the penalties simply be assessed on the scorecard?

Effective January 21, 2018, mailings will no longer be assessed at the time of mailing. For qualifying mailers all mailpieces will be measured and aggregated across a calendar month, and any mailpieces exceeding the threshold will be assessed under the new Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process.

When an address list is processed through a third-party, USPS-licensed software system and the USPS later determines that the mail is UAA with corresponding COA information is on file, the COA error should be charged against the software vendor. Such errors should be tracked, reported by the software vendor, and be a factor in the renewal of a software vendor's certification. This would allow mailers to make informed decisions regarding the accuracy of the software vendor and put responsibility for the software accuracy and COA errors where it belongs.

NCOALink Software Developers are responsible for programming NCOALink Software so that it adheres to specific USPS performance requirements for name and address matching rules. Developers are tested on a periodic bases using an NCOALink test address file similar to the one for CASS/MASS certification. The Postal Service is providing specific data to mailers to assist with identifying errors exceeding the established threshold and contributing to the assessment fee. Mailers who submit eDoc are encouraged to use this data to identify root causes for failures and related fees. The Postal Service is providing specific data to mailers to assist with identifying errors that exceed the established threshold and contribute to the assessment fee. Mailers who submit eDoc are encouraged to use this data to identify root causes for failures and related fees.

The Postal Service should provide additional detail with respect to the appeals process. The revised proposed rule references the Guide to Postage Assessments, but does not provide specific guidance on the type of information that the Postal Service would require to rescind or revise an assessment or audit result. Further certainty in this area would help Mailers, MSPs, and the Postal Service by setting clear advance guidelines as to what would be considered reasonable and acceptable evidence when appealing an assessment.

As in the past, the Postal Service will continue to work with mailers in relations to the appeal process, fee assessments, and to obtain supporting documentation. For example, if a mailer is using NCOALink to update addresses, a summary/acknowledgement report could be provided to show that NCOALink was performed on the mailpieces.

The Postal Service will replace the existing MERLIN Move Update verification process with the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process on January 21, 2018. In other words, MERLIN Move Update verification will terminate upon implementation of the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. The new method will apply to First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail letter- and flat-size pieces that meet the requirements for Basic and Full Service mailings.

Once the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process is in place, mailers will still be required to document Move Update compliance methods on a postage statement, mail.dat, or mail.xml. Documents demonstrating the method used should be available upon request by the Postal Service.

Mailers who enter Periodicals will be provided with address quality data, but Periodicals mailpieces will not be verified under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. The Postal Service is emphasizing that the Move Update standards in DMM 602.5 do apply to Periodicals, because the proposed rule published on February 27, 2017 (82 FR 11871-11878) inaccurately stated that Periodicals are not subject to the Move Update standard.

The Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process will generate several benefits, including enhanced mailing visibility and improved mail quality metrics on all mailings entered within a calendar month, rather than sampled mailings. Under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, qualifying mailpieces within a calendar month will be measured according to the following process:

Mailpieces will be scanned on MPE.

Address information captured from mailpieces identified as UAA will be evaluated to determine if COA information is on file.

The address information for mailpieces matching an active COA will be sent electronically to NCSC.

NCSC will forward COA information to the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process for evaluation.

Move Update validations will be performed by comparing the MID + Serial Number of the IMb from the COA-related mailpiece data. If the COA is between 95 days and 18 months old, and the address has not been updated, then a COA error for the associated IMb will be logged and allocated under the CRID of the eDoc submitter.

All qualifying mailpieces entered by an eDoc submitter in a calendar month are subject to the proposed error threshold for the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. The error threshold is 0.5 percent.

The Move Update Assessment Charge is assessed by Postal Service to the relevant eDoc submitter at the CRID level for each mailpiece with a COA percentage that exceeds the error threshold.

The data will be collected and reported on the Mailer Scorecard under the eDoc submitter CRID.

When the ratio of qualifying mailpieces with COA errors to total qualifying mailpieces submitted in the calendar month by the eDoc submitter exceeds the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold, the Move Update assessment charge will apply to the mailpieces with COA errors above the threshold.

The Mailer Scorecard is currently available to mailers, and provides data that allow mailers to gauge address quality on their mailpieces. Mailers will be charged only for mailpieces above the errors threshold.

Mailers will be verified under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process when they:

Have submitted any mailpieces as Full Service in the current month or any previous month.

Use a unique Basic or Full Service IMb on mailings of letter- and flat-size pieces for First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail.

Use eDoc to submit mailing information.

The Postal Service has retained the proposed specifications for assessing address quality. Once the Postal Service implements the proposed process, address quality will be measured as follows:

Analysis will be performed on all pieces in the mailing, rather than on a sample.

The assessment will be determined by the number of COA errors in a calendar month, divided by the total number of pieces mailed that were subject to analysis. The resulting percentage will be compared to the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold of 0.5 percent.

There are a number of exclusions to the measurement and assessment process. Generally, mailpieces with addresses that have the following COA characteristics will not be included in the assessment: Temporary moves, MLNA, BCNO, and COA data for foreign addresses.

Mailpieces authorized for the Legal Restraint alternate Move Update method (See Guide to Move Update) will be excluded.

Once qualifying mailings are processed on MPE, the data from mailpieces will be reconciled with eDoc. These results will be available on the BCG and displayed on the Electronic Verification tab of the Mailer Scorecard, which will be easily accessible at https://gateway.usps.com/eAdmin/view/signin. Mailers will be able to review the Mailer Scorecard and corresponding detailed reports to identify any anomalies or issues.

To resolve Mailer Scorecard irregularities, mailers should contact the PostalOne! Help Desk at 800-522-9085 or their local Business Mail Entry Unit (BMEU).

The Postal Service will extend no-fee Full Service ACS to qualifying Basic automation and non-automation mailpieces for mailers who enter at least 95 percent of their mail as Full Service in a calendar month.

The Basic mailpieces must be prepared as follows:

Bear a unique IMb printed on the mailpiece.

Include a Full Service ACS or OneCode ACS® STID in the IMb.

Include the unique IMb in eDoc.

Be sent by an eDoc submitter providing accurate By/For identification in eDoc.

As clarification, if mailers meet the 95 percent threshold during a calendar month, they will be enrolled to receive free Full Service ACS for all Basic automation and non-automation mailpieces in the following month. The Postal Service will monitor Full Service compliance for these mailers on a quarterly basis. If an enrolled mailer's average Full Service volume dropped below the 95 percent threshold for a given quarter, that mailer will receive notification of its removal from receiving free ACS in the next billing cycle. If the 95 percent threshold is met in a subsequent month, the removed mailer will be re-enrolled to receive free Full Service ACS for Basic automation and non-automation mailpieces for the next billing cycle.

Address change information will be provided through Full Service ACS feedback to the Mail Owner identified in eDoc or its delegate. ACS information will continue to be distributed through SingleSource to the Mail Owner identified in the IMb or its delegate.

Regarding Periodicals, mailers who enter mailings of Full Service Periodicals will no longer be required to receive and pay for manual address corrections when a Full Service ACS STID is used. However, these mailers may elect to receive and pay for manual address correction notifications by including the appropriate STID within the IMb.

The Postal Service adopts the following changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:

We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.

I. Background

Ground level ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions between volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO) in the presence of sunlight. In order to reduce ozone concentrations in the ambient air, the CAA requires all nonattainment areas to apply control on VOC and NOX emission sources to achieve emission reductions. Among effective control measures, RACT controls significantly reduce VOC and NOX emissions from major stationary sources. NOX and VOC are referred to as ozone precursors and are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including motor vehicles, power plants, industrial facilities, and area wide sources, such as consumer products and lawn and garden equipment. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur following exposure to ozone. These effects are more pronounced in children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.

RACT is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53761 at 53762, September 17, 1979). Section 182 of the CAA sets forth two separate RACT requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. The first requirement, contained in section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and referred to as RACT fix-up, requires the correction of RACT rules for which EPA identified deficiencies before the CAA was amended in 1990. Pennsylvania previously corrected its deficiencies under the 1-hour ozone standard and has no further deficiencies to correct under this section of the CAA. The second requirement, set forth in section 182(b)(2) of the CAA, applies to moderate (or worse) ozone nonattainment area as well as to marginal and attainment areas in ozone transport regions (OTRs) established pursuant to section 184 of the CAA, and requires these areas to implement RACT controls on all major VOC and NOX emission sources and on all sources and source categories covered by a CTG issued by EPA.1 See CAA section 182(b)(2) and 184(b).

On November 18, 2016, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a formal revision to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's SIP. The SIP revision consists of the adoption of EPA's CTG for automobile and light duty assembly coatings. The new regulation reflecting this adoption can be found under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 129—Standards for Sources. Specifically, this revision adds to the SIP 25 Pa. Code § 129.52e which adopts the RACT requirements for automobile and light-duty assembly coatings and covers heavier vehicle coating operations as well. The revision also includes changes to 25 Pa. Code § 129.51 to accommodate alternative compliance methods for the adopted CTG.

Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM), including RACT, for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, states must revise their SIPs to include RACT for sources of VOC emissions covered by a CTG issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area's date of attainment. EPA defines RACT as “the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.” (44 FR 53761, Sept. 17, 1979). In subsequent Federal Register notices, EPA has addressed how states can meet the RACT requirements of the CAA. In June 1977, EPA published a CTG for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings (EPA-450/2-77-008). This CTG discusses the nature of VOC emissions from this industry, available control technologies for addressing such emissions, the costs of available control options, and other items. EPA also published a national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks in 2004 (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII).

In 2008, after conducting a review of currently existing state and local VOC emission reduction approaches for this industry, reviewing the 1977 CTG and the NESHAP for this industry, and considering the information that has become available since then, EPA developed a new CTG for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, entitled Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-006). Pennsylvania's SIP revision submittal addresses the adoption of EPA's 2008 CTG for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings.

EPA's CTG for automobiles and light-duty truck assembly coatings includes recommendations to reduce VOC emissions. These recommendations include VOC emissions limits for coating operations; work practices for storage and handling of coatings, thinners, and coating waste materials; and work practices for the handling and use of cleaning materials. The emission limits for coating processes covered by this CTG are found in Table 1 of the technical support document (TSD) which EPA prepared supporting this rulemaking.2 Table 1, includes emission limits expressed in kilograms of VOC per liter (kg VOC/liter) and pounds of VOC per gallon (lbs VOC/gal). The emission limits for the miscellaneous materials used at coating facilities are found in Table 2 of the TSD. Table 2 includes emission limits expressed in grams of VOC per liter (g VOC/liter). Additional information regarding this CTG can be found in the TSD found in the docket for this rulemaking and available online at www.regulations.gov.

PADEP's submittal presented the regulatory revisions undertaken to adopt EPA's CTG for automobile and light-duty truck coatings. PADEP revised 25 Pa. Code Chapter 129—Standards for Sources to adopt the aforementioned CTG. The revisions include the addition of § 129.52e which adopts the RACT requirements for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings as stated by EPA in the relevant CTG for this category of sources. The revision also includes updates to 25 Pa. Code § 129.51 to accommodate alternative compliance methods for the adopted CTG. Additional information regarding PADEP's submittal can be found within the TSD and state submittal which are both located in this docket and available online at www.regulations.gov.

EPA reviewed PADEP's submittal and found that the regulatory changes reflect EPA's CTG for automobile and light-duty trucks. The emission limits for the coating processes as well as the emission limits for the miscellaneous materials used during coating processes are consistent with those recommended in EPA's CTG. Additionally, the regulatory changes address EPA's recommended work practices.

EPA notes that under 25 Pa. Code § 129.52e(c), Existing RACT permit, PADEP is allowing the provisions of § 129.52e to supersede the requirements of a RACT permit previously issued under 25 Pa. Code §§ 129.91-129.95 if the permit was issued prior to January 1, 2017 and to the extent that the RACT permit contains less stringent requirements than those in 25 Pa. Code § 129.52e. EPA further notes that the RACT permits issued under §§ 129.91-129.95 were issued for previous RACT determinations on a case-by-case basis; these permits would then have been submitted to EPA as source-specific SIP revisions and would likely have been approved by EPA for inclusion into the Pennsylvania SIP. If EPA approved those source-specific RACT determinations as meeting the requirements of RACT under the CAA, then the permits associated with those determinations were approved into the SIP and would have been identified at 40 CFR 52.2020(d). To the extent that the provisions of § 129.52e are more stringent than those of a previous SIP-approved permit, PADEP may make a source-specific determination as to whether the requirements of the previous RACT permit apply, or those of § 129.52e. If PADEP chooses to make such a determination to remove prior case-by-case RACT limits from the SIP, such revision must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision in order to remove the previously approved permit from the SIP and must meet requirements under CAA section 110(l). Otherwise, the previously approved RACT limits (even if less stringent) remain applicable requirements for sources subject now to the more stringent CTG also. Until such a SIP revision is made, the requirements of 25 Pa. Code 129.52e and the SIP-approved case by case RACT requirements both apply and EPA cannot remove the source-specific permits from the SIP. EPA is not taking any such action in this rulemaking to remove previously approved RACT permits and thus the requirements of a previously SIP-approved permit still apply until such permit is removed from the SIP even if the new limits, reflected in this CTG that Pennsylvania has adopted, are more stringent.

EPA is approving the revision to Pennsylvania's SIP which adopts EPA's CTG for automobile and light-duty truck coatings because Pennsylvania's regulation incorporates the requirements of the CTG and thus meets requirements in CAA sections 110 and 184(b). EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on December 26, 2017 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 24, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 129—Standards for Sources, Sections 129.51 and 129.52e. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update of the SIP compilation.3

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 December 26, 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action. This action, in which Pennsylvania adopts EPA's CTG for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On July 27, 2017, the EPA published a direct final rule (82 FR 34858) and parallel proposal (82 FR 34910) to amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing to provide affected sources a 1-year extension to comply with the emission limits for flame attenuation lines. We stated in that direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by August 28, 2017, the direct final rule would not take effect and we would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. We subsequently received adverse comment on that direct final rule and are withdrawing it. We will address those comments in any subsequent final action, which will be based on the parallel proposed rule also published on July 27, 2017. As stated in the direct final rule and parallel proposed rule, we will not institute a second comment period on this action.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS. Where there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified motor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) permits a nonconforming motor vehicle to be admitted into the United States if its safety features comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive test data or such other evidence as the Secretary of Transportation decides to be adequate.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1), import eligibility decisions may be made “on the initiative of the Secretary of Transportation or on petition of a manufacturer or importer registered under [49 U.S.C. 30141(c)].” The Secretary's authority to make these decisions has been delegated to NHTSA. The agency publishes notices of eligibility decisions as they are made.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(b)(2), a list of all vehicles for which import eligibility decisions have been made must be published annually in the Federal Register. On October 1, 1996, NHTSA added the list as an appendix to 49 CFR part 593, the regulations that establish procedures for import eligibility decisions (61 FR 51242). As described in the notice, NHTSA took that action to ensure that the list is more widely disseminated to government personnel who oversee vehicle imports and to interested members of the public. See 61 FR 51242-43. In the notice, NHTSA expressed its intention to annually revise the list as published in the appendix to include any additional vehicles decided by the agency to be eligible for importation since the list was last published. See 61 FR 51243. The agency stated that issuance of the document announcing these revisions will fulfill the annual publication requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30141(b)(2). Ibid.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations about whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affects in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. This rule will not have any of these effects and was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The effect of this rule is not to impose new requirements. Instead it provides a summary compilation of decisions on import eligibility that have already been made and does not involve new decisions. This rule will not impose any additional burden on any person. Accordingly, the agency believes that the preparation of a regulatory evaluation is not warranted for this rule.

We have not conducted an evaluation of the impacts of this rule under the National Environmental Policy Act. This rule does not impose any change that would result in any impacts to the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, no environmental assessment is required.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have considered the impacts of this rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the context of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The following is our statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). This rule will not have any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses because the rule merely furnishes information by revising the list in the Code of Federal Regulations of vehicles for which import eligibility decisions have previously been made. Accordingly, we have not prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” Executive Order 13132 defines the term “Policies that have federalism implications” to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation.

This rule will have no 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 as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. This rule will not result in additional expenditures by State, local or tribal governments or by any members of the private sector. Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This rule does not impose any new collection of information requirements for which a 5 CFR part 1320 clearance must be obtained. DOT previously submitted to OMB and OMB approved the collection of information associated with the vehicle importation program in OMB Clearance No. 2127-0002. An extension of this information collection is awaiting approval.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” we have considered whether this rule has any retroactive effect. We conclude that it will not have such an effect.

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

Under the National Technology and Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” This rule does not require the use of any technical standards.

Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and does not concern an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

NHTSA finds that prior notice and opportunity for comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) because this action does not impose any regulatory requirements. This rule merely revises the list of vehicles not originally manufactured to conform to the FMVSS that NHTSA has decided to be eligible for importation into the United States since the last list was published in October, 2016.

In addition, so that the list of vehicles for which import eligibility decisions have been made may be included in the next edition of 49 CFR parts 572 to 999, which is due for revision on October 1, 2017, good cause exists to dispense with the requirement in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for the effective date of the rule to be delayed for at least 30 days following its publication.

In consideration of the foregoing, part 593 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes blueline tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

As specified at 50 CFR 622.193(z)(1)(i), the blueline tilefish commercial ACL is 87,521 lb (39,699 kg), round weight.

NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for blueline tilefish when the commercial ACL specified at 50 CFR 622.193(z)(1)(i) is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS previously projected that the commercial ACL for South Atlantic blueline tilefish for the 2017 fishing year would be reached by July 18, 2017. Therefore, NMFS published a temporary rule to close the commercial sector for South Atlantic blueline tilefish effective on July 18, 2017, through the end of the 2017 fishing year (82 FR 31924; July 11, 2017). However, a recent landings update indicates that the commercial ACL for blueline tilefish was not met as of July 18, 2017.

In accordance with 50 CFR 622.8(c), NMFS temporarily re-opens the commercial sector for blueline tilefish on October 24, 2017. The commercial sector will remain open for 8 days to allow for the commercial ACL to be reached. The commercial sector will close 8 days later, at 12:01 a.m., local time, November 1, 2017, and remain closed until January 1, 2018, the start of the next fishing year. NMFS has determined that this re-opening will allow for an additional opportunity to commercially harvest blueline tilefish while minimizing the risk of exceeding the commercial ACL.

The operator of a vessel with a valid Federal commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having blueline tilefish onboard must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such blueline tilefish prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, November 1, 2017. During the subsequent commercial closure, all sale or purchase of blueline tilefish is prohibited. The recreational sector for blueline tilefish in South Atlantic Federal waters is closed from January 1 through April 30, and from September 1 through December 31, each year, and the bag and possession limits for blueline tilefish in or from South Atlantic Federal waters are zero through December 31, 2017. Additionally, these bag and possession limits apply to the harvest of blueline tilefish in both state and Federal waters in the South Atlantic on board a vessel with a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper.

The Regional Administrator, NMFS Southeast Region, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of blueline tilefish and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.8(c) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action to temporarily re-open the commercial sector for blueline tilefish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the commercial ACL and AMs has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the re-opening. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to allow commercial fishers to harvest the commercial ACL of blueline tilefish from the EEZ, while minimizing the risk of exceeding the commercial ACL. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would be contrary to the public interest because it would not allow for the re-opening of the commercial sector before the end of the fishing season.

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

In a final rule published on October 13, 2017, NMFS specified a 2017 limit of 2,000 t of longline-caught bigeye tuna for the U.S. Pacific Island territories of American Samoa, Guam and the CNMI (82 FR 47642). Of the 2,000 t limit, NMFS allows each territory to allocate up to 1,000 t to U.S. longline fishing vessels identified in a valid specified fishing agreement.

On October 6, 2017, NMFS received from the Council a specified fishing agreement between the CNMI and Quota Management, Inc. (QMI). In the transmittal memorandum, the Council's Executive Director advised that the specified fishing agreement was consistent with the criteria set forth in 50 CFR 665.819(c)(1). On October 10, 2017, NMFS reviewed the agreement and determined that it is consistent with the Pelagic FEP, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, implementing regulations, and other applicable laws.

In accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(d) and 50 CFR 665.819(c)(9), vessels identified in the agreement may retain and land bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean under the CNMI limit. NMFS began attributing bigeye tuna caught by vessels identified in the agreement to the CNMI starting on October 10, 2017. If NMFS determines that the fishery will reach the attribution limit of 1,000 t, we will restrict the retention of bigeye tuna caught by vessels identified in the agreement, unless the vessels are included in a subsequent specified fishing agreement with another U.S. territory.