Federal Register Vol. 82, No.210,

The Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of its report issued under Executive Order 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth”. The report provides the recommendations of DOE's Regulatory Reform Task Force to reduce regulatory burdens on domestic energy resources, and is published as an appendix to this document and available at https://www.energy.gov/downloads/final-report-regulatory-review-under-executive-order-13783.

On May 24, 2017, the Postal Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise its supplemental standards of ethical conduct, 5 CFR part 5601.1 On the same day, the Commission also issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the ethics rules applicable to Commission employees, 39 CFR subpart A of part 3000.2

Executive branch employees are subject to multiple federal ethics laws, regulations issued by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), and executive orders. The supplemental standards of ethical conduct at issue in this Order are additional restrictions applicable only to Commission employees. These supplemental standards of ethical conduct concern prohibited financial interests, prohibited outside employment, disqualification when seeking non-federal employment, and prior approval to engage in outside employment. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission adopts the proposed rules without alteration. OGE concurs with the Commission's proposed revisions to 5 CFR part 5601.

In 1991, Executive Order 12674, as amended by Executive Order 12731, authorized OGE to establish a single, comprehensive, and clear set of executive branch standards of ethical conduct.3 On August 7, 1992, OGE published a final rule titled Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (OGE Standards).4 The OGE Standards, codified at 5 CFR part 2635, became effective February 3, 1993, and established uniform standards of ethical conduct applicable to all executive branch personnel. On August 12, 1993, the Postal Rate Commission collaborated with OGE to publish existing 5 CFR part 5601 as an interim rule. 58 FR 42839 (Aug. 12, 1993).

In 2006, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 109-435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006) changed the agency's name from the Postal Rate Commission to the Postal Regulatory Commission and made several changes to the Commission's regulatory role. Order No. 3906 at 2-3. The supplemental standards of ethical conduct, existing 5 CFR part 5601, have never been amended or finalized since their 1993 adoption and remain attributed to the Postal Rate Commission. The PAEA's changes to the Commission's responsibilities drive the need to modernize the Commission's supplemental standards of ethical conduct. Moreover, experience has informed the Commission's view regarding linguistic and organizational revisions to clarify the supplemental standards of ethical conduct.

The Commission received two sets of comments pertaining to the proposed revisions to the supplemental standards of ethical conduct and the Commission's ethics rules.

Sum Comments. The Commission received the following comment through the www.federalregister.gov Web site: “Any deletion of ethical conduct would not be in the best interest of the American people due to transparency.” 5

PR Comments. The Public Representative supports the proposed revisions.6 He deems it “critical that the Commission's ethics rules accurately reflect its role as a regulator and are reflective of the agency's procedures.” PR Comments at 2. He concludes that the proposed revisions serve the public interest, reinforce public perception of the Commission's integrity, and increase accessibility and transparency. Id. He states that the proposed revisions “ensure that financial holdings and outside employment do not result in the appearance of or in actual conflicts of interest.” Id. at 3. He observes that the proposed deletions are primarily editorial revisions made to delete duplicative and outdated sections. Id. He notes that the proposed deletions will not limit the ethical obligations of Commission employees. Id.

Neither commenter suggested changes to the proposed rules. The Public Representative supports the proposed rules. Id. at 2-3. In response to the concern expressed in the Sum Comments, the Commission reiterates its commitment to upholding the highest ethical standards. As executive branch employees, Commission employees remain subject to several statutes governing conflicts of interests (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 201-219); the standards of ethical conduct appearing in Executive Order 12674, as amended by Executive Order 12731; and regulations promulgated by OGE relating to several issues including financial disclosure, the standards of ethical conduct, and post-employment conflicts of interest (see, e.g., 5 CFR parts 2634, 2635, and 2641). Commission employees are also subject to the Commission's ethics rules, 39 CFR subpart A of part 3000, which are also being revised to reflect the Commission's modern regulatory role under the PAEA and to remove duplicative and outdated provisions.7 The regulations at issue in this Order, the supplemental standards of ethical conduct applicable to Commission employees only, concern restrictions imposed upon Commission employees in addition to these laws and standards. The proposed revisions remain consistent with these laws and do not abrogate their application in any way. Streamlining the Commission's supplemental standards of ethical conduct supports OGE's mission to establish a single, comprehensive, and clear set of executive branch standards of ethical conduct in accordance with Executive Order 12731. The proposed revisions will not lead to any reduction in the ethical obligations of Commission employees. Ultimately, the proposed revisions will enhance the Commission's adherence to ethical conduct by more accurately reflecting the Commission's modern regulatory role under the PAEA.

The proposed rules clarify the bounds of ethical conduct in several ways, including linguistic and organizational revisions to delete duplicative and outdated language as well as to improve the specificity of the provisions. For instance, the definition of “affected persons” used in existing § 5601.101(b) is being incorporated into proposed § 5601.102. Existing § 5601.101(b)'s non-exhaustive list of categories of prohibited financial interest are being restructured to form specific categories upon which the Commission will develop a prohibited securities list (PSL) applicable to Commission staff (and their spouses and dependent children). Based on years of experience with the existing rules, the Commission believes that developing the PSL will assist employees to identify financial holdings that may pose (or appear to pose) a financial conflict of interest. Having the PSL available to employees as a reference before purchasing securities will improve transparency and adherence to ethical standards. The six categories underlying the PSL properly reflect the Commission's modern regulatory role under the PAEA and are consistent with the laws prohibiting actual or apparent financial conflicts of interests. See Order No. 3906 at 7-12.

The proposed revisions also improve the procedures related to the supplemental standards of ethical conduct. Proposed §§ 5601.101 and 5601.102 define additional terms and provide specific procedures related to exceptions, newly prohibited securities, new employees, acquisition of prohibited securities without specific intent, divestiture, and waiver. Proposed §§ 5601.103 and 5601.104 improve the procedures concerning employees that are seeking employment or prior approval for outside employment to better ensure any disqualification is prompt and appropriate. Therefore, the proposed revisions improve transparency and the ability of Commission employees to adhere to the highest ethical standards.

For these reasons and those reasons detailed in Order No. 3906, the Commission adopts the proposed rules without changes.

It is ordered:

1. Part 5601 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below the signatures of this Order effective 30 days after the date of publication of this Order in the Federal Register.

2. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the Federal Register.

The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds it unnecessary to delay the effective date and that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

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

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

On April 19, 2017 (for the Model 777-8 airplane), and May 12, 2015 (for the 777-9 airplane), Boeing applied for an amendment to Type Certificate (TC) No. T00001SE to include the new Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes. These airplanes are derivatives of the Model 777-300ER airplane currently approved under TC No. T00001SE. The Model 777-9 airplane is a stretched-fuselage, large, twin-engine airplane with seating for 408 passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 775,000 pounds.

The Model 777-8 airplane, a shortened-body derivative of the Model 777-9 airplane, is a large, twin-engine airplane with seating for 359 passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 775,000 pounds.

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in TC No. T00001SE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design features, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

The Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

These Boeing airplanes have full-time, digital, electronic flight-control systems (EFCS) affecting the pitch, yaw, and roll axes of the airplanes. In addition, the airplanes are equipped with on-ground load-alleviation systems to reduce braking loads. The current regulations are inadequate for considering the effects of these systems and their effects upon structural performance. These special conditions define the criteria to be used in the assessment of the effects of these systems on structures.

The general approach of accounting for the effect of system failures on structural performance would be extended to include any partial or complete system failure, alone or in combination with other partial or complete system failures, as would affect structural performance.

Active flight-control systems are capable of providing automatic responses to external inputs from sources other than pilots. These systems have been expanded in function, effectiveness, and reliability such that fly-by-wire flight controls, without a manual backup system in the event of system failures, are becoming standard equipment on larger transport-category airplanes. As a result of these advancements in flight-control technology, the current safety standards contained in part 25 do not provide an adequate basis to address an acceptable level of safety for airplanes equipped with these advanced systems. Instead, certification of these systems has been achieved by issuance of special conditions under the provisions of § 21.16.

For example, stability-augmentation systems (SAS), and to a lesser extent load-alleviation systems (LAS), have been used on transport-category airplanes for many years. Past approvals of these systems were based on both special conditions and individual findings of equivalent level of safety with existing rules.

Although autopilots are also considered active control systems, typically their control authority has been limited such that the consequences of system failures could be readily counteracted by the pilot. Now, autopilot functions are integrated into the primary flight controls and are given sufficient control authority to maneuver the airplane to its structural design limits. This advanced technology, with its expanded authority, requires a new approach to account for the interaction of control systems and structures.

The usual deterministic approach to defining the loads envelope contained in part 25 does not fully account for system effectiveness and system reliability. These automatic systems may be inoperative or may operate in a degraded mode with less than full system authority. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the structural factors of safety and operating margins such that the joint probability of structural failures, due to application of loads during system malfunctions, is not greater than that found in airplanes equipped with earlier-technology control systems. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to define the failure conditions, with their associated frequency of occurrence, to determine the structural factors of safety and operating margins that will ensure an acceptable level of safety.

Earlier automatic control systems usually provided two states: Either fully functioning, or a total loss of function. Flightcrew readily detected these conditions. The new, active, flight-control systems have failure modes that allow the system to function in the degraded mode without full authority. This degraded mode is not readily detectable by the flightcrew. Therefore, monitoring systems are required on these new systems to provide an annunciation of a condition of degraded system capability.

In these special conditions, and in the current standards and regulations, the term “any” requires the applicant to address all items covered by the term, rather than addressing only a portion of the items.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Boeing Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes.

For airplanes equipped with systems that affect structural performance, either directly or as a result of a failure or malfunction, the influence of these systems and their failure conditions must be taken into account when showing compliance with the requirements of part 25, subparts C and D.

For airplanes equipped with flight-control systems, autopilots, stability-augmentation systems, load-alleviation systems, fuel-management systems, and other systems that either directly, or as a result of failure or malfunction, affect structural performance, the following criteria must be used for showing compliance. If these special conditions are used for other systems, it may be necessary to adapt the criteria to the specific system.

1. The criteria defined herein only address the direct structural consequences of the system responses and performance. They cannot be considered in isolation, but should be included in the overall safety evaluation of the airplane. These criteria may, in some instances, duplicate standards already established for this evaluation. These criteria are only applicable to structure the failure of which could prevent continued safe flight and landing. Specific criteria that define acceptable limits on handling characteristics or stability requirements, when operating in the system-degraded or inoperative mode, are not provided in these special conditions.

2. Depending upon the specific characteristics of the airplane, additional studies that go beyond the criteria provided in these special conditions may be required to demonstrate the airplane's capability to meet other realistic conditions, such as alternative gust or maneuver descriptions for an airplane equipped with a load-alleviation system.

3. The following definitions are applicable to these special conditions.

a. Structural performance: Capability of the airplane to meet the structural requirements of part 25.

b. Flight limitations: Limitations that can be applied to the airplane flight conditions following an in-flight occurrence, and that are included in the airplane flight manual (e.g., speed limitations, avoidance of severe weather conditions, etc.).

c. Operational limitations: Limitations, including flight limitations, that can be applied to the airplane operating conditions before dispatch (e.g., fuel, payload and master minimum-equipment list limitations).

d. Probabilistic terms: Terms such as probable, improbable, and extremely improbable, as used in these special conditions, are the same as those used in § 25.1309.

e. Failure condition: This term is the same as that used in § 25.1309. However, these special conditions apply only to system-failure conditions that affect the structural performance of the airplane (e.g., system-failure conditions that induce loads, change the response of the airplane to inputs such as gusts or pilot actions, or lower flutter margins).

1. General. The following criteria will be used in determining the influence of a system and its failure conditions on the airplane structure.

2. System fully operative. With the system fully operative, the following apply:

a. Limit loads must be derived in all normal operating configurations of the system from all the limit conditions specified in part 25, subpart C (or defined by special conditions or findings of equivalent level of safety in lieu of those specified in subpart C), taking into account any special behavior of such a system or associated functions, or any effect on the structural performance of the airplane that may occur up to the limit loads. In particular, any significant nonlinearity (rate of displacement of control surface, thresholds, or any other system nonlinearities) must be accounted for in a realistic or conservative way when deriving limit loads from limit conditions.

b. The airplane must meet the strength requirements of part 25 (static strength, residual strength), using the specified factors to derive ultimate loads from the limit loads defined above. The effect of nonlinearities must be investigated beyond limit conditions to ensure that the behavior of the system presents no anomaly compared to the behavior below limit conditions. However, conditions beyond limit conditions need not be considered when it can be shown that the airplane has design features that will not allow it to exceed those limit conditions.

c. The airplane must meet the aeroelastic stability requirements of § 25.629.

3. System in the failure condition. For any system-failure condition not shown to be extremely improbable, the following apply:

a. At the time of occurrence. Starting from 1g level flight conditions, a realistic scenario, including pilot corrective actions, must be established to determine the loads occurring at the time of failure and immediately after the failure.

i. For static-strength substantiation, these loads, multiplied by an appropriate factor of safety that is related to the probability of occurrence of the failure, are ultimate loads to be considered for design. The factor of safety is defined in Figure 1, below.

ii. For residual-strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in special condition 3.a.i. For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.

iii. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to the speeds defined in § 25.629(b)(2). For failure conditions that result in speeds beyond VC/MC, freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown to increased speeds, so that the margins intended by § 25.629(b)(2) are maintained.

iv. Failures of the system that result in forced structural vibrations (oscillatory failures) must not produce loads that could result in detrimental deformation of primary structure.

b. For the continuation of the flight. For the airplane in the system-failed state, and considering any appropriate reconfiguration and flight limitations, the following apply:

i. The loads derived from the following conditions (or defined by special conditions or findings of equivalent level of safety in lieu of the following conditions) at speeds up to VC/MC (or the speed limitation prescribed for the remainder of the flight) must be determined:

1. the limit symmetrical maneuvering conditions specified in §§ 25.331 and 25.345.

2. the limit gust and turbulence conditions specified in §§ 25.341 and 25.345.

3. the limit rolling conditions specified in § 25.349, and the limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in §§ 25.367, and 25.427(b) and (c).

4. the limit yaw-maneuvering conditions specified in § 25.351.

5. the limit ground-loading conditions specified in §§ 25.473, 25.491, 25.493(d), and 25.503.

ii. For static-strength substantiation, each part of the structure must be able to withstand the loads in special condition 3.b.i., multiplied by a factor of safety depending on the probability of being in this failure state.

The factor of safety is defined in Figure 2, below.

iii. For residual-strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate loads defined in paragraph 3.b.ii. of these special conditions. For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.

iv. If the loads induced by the failure condition have a significant effect on fatigue or damage tolerance, then their effects must be taken into account.

v. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to a speed determined from Figure 3, below. Flutter clearance speeds V′ and V″ may be based on the speed limitation specified for the remainder of the flight using the margins defined by § 25.629(b).

vi. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must also be shown up to V′ in Figure 3, above, for any probable system-failure condition, combined with any damage required or selected for investigation by § 25.571(b).

c. Consideration of certain failure conditions may be required by other sections of part 25 regardless of calculated system reliability. Where analysis shows the probability of these failure conditions to be less than 10−9 per flight hour, criteria other than those specified in this paragraph may be used for structural substantiation to show continued safe flight and landing.

4. Failure indications. For system-failure detection and indication, the following apply:

a. The system must be checked for failure conditions, not extremely improbable, that degrade the structural capability below the level required by part 25, or that significantly reduce the reliability of the remaining system. As far as reasonably practicable, the flightcrew must be made aware of these failures before flight. Certain elements of the control system, such as mechanical and hydraulic components, may use special periodic inspections, and electronic components may use daily checks, in lieu of detection and indication systems, to achieve the objective of this requirement. These certification-maintenance requirements must be limited to components that are not readily detectable by normal detection-and-indication systems, and where service history shows that inspections will provide an adequate level of safety.

b. The existence of any failure condition, not extremely improbable, during flight, that could significantly affect the structural capability of the airplane, and for which the associated reduction in airworthiness can be minimized by suitable flight limitations, must be signaled to the flightcrew. For example, failure conditions that result in a factor of safety between the airplane strength and the loads of part 25, subpart C below 1.25, or flutter margins below V″, must be signaled to the crew during flight.

5. Dispatch with known failure conditions. If the airplane is to be dispatched in a known system-failure condition that affects structural performance, or that affects the reliability of the remaining system to maintain structural performance, then the provisions of these special conditions must be met, including the provisions of special condition 2 for the dispatched condition, and special condition 3 for subsequent failures.

a. Expected operational limitations may be taken into account in establishing Pj as the probability of failure occurrence for determining the safety margin in Figure 1.

b. Flight limitations and expected operational limitations may be taken into account in establishing Qj as the combined probability of being in the dispatched failure condition, and the subsequent failure condition, for the safety margins in Figures 2 and 3.

c. These limitations must be such that the probability of being in this combined failure state, and then subsequently encountering limit load conditions, is extremely improbable. No reduction in these safety margins is allowed if the subsequent system-failure rate is greater than 10−3 per flight hour.

The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA finds it is unnecessary to delay the effective date and finds that good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register.

The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

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

On April 19, 2017 (for the Model 777-8 airplane), and May 12, 2015 (for the 777-9 airplane), Boeing applied for an amendment to Type Certificate (TC) No. T00001SE to include the new Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes. These airplanes are derivatives of the Model 777-300ER airplane currently approved under TC No. T00001SE. The Model 777-9 is a stretched-fuselage, large, twin-engine airplane with seating for 408 passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 775,000 pounds.

The Model 777-8, a shortened-body derivative of the 777-9, is a large, twin-engine airplane with seating for 359 passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 775,000 pounds.

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in TC No. T00001SE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design features, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

The Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

An electronic flight-control system that provides control of the airplane through pilot inputs to the flight computer. Current part 25 airworthiness regulations account for control laws where aileron deflection is proportional to control-stick deflection. The regulations do not address nonlinearities, such as situations where output does not change in the same proportion as input, or other effects on aileron actuation that may be caused by electronic flight controls.

These special conditions differ from current regulatory requirements in that they require that the roll maneuver results from defined movements of the cockpit roll control, as opposed to defined aileron deflections. These special conditions also require an additional load condition at design maneuvering speed (VA), in which the cockpit roll control is returned to neutral following the initial roll input.

These special conditions differ from similar special conditions previously issued on this topic. These special conditions are limited to the roll axis only, whereas other special conditions also included pitch and yaw axes. Special conditions are not required for the pitch or yaw axes, because § 25.331 at Amendment 25-141, and § 25.351 at Amendment 25-91, take into account the effects of an electronic flight-control system.

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

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Boeing Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

In lieu of compliance to 14 CFR 25.349(a), the Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes must comply with the following:

The following conditions, speeds, and cockpit roll control motions (except as the motions may be limited by pilot effort) must be considered in combination with an airplane load factor of zero, and of two-thirds of the positive maneuvering factor used in design. In determining the resulting control-surface deflections, the torsional flexibility of the wing must be considered in accordance with § 25.301(b).

1. Conditions corresponding to steady rolling velocities must be investigated. In addition, conditions corresponding to maximum angular acceleration must be investigated for airplanes with engines or other weight concentrations outboard of the fuselage. For the angular acceleration conditions, zero rolling velocity may be assumed in the absence of a rational time history investigation of the maneuver.

2. At VA, sudden movement of the cockpit roll control up to the limit is assumed. The position of the cockpit roll control must be maintained until a steady roll rate is achieved and then must be returned suddenly to the neutral position.

3. At VC, the cockpit roll control must be moved suddenly and maintained so as to achieve a roll rate not less than that obtained in condition 2, above.

4. At VD, the cockpit roll control must be moved suddenly and maintained so as to achieve a roll rate not less than one third of that obtained in condition 2, above.

Background

On March 17, 2017, the Federal Register published a document designated as Docket No. FAA-2016-9403, Final Special Conditions No. 25-643-SC (82 FR 14117). The document issued special conditions pertaining to dive-speed definition with a high-speed-protection system. As published, the document contained an error in a citation to an advisory circular section.

In the final special conditions document (FR Doc. 2017-05329), published on March 17, 2017 (82 FR 14117), make the following correction.

On page 14119, second column, correct the last sentence in special condition no. 2 to read:

The upset maneuvers described in Advisory Circular 25-7C, “Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,” Chapter 2, section 8, paragraph 32, sub-paragraphs c(3)(a) and (c), may be used to comply with this requirement.

The FAA published a final rule, technical amendment in the Federal Register (82 FR 44060, September 21, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0219, amending Class E Airspace designated as an extension, and removing the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status at Lemoore NAS, Lemoore, CA. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found the legal description was incorrect and is now corrected to eliminate “within a 5.2-mile radius of Lemoore NAS (Reeves Field), and” from the description.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of September 21, 2017 (82 FR 44060) FR Doc. 2017-20043, Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lemoore NAS (Reeves Field), CA is corrected as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (82 FR 32151, July 12, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0143 to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Stevens Point Municipal Airport, Stevens Point, WI. The Stevens Point VORTAC has been out of service since 2012 due to extreme fluctuations and out-of-tolerance structure. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile (from a 6.5-mile) radius of Stevens Point Municipal Airport, Stevens Point, WI. The segments that extended 1.8 miles each side of the Stevens Point VORTAC extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7 miles northeast, east, and southwest of the VORTAC, would be removed due to the decommissioning of the VORTAC and cancellation of the VOR approaches.

This action enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Highland Medical Center Heliport, Scottsboro, AL, by bringing the airport name and coordinates in line with the FAA's aeronautical database.

On August 16, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 38856) Docket No. FAA-2017-0557, a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Highland Medical Center Heliport, Scottsboro, AL. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Highland Medical Center Heliport, Scottsboro, AL, by recognizing the heliport's name change, (formerly Jackson County Hospital), and adjusting the geographic coordinates of the heliport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet and removes Class E airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Prineville Airport, Prineville, OR, to support IFR operations under standard instrument approach procedures.

On July 5, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 31033) Docket FAA-2017-0616 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface and remove Class E airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Prineville Airport, Prineville, OR. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Prineville Airport, Prineville, OR. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is modified to within an 8-mile radius (from a 6.9-mile radius) of Prineville airport, with a 4.2-mile (from 10 miles) wide segment extending to 11.4 miles (from 12.3 miles) west of the airport. Additionally, the Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface designated to Prineville Airport would be removed since this airspace area duplicates the larger Bend Class E en route airspace area. This airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace at Deblois Flight Strip, Deblois, ME, to ensure the efficient use of airspace within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM in the Federal Register (82 FR 39065, August 16, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2015-2891 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Deblois Flight Strip, Deblois, ME, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Deblois Flight Strip, Deblois, ME, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bend Municipal Airport, Bend, OR, to support IFR operations under standard instrument approach procedures.

On July 5, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 31030) Docket FAA-2017-0391 a notice of proposed rulemaking to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bend Municipal Airport, Bend, OR. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bend Municipal Airport, Bend, OR. The airspace remains within the 4.3-mile radius of Bend Municipal Airport, with the segments extending northwest and south of the airport enlarged to 7 miles wide (from 5.2 miles) extending to 8.5 miles northwest (from 6.5 miles), and 5.8 miles wide (from 2.9 miles) extending to 8.8 miles south of the airport (from 9.3 miles south of the airport). This airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.

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

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

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

History

The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (82 FR 40692, August 28, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0296; corrected (82 FR 47098, October 11, 2017), Docket No. FAA-2017-0315, modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Oskaloosa Municipal Airport, Oskaloosa, IA.

Subsequent to publication, The FAA found that reference to the Ottumwa, IA Class E airspace was inadvertently left in the airspace description. This action removes the wording from the legal description.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 2, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of August 3, 2017 (82 FR 40692) FR Doc. 2017-18107, Amendment of Class E Airspace; Oskaloosa, IA, is corrected as follows:

This final rule revises part 740 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by clarifying two license exceptions based on existing agency understanding and practice. To provide the general public with guidance on using these license exceptions, this final rule makes three clarifications to License Exception Governments, International Organizations, International Inspections under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the International Space Station (GOV) and adds five notes, along with making other minor clarifications, to License Exception Strategic Trade Authorization (STA). These changes are described below under sections: (A) Clarifications for License Exception GOV and (B) Clarifications for License Exception STA.

With these revisions, BIS is not changing the EAR requirements for the use of these license exceptions. Instead, the agency seeks to provide sufficient guidance within the EAR to answer questions the agency frequently receives from the public as to the application of the two license exceptions. These clarifications should be particularly helpful to exporters who are new to the EAR, including exporters of items that have recently moved to the EAR from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) as a result of the United States Munitions List to the Commerce Control List review process.

This final rule revises License Exception GOV, § 740.11, to make three clarifications. Specifically, this final rule revises paragraph (b)(2)(ii); adds a new note to paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C); and adds a new note to paragraph (c)(1). These clarifications do not change the applicability or any other requirements of License Exception GOV and are limited to providing guidance on how BIS interprets these paragraphs of License Exception GOV in response to questions from the public.

Paragraph (b)(2)(ii). The final rule revises paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of License Exception GOV to add two sentences to clarify the applicability of the term `contractor support personnel,' which is defined in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of License Exception GOV. BIS has received questions regarding the locations where `contractor support personnel' must work and the level of U.S. Government supervision needed for personnel to be considered `contractor support personnel.' The first sentence that this final rule adds to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) clarifies that `contractor support personnel' is limited to those individuals who are providing such support within a U.S. Government owned or operated facility or under the direct supervision of a U.S. government employee. This final rule adds a parenthetical phrase to clarify that a U.S. government employee is an individual directly employed by the U.S. Government.

As an example of persons directly employed who would meet the `contractor support personnel' definition, BIS provides the following: A U.S. Government agency plans to conduct a study of soy bean cultivation in Malaysia and the U.S. Government agency team will include three `contractor support personnel' providing scientific support to the U.S. Government agency's study. These three `contractor support personnel' will work at the U.S. Embassy in Malaysia to process and analyze agricultural field data being gathered by U.S. Government personnel as part of a study. These individuals meet the definition of contractor support personnel in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) because they will be working within a U.S. Government-owned and operated facility (a U.S embassy) and providing a form of support (scientific support) that is identified in the term's definition.

For an example of persons not directly employed who would be outside the scope of the `contractor support personnel' definition, BIS provides the following: A U.S. Government agency is evaluating the possibility of providing a grant to a company in Kenya that seeks financing for building three windmills. To evaluate the feasibility of providing a grant, this U.S. Government agency has entered into a contract with a U.S. company that provides feasibility analysis for windmill locations. To conduct the feasibility analysis study, the contractor will need to have certain items exported to it in Kenya. Under this example, the contractor, including personnel of the contractor, would not constitute `contractor support personnel' because it does not meet the definition of `contractor support personnel.' Although it is providing scientific analysis for this U.S. Government agency under a contract, the analysis is not being conducted at a U.S. Government facility or being conducted under the direct supervision of an individual directly employed by the U.S. Government agency.

The second sentence this final rule adds to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) clarifies that private security contractors are not `contractor support personnel' for purposes of paragraph (b)(2)(ii). This new sentence clarifies that although in certain cases private security contractors may work within a U.S. Government owned or operated facility, such contractors do not provide administrative, managerial, scientific or technical support under contract to the U.S. Government, as required under the definition of `contractor support personnel.'

Note 1 to paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C). Paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C) of License Exception GOV authorizes the temporary export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of an item in support of any foreign assistance or sales program authorized by law and subject to the control of the President by other means, when the criteria specified in this paragraph are met. This final rule adds a new note to paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C) of License Exception GOV to clarify how BIS interprets the meaning of the term `temporary' for purposes of this paragraph. The new note clarifies that within the context of the authorization available in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C), `temporary' means that within no more than four years from the date of an item's initial export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), it must be returned to the exporter, reexporter or transferor or its disposition otherwise authorized (e.g., pursuant to a license or another license exception) in accordance with the EAR. As a conforming change to this new note to paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C), this final rule revises the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C) to add single quotes around the term `temporary.'

Note 1 to paragraph (c)(1). Paragraph (c) of License Exception GOV authorizes certain exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to agencies of cooperating governments or agencies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Paragraph (c)(1) defines `Agency of a cooperating government' for purposes of this paragraph of License Exception GOV. This final rule adds a new note to paragraph (c)(1) of License Exception GOV to clarify that civil intergovernmental organizations in which the membership is limited to national governments that are `cooperating governments' are also considered `cooperating governments' for purposes of paragraph (c)(1). The new note provides an example of a civil intergovernmental organization, the European Space Agency (ESA), which BIS has determined to fall within the scope of the definition of `cooperating governments.' ESA (and other civil intergovernmental organizations) are considered `cooperating governments' because their membership is limited to `cooperating governments'—meaning that if an export was made directly to any of organization's national government members, License Exception GOV would be available. On this basis, BIS does not exclude exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) made to ESA (and any other civil intergovernmental organization whose members are `cooperating governments') from License Exception GOV. The purpose of this paragraph (c)(1) is to clarify that the fact that two or more `cooperating governments' are working together does not change the policy rationale for why the United States Government intends to authorize such exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country). However, this final rule adds a second sentence to the note to paragraph (c)(1) to clarify that if the membership of the civil intergovernmental organization involves any national governments or other organizations that are not `cooperating governments,' such civil intergovernmental organizations are not considered cooperating governments for purposes of paragraph (c)(1), and a third sentence to provide three illustrative examples of civil intergovernmental organizations that are excluded based on this criteria. This third sentence also clarifies that this exclusion applies even when some or all of the `cooperating governments' are members of the civil intergovernmental organization. This final rule provides the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the United Nations, and the World Bank as three examples of civil intergovernmental organizations that include members that are `cooperating governments' along with members that are not `cooperating governments,' with the inclusion of the latter group meaning that these civil intergovernmental organizations are not within the scope of paragraph (c)(1).

This final rule revises License Exception STA, § 740.20, to add five new clarification notes, along with making other minor clarifications. Specifically, this final rule adds the following notes to License Exception STA: Note 1 to paragraph (a) for applicability of transfers (in-country) under STA; Note 1 to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) for staying within the scope of the original authorization; Note 1 to paragraph (d)(2) for multiple consignees on a single prior consignee statement and minor clarifications to the text of paragraph (d)(2); and Note 2 to paragraph (d)(2) for exclusion for government consignees from prior consignee statement; and Note 1 to paragraph (d)(3) for exclusion for intangible exports, reexports or transfers (in-country). These new notes, along with the other minor clarifications, do not change the applicability or any other requirements of License Exception STA and simply provide guidance on how BIS interprets these provisions of License Exception STA. These new notes are consistent with the agency's responses to questions at numerous outreach events and in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) available on the agency's Web site.

Note 1 to paragraph (a) for applicability of transfers (in-country) under STA. This final rule adds a new note to paragraph (a) to License Exception STA. This new note provides guidance on when License Exception STA may be used to authorize transfers (in-country) in response to questions from the public about its applicability. The purpose of this note to paragraph (a) is to explain why transfers (in-country) are included in License Exception STA and describe how this term is applied in the context of this license exception. Under the EAR, outside of prohibited end uses and end users and “knowing” violations, the transactions where most transferors will need an EAR authorization is when the original export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) was authorized under a BIS license and the consignee will make a transfer (in-country) that goes outside the scope of the license. License Exception STA would be available to authorize such transfers (in-country), provided all the applicable requirements of License Exception STA were met, such as obtaining a prior consignee statement from the consignee in-country. If the transfer (in-country) did not require an authorization, such as for exports received under License Exception STA, an authorization is not required for subsequent transfers (in-country), provided no prohibited end uses, end-users or “knowing” violations were involved in the transfer (in-country). These nuances on the application of transfers (in-country) are sometimes not well understood because some people incorrectly assume that the way to determine license requirements for exports and reexports is the same way to determine license requirements for transfers (in-country). The note to paragraph (a) also specifies that when a transfer (in-country) is not being made under STA, then the STA requirements do not apply. The note to paragraph (a) includes a parenthetical phrase with a reference to see the note to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of License Exception STA for requirements specific to staying within the scope of the original License Exception STA authorization, which is described in more detail below.

Note 1 to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3). This final rule adds a new Note 1 to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) to License Exception STA. This new note to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) clarifies that for “600 series” items authorized under License Exception STA, the items must be provided to an eligible ultimate end user, such as a Country Group A:5 military, to stay in compliance with the original authorization. The new note refers to this concept as `completing the chain,' which means that regardless of how many times the “600 series” item is transferred (in-country) or whether the “600 series” item is incorporated into higher level assemblies or other items or not, the “600 series” item must ultimately be provided to an eligible ultimate end user or be otherwise authorized under the EAR. Lastly, the new note to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) clarifies that because the other items eligible for authorization under License Exception STA (i.e., 9x515 and other non-600 series ECCNs) do not include the “600 series” requirements specific to ultimate end user, the `completing the chain' concept does not apply to 9x515 and other non-600 series Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) authorized under License Exception STA. However, the original export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) must be completed within the terms and conditions of the original License Exception STA authorization. As noted above, this clarification is specific to existing EAR requirements; the new note to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) does not change any License Exception STA requirements but rather provides guidance on how these existing EAR requirements are applied in the context of License Exception STA, in particular as it relates to the “600 series.”

Adding greater specificity to paragraph (d)(1). This final rule revises paragraph (d)(1) (Requirement to furnish Export Control Classification Number) of License Exception STA to remove the undefined terms “shipment” in four places and “shipped” in two places and add in their place the defined terms “export” in paragraph (d)(1)(i) and “reexport or transfer (in-country)” in paragraph (d)(1)(ii). In the context of paragraph (d)(1), the requirement to furnish the ECCN is intended to apply to all exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) under License Exception STA, and is consistent with how the agency has interpreted this paragraph. This final rule clarifies the intent of this paragraph (d)(1) by removing the undefined term “shipment” and adding in its place defined terms that provide greater specificity on the intended scope of this paragraph (d)(1). This final rule makes similar clarifications as described below to paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) to improve the clarity of these paragraphs.

Paragraph (d)(2) for multiple consignees on a single prior consignee statement. This final rule revises paragraph (d)(2) (Prior Consignee Statement) of License Exception STA to make four clarifications to paragraph (d)(2): Adding greater specificity to the introductory text as it relates to the undefined term “shipment;” adding two new notes to paragraph (d)(2); clarifying the term `description” in paragraph (d)(2)(i); and making certain terms plural in the text. Because of past issues with the incorporation of revisions to paragraph (d)(2), in particular some of the undesignated text included in that paragraph, in this final rule BIS is revising the entire paragraph to ensure the intended revisions are incorporated correctly. The clarifications to paragraph (d)(2) are described in the next four paragraphs.

Similar to the changes described above for paragraph (d)(1), this final rule revises the introductory text of paragraph (d)(2) to remove the undefined term “shipment” in one place and the undefined term “shipping” in another, and add in their place the defined terms “exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country).” This final rule does not remove the undefined term “shipment” in the two additional instances where the term is used in the introductory text of paragraph (d)(2), which specifies the requirement to maintain a log or other record. This is because the requirement to maintain a log or other record is not intended to apply to intangible (i.e., electronic or in an otherwise intangible form) exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country). BIS adds a sentence clarifying this for purposes of License Exception STA in this final rule. BIS has based this existing agency practice and interpretation on the use of the term “shipment” when referring to a log or other record to mean that the original intent of this License Exception STA requirement was not to apply the requirement to intangible exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country). Because of the frequency at which intangible exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) often occur, it would have been impractical to impose a log or other record requirement for such exports, reexports or transfers (in-country). For example, for a technical work team located at a U.S. parent company that is collaborating with a technical work team in the United Kingdom (a Country Group A:5 Country), there may be dozens or hundreds of intangible exports that occur during a teleconference or telephone call that are authorized under License Exception STA. Although the party making the intangible export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) and the party receiving the technology or software are responsible for complying with the other requirements of License Exception STA, which are suitable for keeping an intangible export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) within the scope of License Exception STA, the party making the intangible export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is not burdened with trying to keep a log or other record, the requirement for which was appropriate and intended for a tangible shipment but was not intended for intangible exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country). The changes included in this rule will make this interpretation clearer to the public. This new sentence also specifies that an exporter, reexporter, or transferor is required, prior to making any export, reexport or transfer (in-country), including those that are intangible, to ensure that a prior consignee statement has been obtained pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (d)(2). This final rule also adds a parenthetical phrase to include a cross reference to Note 1 to paragraph (d)(3), which provides additional guidance on intangible exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) under License Exception STA. BIS also has posted on the BIS Web site best practices for managing intangible exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) under the EAR. BIS encourages any party involved in intangible exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to review this guidance.

This final rule adds a new Note 1 to paragraph (d)(2) to clarify an existing BIS policy that allows for multiple consignees to be listed on a single prior consignee statement, provided certain requirements are met. This new Note 1 to paragraph (d)(2) addresses scenarios when multiple consignees who form a network engaged in a production process (or other type of collaborative activity, such as joint development) will be receiving items under License Exception STA. In such cases, it is existing BIS policy to allow the use of a single consignee statement identifying multiple consignees, provided all the applicable requirements of License Exception STA are met, including those specified in paragraph (d)(2).

This final rule revises paragraph (d)(2)(i) by adding the term “GENERAL” before the term “DESCRIPTION” and adding the parenthetical phrase, “aircraft parts and components classified under ECCN 9A610,” to provide an example of the level of specificity that BIS intends for the description on the prior consignee statement. BIS has received questions from the public asking whether the term “description” used in paragraph (d)(2)(i) is intended to mean that the prior consignee must include the make and model number of each part or component that the consignee would receive under License Exception STA. The term “DESCRIPTION,” as used in paragraph (d)(2)(i), does not require that level of specificity, as clarified by the changes in this final rule.

Lastly, specific to the clarifications to paragraph (d)(2), this final rule adds an “(s)” to the end of the term “CONSIGNEE” in the introductory text of paragraph (d)(2) and adds an “(S)” to the end of the terms “TITLE,” “NAME,” and “PERSON” in the undesignated text at the end of paragraph (d)(2)(viii). These changes, along with the new Note 1 to paragraph (d)(2), make explicit that it is permissible to list multiple consignees on a single consignee statement.

Note 2 to paragraph (d)(2) for exclusion for government consignees from prior consignee statement. This final rule adds Note 2 to paragraph (d)(2) to exclude Country Group A:5 and A:6 government consignees from the requirement to sign or provide a prior consignee statement to an exporter, reexporter, or transferor under License Exception STA. In particular, for “600 series” items authorized under License Exception STA for Country Group A:5 governments, requiring government end users to provide a prior consignee statement makes little sense, given that the goal of License Exception STA is to get these “600 series” items to Country Group A:5 governments for their ultimate end use (one of the three permissible ultimate end uses for “600 series” items authorized under License Exception STA). In addition, this existing interpretation of agency practice takes into account that under the other likely license exception under which such governments may receive items, License Exception GOV, such a signature on a prior consignee statement is not required. This is an existing interpretation of agency practice that BIS is making explicit in the regulatory text. BIS has provided similar guidance to the public, including to Country Group A:5 and A:6 governments.

Note 1 to paragraph (d)(3) for exclusion for intangible exports, reexports or transfers (in-country). This final rule adds a new Note 1 to paragraph (d)(3) to specify that intangible exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) made under License Exception STA are not subject to the notification requirements of paragraph (d)(3). The new note to paragraph (d)(3) also specifies that the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) and (d)(2) still apply, including to intangible exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) made under License Exception STA. The specification in the new note to paragraph (d)(3) is consistent with the requirement discussed above for the new Note 1 to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) that any export, reexport or transfer (in-country) made under STA must stay within the scope of the authorization. As noted above in the explanation of the changes to paragraph (d)(2), BIS has posted on the BIS Web site best practices for managing intangible exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) under the EAR. BIS encourages any party involved in intangible exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to review this guidance.

Although the Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under E.O. 13132.

4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because they are either unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. BIS is making the changes to its regulations described above to provide guidance on existing interpretations of current EAR provisions, and thus prior notice and the opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest. The guidance included in this final rule has been provided to many members of the public in the past (e.g., those persons that have attended BIS outreach events, asked these types of application questions to BIS by phone, email or in writing, or read certain FAQs posted on the BIS Web site dealing with these EAR provisions). Importantly, this is also the same guidance that would be provided to any other member of the public that asked the same questions to BIS dealing these EAR provisions. BIS's purpose with publishing this final rule is not to change the application of these provisions but to more efficiently communicate the existing agency guidance and interpretation of these provisions by clarifying the regulations. This will benefit members of the public because they will be able to more easily understand and apply these provisions, which are consistent with past agency guidance and interpretations provided to other members of the public. BIS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This rule does not change the requirements or obligations of persons under the EAR, so a 30-day delay in effectiveness is not needed. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for these amendments by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable.

Accordingly, part 740 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

On December 4, 2015, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act, Pub. L. 114-94) was signed into law. Section 32201 of the FAST Act amends section 13031 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c) by requiring certain customs COBRA user fees and corresponding limitations to be adjusted by the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) to reflect certain increases in inflation. The specific fees and corresponding limitations to be adjusted for inflation are set forth in Appendix A and Appendix B of part 24 in this final rule and include the commercial vessel arrival fees, commercial truck arrival fees, railroad car arrival fees, private vessel arrival fees, private aircraft arrival fees, commercial aircraft and vessel passenger arrival fees, dutiable mail fees, customs broker permit user fees, barges and other bulk carriers arrival fees, and merchandise processing fees as well as the corresponding limitations. (19 U.S.C. 58c(a) and (b)). Further, the FAST Act includes a particular measure of inflation for these purposes and special rules when considering adjustments.

According to the FAST Act, the customs COBRA user fees and limitations were to be adjusted on April 1, 2016, and at the beginning of each fiscal year to reflect the percent increase (if any) in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the preceding 12-month period compared to the CPI for fiscal year 2014. The statute permits the Secretary to ignore any CPI increase of less than one (1) percent from the time of the previous adjustment. As a result, if the increase in the CPI since the previous adjustment is less than one (1) percent, the Secretary has discretion to determine whether the fees should be adjusted.

On June 15, 2016, CBP published a notice in the Customs Bulletin announcing the April 2016 determination that no adjustment to the customs COBRA user fees and limitations was necessary based on the FAST Act provision as the increase of the CPI was less than one (1) percent. (Customs Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 24, p. 13). CBP published a second notice in the Customs Bulletin on December 7, 2016, announcing that, based on a less than one (1) percent increase in inflation, no adjustment was necessary for fiscal year 2017. (Customs Bulletin Vol. 50, No. 49, p. 4).

On July 17, 2017, CBP published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (82 FR 32661) proposing to amend title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR) to set forth the methodology for determining the required adjustments. The FAST Act specifies that the customs COBRA user fees and corresponding limitations should be adjusted to reflect the percentage of the increase (if any) in the average of the CPI for the preceding 12-month period compared to the CPI for fiscal year 2014. CBP determined that the 12-month period for comparison will be June through May. This timeframe was proposed to allow for sufficient notice to the public of any adjustments prior to any changes becoming effective for each fiscal year.

The FAST Act further requires the Secretary to round the amount of any increase in the CPI to the nearest dollar. The rounding requirement applies to the difference in the CPI from the comparison year to the current year when determining whether an adjustment is necessary. As written, the rounding requirement does not apply to the fee amount resulting from any adjustment. As noted above, if the difference in the CPI since the last adjustment is less than one (1) percent, the Secretary may elect not to adjust the fees and limitations. The statute requires CBP to use the Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers, U.S. All items, 1982-84 (CPI-U) which can be found on the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site: www.bls.gov/cpi/. The proposed rule provided that CBP's Office of Finance will determine annually whether an adjustment to the fees and limitations is necessary and a notice specifying the amount of the fees and limitations will be published in the Federal Register for each fiscal year at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the new fees and limitations.

In addition, CBP proposed technical updates to paragraph (g) of 19 CFR 24.22 to reflect the elimination of the user fee exemption for passengers arriving from Canada, Mexico or one of the adjacent islands pursuant to the United States—Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. (Colombia TPA, Pub. L. 112-42, October 21, 2011). Section 601 of the Colombia TPA amended 19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(1)(A)(i) to limit the fee exemption exclusively to passengers whose journey originated in a territory or possession of the United States, or originated in the United States and was limited to the territories and possessions of the United States. (19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(1)(A)(i)). Since the law became effective on November 5, 2011,CBP has been collecting only the non-exempt user fees. In accordance with the statute, CBP is removing the exemption for passengers arriving from Canada, Mexico, or one of the adjacent islands, from the regulations found in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(i)(A), (g)(1)(i)(B), (g)(1)(ii), (g)(1)(iii), (g)(2)(i), the chart in paragraph (g)(2)(iv), and the collection procedures in paragraphs (g)(4)(ii)(A), (g)(4)(ii)(B), (g)(4)(ii)(C), (g)(4)(iii)(A), (g)(4)(iii)(B), and (g)(4)(iii)(C). (19 CFR 24.22(g)). CBP is also removing the definition of “adjacent islands” from paragraph (g)(1)(iii) as references to adjacent islands have been removed from paragraph (g). (19 CFR 24.22(g)). Additionally, CBP is amending paragraph (g)(2)(iii) to clarify that journeys between ports in the United States are not subject to the fee. (19 CFR 24.22(g)(2)(iii)).

Upon further review, CBP determined that certain technical corrections that were proposed needed further clarification.

Specifically, CBP has determined that paragraph (g)(1)(i) needs to be revised to more clearly identify when a fee is charged based on the arrival of a passenger aboard a commercial vessel or aircraft from one of the territories or possessions of the United States. Paragraph (g)(1)(i) is re-organized for clarity to provide for the three exceptions to the general rule stated in paragraph (g)(1)(i).

In paragraph (g)(1)(ii), CBP has determined that its proposed wording was incorrect. Instead, CBP is retaining current paragraph (g)(1)(ii) with revisions to remove the references to Canada, Mexico and the adjacent islands and adding the phrase that the fee amount is subject to adjustment by the terms of paragraph (k) of this section.

Further, the user fee chart in paragraph (g)(2) is intended as a tool to assist readers understand the application of the fee structure laid out in 19 U.S.C. 58c and 19 CFR 24.22(g)(1). The chart as proposed in the NPRM contained two errors and did not accurately reflect the existing statutory and regulatory rules. The chart is being amended to reflect “No fee” for aircraft arriving from a specified location regardless of where the journey originates. Additionally, the chart found in paragraph (g)(2) is corrected as the fees for vessels arriving from a specified location with a journey either originating in a place other than a specified location or the United States, or originating in the United States including travel to at least one place other than a Specified Location, were mistakenly changed from $1.93 to $5.50. These two fees will remain at $1.93 but will include the amendments adding the reference to paragraph (k).

In paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(A), the words “in and arrives” are no longer being removed because they are necessary to prevent charging for passengers whose journey may not have originated from a territory or possession of the United States but who are arriving from a territory or possession. Paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(B) is amended for greater clarity and accuracy by replacing the phrase at the end of the proposed text, “outside the United States” with “other than the territories and possessions of the United States.” This also makes the language consistent with that found in the following paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(C). Paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(C) is also amended for clarity by replacing the proposed phrase “outside the United States, unless that passenger's journey originated” with “other than one of the territories or possessions of the United States, is processed by CBP, and the journey does not originate.”

In paragraph (g)(4)(iii)(A), the word “from” after the words “the customs territory of the United States” is retained and the proposed new phrase “that originated in” will not be included. This retains the existing regulatory text while removing the references to Canada, Mexico and the adjacent islands. Similar changes are made to paragraph (g)(4)(iii)(B), so that the existing regulatory text is retained and only the references to Canada, Mexico and the adjacent islands are removed.

In paragraph (g)(4)(iii)(C), CBP will not adopt the proposed new text reading, “a place outside the United States and that passenger's journey originated in” and will instead retain the existing regulatory text while removing the references to Canada and Mexico or adjacent islands.

Finally, in the chart found in new Appendix A to Part 24, the description of the Commercial Vessel Passenger Arrival Fee is amended by removing the references to Canada and Mexico or adjacent islands from the parenthetical.

The notice of proposed rulemaking requested public comments. The public comment period closed on August 16, 2017, and five comments were received.

Five comments were received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking.

Comment: Two commenters requested additional notice time beyond the 30 days proposed stating that 30 days notice would be insufficient to make the necessary internal operational adjustments.

CBP Response: In response to the commenters' concern over the amount of time necessary to operationally prepare for adjusted fees, CBP will increase the notice time from 30 days to 60 days in the final rule.

Comment: One commenter questioned a step in CBP's methodology for calculating the inflation adjustment, specifically, that the agency proposed to round the difference between the CPI for the current year and the CPI for the comparison year. The commenter disagrees with CBP's methodology because 19 U.S.C. 58c(l)(2)(A) directs the Secretary to “round the amount of any increase in the Consumer Price Index to the nearest dollar[.]” According to the commenter, CBP's methodology is incorrect because the CPI is not expressed in dollars. As a result, the commenter concludes that Congress must have intended for the actual fee and limitation amounts to be rounded to the nearest dollar instead.

CBP Response: CBP disagrees. Congress makes its intent known through the statutory text and here expressly instructed the Secretary to round the amount of any increase in the Consumer Price Index to the nearest dollar. See 19 U.S.C. 58c(l)(2)(A). Moreover, the statute clearly states that the Secretary may ignore any such increase of less than 1 percent. See 19 U.S.C. 58c(l)(2)(B). “Such increase” plainly refers to the increase in the CPI referenced in the sentence above. There is nothing in the statute that explicitly states that Congress intended for the actual fee and limitation amounts to be rounded. More broadly, throughout the statute, the terms “fees and limitations” and “CPI” are used in different locations, which ordinarily means that they are to be given distinct meanings and are not interchangeable terms.

In addition, the overarching intent of this statutory provision was to keep the COBRA fee and limitation amounts consistent with inflation. Rounding the fees and limitations to the nearest whole dollar amount would in some cases result in fee and limitation amounts that would far exceed the pace of inflation.

Lastly, while CBP acknowledges that the CPI is typically expressed as an index number rather than a dollar amount, as the CPI measures changes in prices, it is closely related to dollars and the Bureau of Labor Statistics has published materials explaining how to interpret the CPI in dollars. See, e.g., United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS Handbook of Methods, Chapter 17, CPI Publication, Indexes, available at https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch17.pdf (last visited August 18, 2017) (explaining that, in the case of an increase in the CPI from 100 to 233.596, “[o]ne interpretation of this is that a representative set of consumer items that cost $100 in 1982-84 would have cost $233.60 in July 2013.”); United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index—July 2017, Technical Note, available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cpi_08112017.pdf (last visited August 18, 2017) (explaining that an increase in the CPI from 100 to 107 “can also be expressed as the price of a base period market basket of goods and services rising from $100 to $107”).

Therefore, consistent with basic tenets of statutory interpretation, CBP's reading as articulated in the NPRM gives meaning to the plain language of the text. As Congress chose not to direct CBP to round the fees, but rather to round the CPI, and since the CPI is closely related to dollars, CBP believes that this interpretation is the best way to give meaning to the text as written. There is no need to render irrelevant Congress's explicit direction to round the difference in the CPI and to express such a difference in dollars, as urged by the commenter.

Finally, while CBP believes that the language of the FAST Act pertaining to rounding does not apply to the fee amounts, CBP has determined that it has separate authority to adjust the fee amount in the unique situation of the commercial truck fee for efficient processing purposes for both the public and the agency. The statute requires only that the fee and limitation amounts be adjusted “to reflect” the percentage change in inflation. The ordinary meaning of the word reflect is to “[e]mbody or represent (something) in a faithful or appropriate way.” See Reflect, Oxford Dictionaries, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reflect (Last visited October 2, 2017). Unlike nearly all of the other instances where COBRA user fees are collected, the commercial truck fee is regularly paid in cash at an inspection booth. Cash collection at the port of entry is a manual, burdensome, and time-consuming process. Making change in pennies, given the enormous amount of cash user fee payments made daily at the land border primary inspection booth, would dramatically slow down the clearance of vehicles and increase fuel costs and carbon emissions as a result of idling in long lines. Accordingly, CBP has determined that this fee set forth in paragraph (c) of § 24.22 will be adjusted to the nearest lower nickel ($0.05). (19 CFR 24.22(c)). Commercial truck fees adjusted to the nearest lower nickel therefore still appropriately reflect the change in inflation as required by the statute but also alleviate the hardship of making change in pennies at the primary inspection booth and allow for faster processing and clearance of commercial trucks.

Comment: One commenter noted that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) may revise the CPI-U figures periodically. As such, stating a definite figure in the CBP regulations may result in an incorrect calculation if the CPI-U for FY14 is subsequently adjusted. The commenter suggested replacing the numeric figure with a reference to the arithmetic average of the CPI-U for FY14.

CBP Response: CBP agrees and will make the suggested change to paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of § 24.22 in the final rule. (19 CFR 24.22(k)).

Comment: Two commenters requested that CBP reconsider the index used to measure the change in inflation. Both suggested that CBP use the “All items less food and energy” index as opposed to the CPI-U. The basis for their suggestion is that food and energy prices are relatively volatile and that the index excluding them represents the “core” or “underlying” rate of inflation and better reflects the costs of business administration activities.

CBP Response: CBP agrees that the commenters' suggested measure of inflation would lead to less volatility in fee amounts. However, the statutory language specifically requires that we use the CPI-U, so we are not able to revise the methodology according to the commenters' suggestion.

Comment: Two commenters viewed the proposal as an opportunity to correct what they view as the double assessment of processing fees when express consignment carrier and centralized hub facilities are used. Both acknowledged that the language at issue found in § 24.23(b)(4)(i) of the CBP Regulations (19 CFR 24.23) is only revised to reflect the addition of the reference to new paragraph (k); however, they argue that assessing the $1 express consignment carrier and centralized hub facilities fee adjusted by inflation for formal entries amounts to double assessment of the merchandise processing fee. They state that if a formal entry is presented to CBP, the $1 express consignment carrier and centralized hub facilities fee should not be assessed as the importer will pay the appropriate MPF with the entry summary as required and that paying the $1 express consignment carrier and centralized hub facilities fee and the ad valorem MPF assesses the same fee twice on a single entry.

CBP Response: The fee set forth in paragraph 24.23(b)(4)(i) of section 24 is required by statute. (19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(9)(A)(ii)). Any changes to the fees themselves are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Based on the comments received and further review of the proposed technical corrections, CBP has decided to adopt as final the proposed amendments published in the Federal Register (82 FR 32661) on July 17, 2017, with the following three changes as well as the changes to the proposed technical changes discussed above. Specifically, in the introductory paragraphs to §§ 24.22 and 24.23 (19 CFR 24.22 and 24.23) and in paragraph (k)(1) of § 24.22 (19 CFR 24.22(k)(1)), CBP extended the timeframe for publishing notice specifying the amount of the fees and limitations from at least 30 days prior to the effective date to at least 60 days prior to the effective date of the new fees and limitations. Second, in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of § 24.22, CBP removed the figure 236.009, stated to be the arithmethic average of the CPI-U for FY 2014 and replaced it with an instruction to calculate the arithmethic average of the CPI-U for FY 2014. Finally, in paragraph (c)(1) of § 24.22, CBP inserted language to adjust the fee for commercial trucks down to the nearest lower $0.05 in order to minimize the burden of making change in the primary inspection booth at the port of entry.

In accordance with this final rule, CBP is also publishing a separate notice in the Federal Register announcing the customs COBRA user fees and limitations as adjusted for fiscal year 2018.

Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally provides that a rule may not take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after it is published in the Federal Register. One of the exceptions from this general rule is when there is good cause to make the rule effective sooner. As this rule provides that CBP will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register providing 60 days-notice before inflation adjustments to the fees required by the FAST Act are imposed, there is a self-contained delayed effective date within the rule. Accordingly, CBP finds good cause in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delayed effective date requirement for the rule.

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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires agencies to assess the impact of regulations on small entities. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act); a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people).

This rule will affect a combination of individuals and businesses. While most of the businesses that pay the customs COBRA user fees are large corporations, the rule affects all businesses that pay these fees, so this rule will affect a substantial number of small entities. However, the impact will be small and in line with inflation; for example, with the current inflation since the base year, the commercial truck fee will increase by 15 cents. Therefore, CBP certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3507) an agency may not conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. This rule does not involve any collection of information.

This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1) pertaining to the Secretary of the Treasury's authority (or that of his delegate) to approve regulations related to certain customs revenue functions.

For the reasons stated above, parts 24 and 111 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR parts 24 and 111) are amended as set forth below.

Upon request, FDA has classified the BCR-ABL quantitation test 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. 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 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 19, 2016, Asuragen, Inc., submitted a request for De Novo classification of the QuantideX qPCR BCR-ABL IS Kit. 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 July 22, 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 866.6060. We have named the generic type of device BCR-ABL quantitation test, and it is identified as a reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test for the quantitation of BCR-ABL1 expressed on the International Scale (IS) and control transcripts in total RNA from whole blood of diagnosed t(9;22) positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients during monitoring of treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. This test is not intended for the diagnosis of CML.

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 the guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; 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:

Executive Order 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” 82 FR 16093 (March 31, 2017), declared a national policy of promoting clean and safe development of domestic energy resources, while avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily limit energy production, constrain economic growth, or hinder job creation. The Executive Order directed the heads of agencies to undertake an immediate review of all agency actions (including regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and other similar agency actions) that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, giving particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. The Executive Order instructed agencies not to include agency actions that are required by law, necessary for the public interest, or consistent with the policy set forth in the Order. The Executive Order directed agencies to submit reports describing the actions identified through their reviews and providing specific recommendations that could alleviate or eliminate aspects of agency actions that burden domestic energy production to the Vice President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality.

The Department of the Interior has aggressively pursued a comprehensive review of Interior's energy activities. Interior is publishing the Final Report: Review of the Department of the Interior Actions that Potentially Burden Domestic Energy (October 24, 2017) prepared pursuant to Executive Order 13783 in its entirety in this Notice. Interior also is making the Final Report available on its Web site at: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/interior_energy_actions_report_final.pdf. Please note that while the format of the Final Report in this Notice may vary slightly from the version available on the website due to Federal Register style guidelines, the substance of both versions is the same.

“Energy is an essential part of American life and a staple of the world economy. Achieving American energy dominance begins with recognizing that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves. For too long America has been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. The Department is committed to an America-first energy strategy that lowers costs for hardworking Americans and maximizes the use of American resources, freeing us from dependence on foreign oil.”

This final report describes the Department of the Interior's (Interior or Department) progress in implementing Executive Order (EO) 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, dated March 28, 2017. EO13783 requires the head of each agency to carry out a review of all agency actions that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. See EO13783, section 2(a). On May 8, 2017, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance to agencies on the contents of a draft report. See OMB Guidance M-17-24 (May 8, 2017). The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) has aggressively pursued a comprehensive review of Interior's energy activities and this final report details the results of this review.

Interior is the steward and manager of America's natural resources, including oil, gas, coal, hydropower, and renewable energy resources. Interior manages lands, subsurface rights, and offshore areas that produce approximately 19 percent of the Nation's energy. Energy development on public lands increases domestic energy production, provides alternatives to overseas energy resources, creates jobs, and enhances the Nation's energy security. The Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) collects an average of over $10 billion annual revenue from onshore and offshore energy production, one of the Federal Government's largest sources of non-tax revenue.

Nine of Interior's bureaus have energy programs and responsibilities:

• The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers onshore energy and subsurface minerals on certain public lands.

• The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) works with states and tribes to oversee environmentally sound coal mining operations;

• The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) oversees offshore oil, gas, and wind development.

• The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is the lead Federal agency charged with improving safety and ensuring environmental protection related to the offshore energy industry, primarily oil and natural gas, on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

• The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, generating over 40 million megawatt-hours of electricity each year;

• The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) oversees leasing of tribal and Indian land for energy development.

• The Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) collects revenue from energy production and development.

• The United States Geological Survey (USGS) conducts research and assessments on the location, quantity, and quality of energy resources, including the economic and environmental effects of resource extraction and use.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Park Service (NPS), while not directly involved in the production or development of energy as part of their missions, may have Federal or non-Federal oil and gas or mineral inholdings. These agencies also manage lands and trails through which important energy-related infrastructure may pass in order to bring affordable energy to American families throughout our country. These agencies therefore have the ability to reduce potential burdens on domestic energy production, development, or transmission.

When the United States is a leader in developing its energy resources, it is less dependent on other nations, leading to a stronger America. Interior is committed to an America-First energy strategy that fosters domestic energy production in order to keep energy prices low for American families, businesses, and manufacturers. Every drop of oil, Mcf of natural gas or MW of offshore wind energy produced here in the U.S. benefits the American workers employed in those operations and also frees us from dependence on foreign energy resources. Beyond enhancing America's energy security, low cost energy benefits the American consumer and enhances American manufacturing competitiveness, making American businesses more competitive globally. Secretary Zinke recognizes that development of energy resources on public lands increases the Nation's domestic energy supply, provides alternatives to overseas energy resources, generates revenue, creates jobs, and enhances national security. Eliminating harmful regulations and unnecessary policies will require a sustained and focused effort. That said, the Department will strike the appropriate balance in order to make use of our Nation's domestic resource wealth while also ensuring careful attention to safe and environmentally responsible operations both onshore and offshore, and promoting conservation stewardship.

Secretary Zinke has issued seven Secretarial Orders to improve domestic onshore and offshore energy production that further these principles. To ensure energy policies receive the highest level attention across Interior, the Secretary established the Counselor to the Secretary for Energy Policy position to coordinate the energy policy of Interior, including, but not limited to, promoting responsible development of energy on public lands managed and administered by Interior, developing strategies to eliminate or minimize regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy, and promoting efficient and effective processing of energy-related authorizations, permits, regulations, and agreements. See Secretarial Order 3351, “Strengthening the Department of the Interior's Energy Portfolio” (May 1, 2017). Establishing this position that reports directly to the Secretary assures that developing America's energy resources in a responsible way to create jobs and enhance the energy security of the United States will remain a central priority. The remaining six Secretarial orders are:

• Secretarial Order 3348—Concerning the Federal Coal Moratorium;

• Secretarial Order 3349—American Energy Independence;

• Secretarial Order 3350—America-First Offshore Energy Strategy;

• Secretarial Order 3352—National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska;

• Secretarial Order 3353—Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation and Cooperation with Western States; and

• Secretarial Order 3354—Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program.

These Orders direct Interior bureaus and offices to take immediate and specific actions to identify and alleviate or eliminate burdens on domestic energy development. Within this framework, bureaus have identified actions and, in some cases, already made progress in alleviating or eliminating the energy burdens.

One of Secretary Zinke's first acts was to sign Secretarial Order 3348, “Concerning the Federal Coal Moratorium” (March 29, 2017), which removed the moratorium on the Federal coal leasing program by revoking a prior Secretarial Order (Secretarial Order 3338, “Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program”). Secretarial Order 3348 promotes American energy security, job creation, and proper conservation stewardship. It directs BLM to process coal lease applications and modifications expeditiously and directs Interior bureaus and offices to make appropriate changes to policy and guidance documents to further President Donald Trump's policy of promoting American energy independence and economic growth. (See further discussion below at IV.x and E.)

In addition to lifting the coal moratorium, Secretary Zinke took other actions to advance American energy independence. In announcing these actions he said, “Today I signed a series of directives to put America on track to achieve the President's vision for energy independence and bringing jobs back to communities across the country.” These directives foster responsible development of coal, oil, gas, and renewable energy on Federal and tribal lands and initiate review of agency actions directed by EO13783.

The most overarching Secretarial Order reducing burdens on energy development is Secretarial Order 3349, “American Energy Independence” (March 29, 2017), which directed bureaus to examine specific actions impacting oil and gas development, and any other actions affecting other energy development. It revoked Secretarial Order 3330, “Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of the Interior,” and directed bureaus and offices to review all actions taken pursuant to that Order for possible reconsideration, modification, or rescission. It also directed each bureau and office to review actions taken regarding rescinded Executive Orders related to climate change. Further, it directed the review of the following specific actions impacting energy development:

• BLM Hydraulic Fracturing Rule (RIN 1004-AE26) (see discussion below under IV.A.i.);

• BLM Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation Rule (RIN 1004-AE14) (see discussion below under IV.A.ii);

• NPS Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights Rule (RIN 1024-AD78); and

• FWS National Wildlife Refuge System; Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights (RIN 1018-AX36) (see discussion below under IV.F.).

This Order enhances opportunities for energy exploration, leasing, conservation stewardship, and development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), thereby providing jobs, energy security, and revenue for the American people by reinitiating the five-year planning process. Among other actions, it directed the review of the following regulatory actions that impact offshore energy development:

• BOEM Notice to Lessees (NTL) No. 2016-N01 entitled, “Notice to Lessees and Operators of Federal Oil and Gas, and Sulfur Leases, and Holders of Pipeline Right-of-Way and Right-of-Use and Easement Grants in the Outer Continental Shelf”;

• BOEM Offshore Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance Rule (RIN 1010-AD82);

• BSEE Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control (RIN 1014-AA11); and

• BOEM and BSEE Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf—Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf Rule (RIN 1082-AA00).

This Order provides for clean and safe development of oil and gas resources in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, recognizing that prudent development of these resources is essential to ensuring the Nation's geopolitical security. (See discussion below at IV.J.)

Sage-grouse protections can affect energy development because these activities often share the same land across the 11 western states and 67 million acres of Federal land that are affected by sage grouse habitat. This Order establishes a Sage-Grouse Review Team that includes representatives from the BLM, FWS, and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to review the 2015 Sage-Grouse Plans and associated policies, giving appropriate weight to the value of energy and other development on public lands within BLM's overall multiple-use mission and to be consistent with the policy set forth in Secretarial Order 3349, “American Energy Independence.” (See discussion below at IV.A.vii.)

This Order intends to ensure that quarterly oil and gas lease sales are consistently held and to identify ways to promote the exploration and development of Federal onshore oil and gas and solid mineral resources, including improving quarterly lease sales, enhancing the Federal onshore solid mineral leasing program, and improving the permitting processes. See discussion below at IV.A.

Details of progress in accordance with the aforementioned Executive and Secretarial Orders are described below, as well as relevant proposed actions that are currently under review. Prior to reaching a final determination regarding any proposed action, Interior may be required to comply with the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act or other laws and regulations, and will weigh the results of such procedures accordingly in its decisionmaking process.

The Bureau of Land Management administers more land than any other Federal agency, consisting of more than 245 million surface acres and 700 million acres of subsurface mineral development. In response to EO13783 and Secretarial Orders 3348, 3349, and 3354, BLM is revising and reforming its leasing processes, improving the Coal Management Program, and delaying, revising, or rescinding burdensome regulations and policies to improve domestic energy production and support jobs.

Below is a list of specific actions BLM is undertaking to reduce burdens on the production of energy on BLM managed resources.

Executive Order 13783 required Interior to review the final rule entitled, “Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands,” 80 FR 16128 (Mar. 26, 2015). Secretarial Order 3349 directed BLM to undertake that review. On July 25, 2017, BLM published a proposed rule to rescind the 2015 hydraulic fracturing rule because the compliance costs of the existing 2015 rule are not justified (82 FR 34464). All 32 states with Federal oil and gas leases and some tribes currently have laws or regulations that address hydraulic fracturing operations. Thus, rescinding the rule has the potential to reduce regulatory burdens by enabling oil and gas operations to occur under one set of regulations within each state or tribal lands, rather than two. Rescinding this rule may result in additional interest in oil and gas development on public lands, especially under higher commodity prices.

Executive Order 13783 required Interior to review the final rule entitled, “Oil and Gas; Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation,” 81 FR 83008 (Nov. 18, 2016), also known as the “Venting and Flaring” rule. Secretarial Order 3349 ordered BLM to review the rule and report to the Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals Management on whether the rule is fully consistent with the policy expressed in EO13783.

The BLM conducted an initial review of the rule and found that it was inconsistent with the policy stated in EO13783 that “it is in the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation.” The BLM recognizes that the 2016 final rule poses a substantial burden on industry, particularly those requirements that are set to become effective on January 17, 2018. The BLM issued a proposed rule that was published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2017, seeking comment on temporarily suspending or delaying certain requirements until January 17, 2019, to reduce the regulatory burden on the energy industry. This will provide industry additional time to plan for and engineer responsive infrastructure modifications that will comply with the regulation.

If finalized, the revised regulation will provide significant additional phase-in time to oil and gas operators.

The BLM intends to work with industry to develop metrics, including key timelines or benchmarks, and the reduction of flaring from Federal and Indian lands over time.

Following up on its initial review, BLM has reviewed the 2016 final rule in accordance with the policies set forth in EO13783. The BLM is currently drafting a proposed rule that would eliminate overlap with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Air Act authorities while also clarifying regulatory provisions related to the beneficial use of gas on Federal and Indian lands.

The burdens placed on industry through these 3 new regulations are being reviewed as directed under EO13783. These 3 rulemakings, which were promulgated and issued concurrently, updated and replaced BLM's Onshore Orders for site security, oil measurement, and gas measurement regulations, respectively, that had been in place since 1989. They are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR parts 3173, 3174, and 3175. External and internal oversight reviews prompted these rulemakings and found that many of BLM's production measurement and accountability policies were outdated and inconsistently applied. The new rules also address some of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concerns for high risk with regard to Interior's production accountability. These 3 regulations impose new cost burdens on operators as a result of oil and gas facility infrastructure changes. The cost estimates for each individual rule are as follows:

• Order 3, Site Security: $31.2 million in one-time costs, plus an $11.7 million increase in annual operating costs;

• Order 4, Oil Measurement: $3.3 million in one-time costs, plus a $4.6 million increase in annual operating costs; and

• Order 5, Gas Measurement: $23.3 million one-time cost, plus $12.1 million increase in annual operating costs.

The new regulations also provide a process for approving new technology that meets defined performance goals. Some provisions of the rule may have added regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation.

The BLM is currently assessing the rules to determine 1) if additional revisions are needed beyond the already-implemented phase-in period for certain provisions, 2) the ability for industry to introduce new technologies through a defined process, rather than through an exception request, and 3) the built-in waivers or variances. The BLM expects to complete its assessment of possible changes to alleviate burdens that may have added to constraints on energy production, economic growth and job creation by the end of the fourth quarter of FY 2017.

The new regulations have built in necessary waivers or variances. The BLM's establishment of a phase-in period for the new site security and production measurement regulations is an interim measure. The BLM will measure success over the phase-in period in terms of the production measurements, royalties paid, a reduction in under-reporting of production, and greater site security for production facilities.

This policy will be replaced with revised guidance for the purpose of establishing greater efficiencies in the oil and gas leasing process. Policy Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2010-117 established a process for leasing oil and gas resources on Federal lands. The BLM intended the IM to reduce the backlog of unissued leases. However, the IM has resulted in longer time frames in analyzing and responding to protests and appeals, as well as longer lead times for BLM to clear and make available parcels for oil and gas lease sales. It has also resulted in increased workload and staffing needs to conduct additional upfront environmental analysis.

The BLM has undertaken an effort to revise and reform its leasing policy and to streamline the leasing process from beginning (i.e. receipt of an Expression of Interest) to end (competitively offering the nominated acreage in a lease sale). Under existing policies and procedures, the process can take up to 16 months (and sometimes longer) from the time lands are nominated to the time a lease sale occurs. The BLM is examining ways to significantly reduce this time by as much as 8-10 months. The BLM plans to complete revisions to the leasing process in the first quarter of FY 2018.

A shorter period from nomination to sale will reduce the number of nominated acres awaiting competitive sale at any given time and will increase industry certainty regarding the acreage it holds. As a result, industry will be able to plan for and execute exploration and production strategies earlier, and respond more effectively to changing market conditions.

Reducing the average time from acreage nomination to lease sale will be BLM's measure of success. The BLM does not control what acreage industry nominates because market conditions can fluctuate dramatically; therefore, total nominated acreage awaiting sale is not likely to be a measure of success.

Until the policy revisions are completed, BLM is setting quarterly lease sale acreage targets to address the acreage currently nominated. The BLM is also identifying ways to augment staff support for potential sales in those offices with the greatest numbers of acres nominated.

This policy announced the incorporation of Master Leasing Plans (MLPs) in the oil and gas leasing process, further explained in Chapter V of the BLM Handbook H-1624-1, entitled “Planning for Fluid Mineral Resources.” The IM establishes a process for integrating an MLP into the land use planning process. The BLM has extended this IM several times while the BLM completes the public scoping and analysis for MLPs. An unintended consequence of this policy has been that many areas open to oil and gas leasing have been deferred from leasing while they await the completion of the MLP process.

The BLM has undertaken an effort to revise the leasing reform and MLP policy and to re-establish the BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs) as the source of lands available for fluid minerals leasing. The BLM is currently evaluating existing MLP efforts with the goal of ending this approach. The BLM expects to rescind this IM and complete the revision of the above BLM Handbook, as well as any other relevant BLM handbooks, in the first quarter of FY 2018.

Because this change will re-establish the RMP as the source of land allocation decisions for fluid minerals, it will result in more streamlined National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and a shorter timeframe for acreage nominations to make it to a competitive lease sale. Since extra time and NEPA analysis adds to uncertainty for industry and use of taxpayer dollars by the Department, removing these process-related steps has the effect of decreasing uncertainty.

The primary measure of success in removing regulatory burden from the rescission of the MLP policy will be in the elimination of related nominated acreage sale deferral pending completion of MLP NEPA. While there will continue to be acreage sale deferrals for various reasons, completion of MLP NEPA will no longer be one of them. The time frames will be shorter.

This IM directs all BLM oil and gas leasing Field Offices to: 1) ensure RMP conformance; 2) evaluate the adequacy of existing NEPA analysis and documentation; and 3) complete any necessary new or supplemental NEPA analysis and documentation before approving a Class I or Class II oil and gas lease reinstatement petition. This IM has resulted in additional analysis and review time that often involves another surface management agency and, in some instances, has led to adding new lease stipulations prior to lease reinstatement.

Lease reinstatements were previously considered a ministerial matter, entailing a commensurate level of review and process to complete. However, IM 2013-177 changed that in significant ways, resulting in additional NEPA review and significantly greater timeframes for completing the reinstatement. Rescinding or modifying this policy will greatly reduce decisionmaking timeframes on lease reinstatement requests. The BLM expects to complete review of this policy in the first quarter of FY 2018 and promptly finalize by the second quarter.

The BLM expects that changes to this policy will refocus the emphasis back to existing NEPA analysis and information, which will significantly shorten the time it takes to consider and process a lease reinstatement request. The policy changes will provide greater certainty and reduced expense for energy development companies and result in production occurring sooner.

The BLM will measure the reduction in burden in terms of the average time it takes to consider a complete lease reinstatement request.

Similar to MLPs, in the interim, BLM must identify and evaluate the status of each current lease reinstatement request in order to determine whether and how to expedite review and processing. There are no other interim measures, waivers or variances that are relevant to the process.

Policy IM 2016-140 is being reviewed for the purpose of enhancing consistency and certainty for oil and gas development in areas of sage-grouse habitat as directed by EO13783. This IM provides guidance on prioritizing implementation decisions for BLM oil and gas leasing and development, to be consistent with Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin Greater Sage-grouse Regions and nine Approved Resource Management Plans in the Rocky Mountain Greater Sage-grouse Region (collectively referred to as the Greater Sage-grouse Plans). The IM applies to activities in the areas covered by both the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin Regions Records of Decision, issued by BLM in September 2015, and also contains reporting requirements for communication between BLM State Offices and the Washington Office (WO). The IM may have added administrative burdens since it requires additional analysis and staff time to screen parcels and weigh potential impacts to the Greater Sage-grouse before the parcels are offered for leasing. It also requires additional analysis and staff time to process drilling permit approvals near Greater Sage-grouse areas.

The BLM's effort to avoid listing of the sage-grouse as an endangered species has affected many programs and a large area geographically. With new technologies and capabilities, such as long-reach horizontal boreholes in the oil and gas industry, the impacts are not as significant as once perceived. Likewise, the administrative burden is better understood and is likely less than once thought. Efforts are underway to better understand these conditions and define ways in which energy production and sage-grouse protection may continue to co-exist. Greater consistency and predictability will provide greater stability for industry. The BLM is currently assessing the policy to determine what revisions are needed and expects to complete this review in the fourth quarter of FY 2017.

When the BLM completes this effort, industry will have greater certainty in leasing, exploration and production activities due to availability of acreage for oil and gas development and a defined process and timeframe for consideration of Greater Sage-grouse impacts.

The BLM will measure success by assessing changes in industry's interest in nominating acreage for competitive sale and developing existing leases in areas affected by the Greater Sage-grouse amendments to RMPs. As industry increases its understanding and gains confidence in the consistency and predictability of BLM actions relative to Greater Sage-grouse, then acreage nominations, permit requests, and development should stabilize and be tied to market forces rather than tied to BLM Greater Sage-grouse decisions.

The BLM has been processing acreage nominations in Greater Sage-grouse areas and making them available for competitive sale. In addition, existing leases are being developed. This is evidence, in the interim, that both BLM and industry are developing innovative ways to adapt energy development in light of Greater Sage-grouse protections.

In September 2015, the BLM incorporated Greater Sage-grouse (GRSG) conservation measures into its land use plans within the range of the GRSG. In September 2016, the BLM issued a number of IMs to help guide the implementation of the GRSG plans. These GRSG plans and policies will affect where, when, and how energy and minerals are developed within the range of the GRSG.

Pursuant to Secretarial Order 3353, “Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation and Cooperation with Western States,” an Interior Sage-Grouse Review Team (Review Team) is working with the State-Federal Sage-Grouse Task Force to identify opportunities for greater collaboration, to better align Federal and State plans for the GRSG, to support local economies and jobs, and consider new and innovative ways to conserve GRSG in the long-term. Pursuant to the Secretarial Order, in August 2017, the Review Team submitted a report to the Secretary summarizing their review and providing recommendations regarding next steps.

The Review Team's report identified a number of potential actions to enhance the coordination and integration of state and Federal GRSG conservation efforts.

Success will be measured and evaluated in terms of improved working relationships among local, state, tribal, and Federal units of Government and in terms of improved partner and stakeholder understanding of effective GRSG conservation measures and of the science underlying them.

The BLM anticipates that some of the actions outlined in the Review Team's report to the Secretary could be implemented in the near future through changes in policy (through issuance of IMs, for example), technical assistance, or training. Other actions may require amending the land use plans. On October 11, 2017, the Department of the Interior, through BLM, initiated a public scoping process for RMP amendment(s) with associated NEPA documents. The comments may be submitted until November 27, 2017. Depending on the scope and significance, such amendments could take upwards of 9 months to 3 years to complete.

The BLM's land use planning regulations and policies are outlined in 43 CFR subparts 1601 and 1610, Resource Management Planning; BLM Manual Section 1601; and BLM Handbook 1601-1. The BLM's policies for complying with NEPA are outlined in BLM Handbook 1790-1 and the Interior NEPA implementing regulations are at 43 CFR part 46. Taken together, these regulations, manuals, and handbooks establish the policies and procedures BLM follows when conducting land use planning and NEPA compliance, including specific actions related to energy and mineral development.

Pursuant to the Secretarial Memorandum of March 27, 2017, entitled “Improving the Bureau of Land Management's Planning and National Environmental Policy Act Processes,” the BLM is identifying potential actions it could take to streamline its planning and NEPA review procedures. As part of this identification process, BLM is working with state and local elected officials and groups, including the Western Governors' Association and the National Association of Counties, to engage and gather input. The BLM also has invited tribes and the public to provide input on how the Agency can make its planning and NEPA review procedures timelier, less costly, and more responsive to local needs. Pursuant to the Secretarial Memorandum, in September 2017, BLM will submit a report to the Secretary outlining recommended actions.

Once implemented, the actions recommended in the report should reduce the time and/or cost of complying with BLM's statutory direction to conduct land use planning under section 202 of FLPMA and complying with NEPA when evaluating proposed actions. These recommendations also should lead to more-standardized analyses in BLM's NEPA reviews at the land use plan and project level.

The reduction in burden will be measured and evaluated in terms of processing times and/or costs of authorizing energy development.

Some of the actions outlined in BLM's report to the Secretary will be actions that BLM will be able to implement in the near future, such as improvements to business processes, or updates to internal manuals or handbooks. Other actions would require changes in statute or regulation (such as new Categorical Exclusions), may depend on other agencies to act, or may require front-end investments in data or information technology.

On March 29, 2017, Secretary Zinke issued Secretarial Order 3348 to lift the Federal coal moratorium imposed by previous Secretarial Order 3338. This Order conformed to the directive in EO13783 requiring the Secretary to lift the moratorium and commence Federal coal leasing activities consistent with all applicable laws and regulations.

The BLM is working to process coal lease applications and modifications “expeditiously” in accordance with regulations and guidance that existed before Secretarial Order 3338. The BLM also ceased activities associated with preparation of the Federal Coal Program Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS).

Consistent with EO13783 and Secretarial Order 3348, the BLM is reviewing its policies, with the intent to update or rescind them.

The BLM land use planning process ensures that public lands are managed in accordance with the intent of Congress as stated in FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The BLM's Resource Management Plans (RMPs) are the basis for every on-the-ground action the BLM undertakes, which includes determinations on lands suitable for future energy leasing and permitting opportunities. The BLM uses land use designations as a part of the land use planning process to guide the management of certain geographic areas towards particular objectives, values or uses.

While some land use designations are made by Congressional, Secretarial, or Presidential action (and therefore require specific land management principles), the BLM has used broad discretion in establishing other formal and less-formal land use designations to set additional management criteria for public lands. In some cases, these criteria may conflict with other multiple use objectives for the land—such as energy development—and therefore have the potential to burden domestic energy development on public lands by reducing access to leasable acreage.

At the time of this report, BLM identified over 60 different land use designations used in RMPs, many of which may lead to additional restrictions on the use of the land. One example is the Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) designation, which is authorized by Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The Eastern Interior RMP, finalized on January 3, 2017, designated over 2 million acres of ACEC—much of which was recommended for closure to mineral entry and mineral leasing in order to best meet the objectives of the ACEC. The chart included below provides a visual reference for the increased use of this land use designation especially in more recent RMPs.

The BLM will further evaluate the need for these numerous land use designations as a part of the ongoing review of their planning process. The BLM will also work with state, local, and tribal partners to incorporate efficiencies and update policies on the use of land use designations that may burden or hinder energy development on Federal lands.

Aside from providing for leasing with standard lease terms in the land use planning process, BLM may apply lease stipulations to a specific unit at the planning stage. Stipulations set additional criteria to which an operator must adhere once the acreage is leased. Stipulations include no surface occupancy restrictions (NSO), which close acreage to surface-disturbing activities, timing restrictions (TL), which close acreage to surface-disturbing activities during certain timeframes, and other controlled surface use (CSU) restrictions, which include more specific restrictions such as sound and visual impacts or construction requirements. In some cases, these stipulations may have an impact on the attractiveness of the lease sale parcel in the bidding process.

The BLM may also assign Conditions of Approval (COA) at the permitting stage when an operator first applies for an Application for Permit to Drill (APD). Once an APD is filed, the BLM will send an onsite inspection team to determine the best location for the well, road, and facilities; identify site-specific concerns and potential environmental impacts associated with the proposal and potential options for mitigating these impacts, including COAs. Site-specific concerns include, but are not limited to: Well spacing; riparian and wetland areas; visual resource management such as painting infrastructure specific colors; and cultural and wildlife survey needs to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Lease stipulations and additional conditions of approval added at the permitting stage burden energy development on public lands by adding additional development costs; increasing the complexity of the drilling operations; and extending project timeframes. The 2008 Energy Policy and Conservation Act Phase III study found that of the 128 Federal land use plans surveyed for inventory, approximately 3,125 individual stipulations and 157 types of COAs were being used.1 The BLM does not have updated figures at the time of this report.

Current BLM regulations allow any party to file a protest on a BLM decision, such as a protest on a land use plan or on a subsequent decision to include a parcel in an oil and gas lease sale. This process provides multiple opportunities to protest every step of the process of offering public lands for oil and gas leasing. To date, many state offices, such as CO, MT, NM, UT, and WY are receiving protests on every oil and gas parcel offered through the Notice of Competitive Lease Sale process.

In the past, protests were parcel-specific on issues unique to the parcel in question. In recent years, the reasons for protesting every parcel in the sale are broad-based and non-parcel specific, such as general concerns on climate change or hydraulic fracturing. In FY 2016, 72 percent of parcels offered for lease were protested. By comparison, in FY 2012, only 17 percent of parcels received protests. The number of parcels offered on the original sale notice decreased from 2,247 in FY 2012 to 820 in FY 2016.

If a protest is still pending on the day of sale, the parcel can still be offered during the sale but the protest must be resolved prior to the lease being issued and the protest may diminish interest in bidding. This in turn can delay payment of the State's share of the bonus bids—which occurred most recently in the State of New Mexico. In September 2016, BLM hosted a record-setting lease sale generating $145 million in revenue, of which $80 million was owed to the state Mineral Leasing Act revenue sharing provision. As a result of the number of protested parcels and the length of time it took to resolve all protests, the payment to the State of New Mexico was delayed approximately 250 days.

This uptick in the protest process and the inability to reach conclusive resolutions in a timely manner is a burden on oil and natural gas development on public lands. A regulatory change may be necessary to limit redundant protests that hinder orderly development. Alternatively, the BLM is investigating the value in creating regional leasing teams that could build sufficient capacity to offer parcels during the BLM's quarterly lease sales.

The BLM anticipates revising energy-related collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (e.g., Approval of Operations (1004-0213) and Application for Permit to Drill (1014-0025)) to reduce administrative burden on energy development and use through simplification of forms and associated instructions/guidance and ceasing collection of information that is unnecessary or lacks practical utility.

The BOEM is responsible for managing development of the Nation's offshore energy and mineral resources through offshore leasing, resource evaluation, review, and administration of oil and gas exploration and development plans, renewable energy development, economic analysis, NEPA analysis, and environmental studies. The BOEM promotes energy security, environmental protection and economic development through responsible, science-informed management of offshore conventional and renewable energy and mineral resources. The BOEM carries out these responsibilities while ensuring the receipt of fair market value for U.S. taxpayers on OCS leases, and balancing the energy demands and mineral needs of the Nation with the protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments.

Since the publication of EO13771 on January 30, 2017, BOEM has been reviewing all aspects of its programs to identify regulations and guidance documents that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law.

Below are specific actions BOEM is undertaking to reduce burdens on the production of energy offshore in the America-First Offshore Energy Strategy, as delineated in EO13795 and S.O. 3350:

The BOEM has been re-examining the provisions of the air quality proposed rule published on April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19718), which would provide the first substantive updates to the regulation since 1980. The proposed rule addressed air quality measurement, evaluation, and control with respect to oil, gas, and sulphur operations on the OCS of the United States in the central and western Gulf of Mexico and the area offshore the North Slope Borough in Alaska. Interior is currently reviewing recommendations on how to proceed, including promulgating final rules for certain necessary provisions and issuing a new proposed rule that may withdraw certain provisions and seek additional input on others.

Notice to Lessees No. 2016-N01, for which implementation has been suspended, would make substantial changes to BOEM's requirements for companies to provide financial assurance to meet decommissioning obligations. The BOEM has been undertaking a thorough review of the NTL, including gathering stakeholder input.

On July 15, 2016, BOEM and the BSEE promulgated a final rule, “Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf—Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf” (81 FR 46478). Interior is reviewing the requirements for exploratory drilling conducted from mobile drilling units within the Arctic OCS (Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas). Interior is considering full rescission or revision of this rule, including associated information collection requirements. Review of this rule is expected to allow greater utilization of the Arctic drilling season.

Secretary Zinke directed development of a new 5-year OCS oil and gas leasing program to spur safe and responsible energy development offshore. On July 3, 2017, BOEM published a request for information and comments on the preparation of a new 5-year National OCS Leasing Program for 2019-2024 (82 FR 30886). Upon its completion, the new program will replace the 2017-2022 program.

Secretarial Order 3350 directly implements EO13795, and also advances Interior's implementation of EO13783 by providing for the reevaluation of actions that impact exploration, leasing, and development of our OCS energy resources. This Secretarial Order enhances opportunities for energy exploration, leasing, and development on the OCS by establishing regulatory certainty for OCS activities. In accordance with this Secretarial Order, Interior is reviewing potential regulatory changes to reduce burden on offshore energy production, development, and use.

In addition, on July 13, Secretary Zinke offered 75.9 million acres offshore Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida for oil and gas exploration and development. The region-wide lease sale conducted on August 16, 2017, was the first offshore sale under the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2017-2022. Under this program, 10 region-wide lease sales are scheduled for the Gulf, where resource potential and industry interest are high, and oil and gas infrastructure is well established. Two Gulf lease sales will be held each year and include all available blocks in the combined Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas.

Currently BOEM is one of two Federal agencies required to take separate regulatory actions in order to permit geological and geophysical surveying on the OCS. These seismic surveys, which are conducted by applicants, enable BOEM to make informed business decisions regarding oil and gas reserves, engineering decisions regarding the construction of renewable energy projects, and informed estimates regarding the composition and volume of marine mineral resources. This information is also used to ensure the proper use and conservation of OCS energy resources and the receipt of fair market value for the leasing of public lands.

The ongoing delay in reaching decisions on Federal authorization of seismic surveys is a burden that hinders domestic energy development by preventing industry from being able to better determine the size and location of potential energy resources below the seafloor. The BOEM experts believe that these surveys can be authorized with appropriate mitigation measures consistent with the protection required by applicable Federal laws, primarily the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). While BOEM is responsible for ultimately issuing a permit to allow these activities to move forward, no seismic surveying can be done without MMPA authorization by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). For this reason, the issuance of certain seismic permits by BOEM has been held up in a years-long process awaiting NMFS authorization. BOEM and NMFS are currently working on ways to streamline review, as directed in EO 13795, Sec. 3(c).

The Department believes that some improvements can be made through simple program initiatives, such as NMFS assigning dedicated staff to the permits or allowing BOEM to determine MMPA compliance for the purposes of BOEM-related activities in accordance with EO 13807. Finding a genuinely effective solution may warrant statutory changes as well as reorganizing departmental responsibilities within the Executive Branch in order to streamline opportunities to increase efficiency.

The BOEM is reviewing four energy-related information collections, two of which are related to the Arctic Rule, and two of which collect information that is no longer needed.

The BSEE ensures the safe and responsible exploration, development, and production of America's offshore energy resources through regulatory oversight and enforcement. The BSEE is focused on fostering secure and reliable energy production for America's future through a program of efficient permitting, appropriate regulations, compliance monitoring and enforcement, technical assessments, inspections, and incident investigations. As a steward of the Nation's OCS oil, gas, and mineral resources, the Bureau protects Federal royalty interests by ensuring that oil and gas production methods maximize recovery from underground reservoirs.

The BSEE continues the efforts begun earlier this calendar year to review and seek stakeholder input on opportunities to reduce burden on the regulated community while maintaining necessary safety and environmental protections. Specifically, the BSEE is focusing its review on 2 final rules, published in 2016, regarding safety and environmental protection for oil and gas exploration, development and production activities on the OCS. The first is the Well Control and Blowout Preventer (BOP) Rule (81 FR 25888); the second is the Arctic Exploratory Drilling Rule (the Arctic Rule) (81 FR 46478), which was issued jointly by BSEE and BOEM. Both rules (as described below) revised older regulations and added some new requirements that potentially burden development of domestic offshore oil and gas production. The BSEE continues to identify specific issues in both final rules that, if revised or eliminated through a future rulemaking process, could alleviate those burdens without reducing the safety or environmental protections of the rules. The BSEE is beginning the process of drafting timelines and developing stakeholder engagement strategies for potential revision to both sets of regulations. These rules fit into the category of “Other Actions that Potentially Burden Development or Use of Energy.” The BSEE has also identified policies that should be re-examined. Those are:

• review decommissioning infrastructure removal requirements and timelines for infrastructure;

• clarify Civil Penalties Guidance; and

• review current policies associated with taking enforcement actions against contractors.

The BSEE already completed publication of a final rule revising requirements of 30 CFR 250.180 to extend the period of time before a lease expires due to cessation of operations from 180 days to 1 year, thus allowing operators greater flexibility to plan exploration activities.2 The BSEE also improved its civil penalty program through the creation of a Civil Penalty Enforcement Specialist in each district in the Gulf of Mexico Region to serve as a liaison with District and Headquarters throughout a civil penalty case, providing clarity and consistency among civil penalty cases.

The BSEE is also reviewing the Production Safety Systems Rule (30 CFR part 250, subpart H), based on Department guidance received between April and May of 2017. If areas for revision are identified, the BSEE would tier it behind the Well Control Rule (WCR) and the Arctic Rule in terms of potential burden reduction.

Below are the specific details of BSEE's review to identify additional regulations and policies that potentially burden development or use of energy.

The WCR was issued on April 29, 2016, and consolidated new equipment and operational requirements for well control, including drilling, completion, workover, and decommissioning operations. The rule also incorporated or updated references to numerous industry standards and established new requirements reflecting advances in areas such as well design and control, casing and cementing, real-time monitoring (RTM), subsea containment of leaks and discharges, and blowout preventer requirements. In addition, the final rule adopted several reforms recommended by several bodies that investigated the Deepwater Horizon incident.

The BSEE is considering several revisions to its regulations. Among those considerations is a rulemaking to revise the following aspects of the new well control regulations, including but not limited to:

• revising the requirements for sufficient accumulator capacity and remotely-operated vehicle (ROV) capability to both open and close reams on subsea BOPs (i.e., to only require capability to close the rams);

• revising the requirement to shut in platforms when a lift boat approaches within 500 feet;

• extending the 14-day interval between pressure testing of BOP systems to 21 days in some situations;

• clarifying that the requirement for weekly testing of two BOP control stations means testing one station (not both stations) per week;

• simplifying testing pressures for verification of ram closure; and

• revising or deleting the requirement to submit test results to BSEE District Managers within 72 hours.

These changes are expected to strike the appropriate balance in order to maintain important safety and environmental protections while also ensuring development may continue.

The BSEE initiated review of potential regulatory changes to this rule in July 2017. The interim step before issuing a proposed rule to revise existing regulations is to seek input on potential areas of reform from the stakeholders. The BSEE is in the process of determining the most effective way to engage stakeholders to provide meaningful and constructive input on regulatory reform efforts related to well control. As a result of stakeholder outreach, the above list of potential reforms may be increased.

The Arctic Rule was published on July 15, 2016 (81 FR 46478), and revised existing regulations and added new prescriptive and performance-based requirements for exploratory drilling conducted from mobile drilling units and related operations on the OCS within the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas (Arctic OCS). After conducting its review to eliminate burdens and increase economic opportunities, BSEE is considering a several revisions to the rule, including but not limited to:

• modifying requirement to capture water-based muds and cuttings;

• eliminating the requirement for a cap and flow system and containment dome that are capable of being located at the well site within 7 days of loss of well control;

• eliminating the reference to the expected return of sea ice from the requirement to be able to drill a relief well within 45 days of loss of well control; and

• eliminating the reference to equivalent technology from the mudline cellar requirement.

The BOEM has also identified an opportunity to reduce burden on operators. A joint rulemaking would likely be undertaken again.

Among the potential benefits of the items listed above is the possibility of allowing greater flexibility for operators to continue drilling into hydrocarbon zones later into the Arctic drilling season. Current leasing strategies in the Arctic constrain future exploratory activities to which this rule would apply.

Success will result in a reduction in burdens associated with exploration of the Nation's Arctic oil and gas reserves while also providing appropriate safety and environmental protection tailored to this unique environment.

Prior to proposing a rulemaking to make the changes above, BSEE and BOEM plan to undertake stakeholder engagement activities. As a result of stakeholder engagement, the list of potential areas for proposed reform may change or grow. This process will enhance our ability to engage the public and stakeholders, as well as ensure our ability to engage in a robust consultation with tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations. Stakeholder engagement will have the added benefit of allowing BSEE and BOEM to receive input on how the agencies calculate the primary lease term in order to provide a more tailored approach to the limited drilling windows in the Arctic.

The BSEE will re-examine the NTL 2010-G05, “Decommissioning Guidance for Wells and Platforms,” to determine whether additional flexibility should be provided to better account for facility and well numbers and size, as well as timing consideration that can arise in the case of financial distress or bankruptcy of companies. Any changes to the NTL will not have an impact on companies' underlying decommissioning obligations, but could provide more flexibility to allow for cash-flow management and ultimately increase assurance that decommissioning obligations can be fulfilled without government expense.

This action was completed on June 9, 2017, when final rule 1014-AA35, “Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Lease Continuation Through Operations,” was published in the Federal Register (82 FR 26741). Section 121 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 mandated that BSEE revise the requirements of 30 CFR 250.180 relating to maintaining a lease beyond its primary term through continuous operations. The final rule changed all of the references to the period of time before which a lease expires due to cessation of operations from “180 days” and “180th day” to a “year” and from “180-day period” to a “1-year period.” The rule has become effective and is allowing operators greater flexibility to plan exploration activities.

The BSEE currently has a policy that calls for issuing notices of noncompliance (INCs) to contractors as well as operators in certain instances. The BSEE will examine whether this policy is achieving the desired deterrence value or whether an alternative compliance incentive should be considered and the policy revised. There are currently several ongoing court actions that could result in adjustments to this policy. The BSEE will consider all of this information while examining the policy.

Since 2013, the BSEE civil penalty program has continued to improve its processes and programs. For example, in 2016, each of the Districts in the Gulf of Mexico Region (GOMR) created the position of Civil Penalty Enforcement Specialist to assist with the review of all INCs to determine which INCs are appropriate for civil penalty assessment, and to act as a liaison with the District and Headquarters (HQ) throughout a civil penalty case. This effort has greatly assisted in proving clarity and consistency to the development of civil penalty cases.

The BSEE has approximately 25 information collections associated with our regulations and guidance that must be renewed every 3 years on a rolling basis. The renewal process involves an analysis of whether each information collection continues to be necessary and if whether it requires modification. Through this process, BSEE continuously reviews our forms and the information we collect and reduces the collection burden wherever appropriate. Additionally, there may be further burden reduction associated with potential revisions to the Well Control and Arctic rules once final determinations have been made with respect to specific action on those regulations.

The ONRR is responsible for ensuring revenue from Federal and Indian mineral leases is effectively, efficiently, and accurately collected, accounted for, analyzed, audited, and disbursed to recipients. The ONRR collects an average of over $10 billion annual revenue from onshore and offshore energy production, one of the Federal government's largest sources of non-tax revenue.

In an effort to ensure the public continues to receive the full value of natural resources produced on Federal lands, Secretary Zinke signed a charter establishing a Royalty Policy Committee (RPC) to provide regular advice to the Secretary on the fair market value of and collection of revenues from Federal and Indian mineral and energy leases, including renewable energy sources. The RPC may also advise on the potential impacts of proposed policies and regulations related to revenue collection from such development, including whether a need exists for regulatory reform. The group consists of 28 local, tribal, state, and other stakeholders and will serve in an advisory nature. The Secretary's Counselor to the Secretary for Energy Policy chairs the RPC. The first meeting will be held on October 4, 2017.

On April 4, 2017, ONRR published a proposed rule that would rescind the 2017 Valuation Rule. The ONRR, after considering public feedback, recognized that implementing the 2017 Valuation Rule would be contrary to the rule's stated purpose of offering greater simplicity, certainty, clarity, and consistency in product valuation. The ONRR determined that the 2017 Valuation Rule unnecessarily burdened the development of Federal and Indian coal beyond what was necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law. ONRR therefore repealed the rule in its entirety and reinstated the valuation regulations in effect prior that rule. (82 FR 36934, August 7, 2017).

The OSMRE ensures, through a nationwide regulatory program, that coal mining is conducted in a manner that protects communities and the environment during mining, restores the land to beneficial use following mining, and mitigates the effects of past mining by aggressively pursuing reclamation of abandoned mine lands. The OSMRE's statutory role is to promote and assist its partner states and tribes in establishing a stable regulatory environment for coal mining. The proposed level of regulatory grant funding provides for the efficient and effective operations of programs at a level consistent with the anticipated obligations of State and tribal regulatory programs to account for the Nation's demand for coal mine permitting and production.

On February 16, 2017, President Trump signed a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to annul the Stream Protection Rule (SPR) (81 FR 93066, December 20, 2016). This rule imposed substantial burdens on the coal industry and threatened jobs in communities dependent on coal. As described below, OSMRE has drafted a Federal Register document to conform the Code of Federal Regulations to the legislation and return the regulations to their previous status and anticipates publication on or about September 30, 2017. In the interim, OSMRE has ensured that the SPR is not being implemented in any way and that regulation is occurring under the pre-existing regulatory system.

The OSMRE is reviewing additional actions to reduce burdens on coal development, including, for example, reviewing the state program amendment process to reduce the time it takes to formally amend an approved Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) regulatory program.

In compiling the following list of actions for review, OSMRE considered direct and indirect impacts to the coal industry, as well as impacts to the states with primary responsibility for regulating coal mining activities, pursuant to the SMCRA.

The SPR was published on December 20, 2016, and became effective on January 19, 2017. In accordance with the Congressional Review Act, Congress passed, and the President signed, a resolution of disapproval of the SPR on February 16, 2017, as Public Law 115-5. No provisions of the SPR have been enforced since passage of the resolution. In addition, OSMRE will formally document the CRA nullification of the SPR by publishing in the Federal Register a document that replaces the SPR text with the regulations that were in place prior to January 19, 2017. This will result in the removal of any amendments, deletions, or other modifications associated with the nullified rule, and the reversion to the text of all regulations in effect immediately prior to the effective date of the SPR.

The OSMRE estimates the elimination of this rule will save industry approximately $82 million annually, and will reduce the amount of time states and OSMRE are expending in the processing of permit applications and monitoring performance during the life of the operation.

Under revisions to OSMRE Directive REG-8, which establishes policies, procedures and responsibilities for conducting oversight of state and tribal regulatory programs, OSMRE conducts 10 percent of all routine oversight inspections with 24 hours' notice to the state regulatory authority. If the state inspector is unavailable to accompany the OSMRE inspector, OSMRE will conduct the inspection alone. These and other oversight inspections sometimes result in the issuance of Ten-Day Notices (TDNs) to the state regulatory authority under Inspection and Enforcement (INE)-35. In addition, INE-24, issued on May 26, 1987, requires OSMRE to issue a TDN to state regulatory authorities upon receipt of a citizen's complaint.

Between 2011 and 2016, 882 TDNs were issued to state regulatory programs. On an annual basis, the majority (39 or 74 percent) of those resulted from citizen's complaints. In addition, an evaluation of data during 2013 found that the number of TDNs issued when the state inspector does not participate was determined to be 6.4 percent of the total oversight inspections, versus 1.5 percent when the state inspector accompanied the OSMRE inspector. State regulatory authorities, particularly in the Appalachian Region, have expressed concern that the number of hours required to prepare TDN responses can be significant.

In an effort to address these concerns, a joint OSMRE and State/Tribal Work Group assessed various topics, including the use of TDNs and independent inspections. In a report issued on July 30, 2014, the Work Group made six specific recommendations for the TDN process and four recommendations regarding the independent inspection process. Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) member states have requested OSMRE revisit these recommendations, and others, in an effort to implement the recommendations. In addition, OSMRE will revisit and revise, as needed, the specific policy directives governing the use of TDNs and independent inspections in cooperation with the IMCC to reduce the amount of time states and OSMRE are expending to process TDNs.

The review will commence this calendar year, following specific timelines and benchmarks to be established jointly with IMCC.

On November 15, 2010, the OSMRE Director issued a memorandum directing OSMRE staff to apply the TDN process and Federal enforcement to permitting issues under approved regulatory programs. In support of this memorandum, on January 31, 2011, the Director reissued Directive INE-35, regarding policy and procedures for the issuance of TDNs. This directive requires the issuance of a TDN whenever a permit issued by the state regulatory authority (RA) contains a “permit defect,” which the directive defines as meaning “a type of violation consisting of any procedural or substantive deficiency in a permit-related action taken by the RA (including permit issuance, permit revision, permit renewal, or transfer, assignment, or sale of permit rights).” The directive further states that OSMRE will not review pending permitting decisions and will not issue a TDN for an alleged violation involving a possible permit defect where the RA has not taken the relevant permitting action (e.g., permit issuance, permit revision, permit renewal, or transfer, assignment, or sale of permit rights).

Since the issuance of this policy and associated directive, concerns have been raised by some states and industry stakeholders regarding the potential impact on mining operations where the RA has issued a permit, revision, or renewal, and the operator has commenced activities based upon RA approval. The OSMRE in cooperation with the IMCC will revisit the policy and directive and revise or rescind, as appropriate to provide more certainty to the industry in the state RA permitting process.

The review will commence this calendar year; specific timelines and benchmarks will be established jointly with IMCC.

Directive STP-1, issued in October 2008, establishes policy and procedures for review and processing of amendments to state regulatory programs. Most changes in state law or regulations that impact an approved SMCRA regulatory program require submission of a formal program amendment to OSMRE for approval. Such changes to primacy programs cannot be implemented until a final amendment is approved by OSMRE. In addition, written concurrence must be received from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to those aspects of a state/tribal program amendment which relates to air or water quality standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act prior to OSMRE approval. In accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(h)(13), OSMRE must complete a final action on program amendments within 7 months of receipt. Often, due to the complexities of the process and other issues, including influences outside of OSMRE, it is difficult for OSMRE to meet the required processing times.

The result is that state regulatory authorities are occasionally unable to move forward in a timely manner with needed program amendments.

Based upon the results of an internal control review (ICR) and work with the state/tribal work group, OSMRE is developing new training guides and opportunities for states and revising Directive STP-1 to improve the state program amendment process. The OSMRE will also review the process with the Office of the Solicitor to evaluate opportunities for process improvement. In addition, the recent approval by OMB of the information collection requirements of 30 CFR part 732 was conditioned upon OSMRE developing new guidance and supporting documents for states to use when preparing amendments to approved programs. The OSMRE intends for these actions to reduce its processing time for state program amendments.

The revision of Directive STP-1 and development of training guides is anticipated to be completed this calendar year. OSMRE will track processing times once the revised directive and training have been implemented, and compare results to previous years. The OMB approval of new guidance for Part 732 is required by July 31, 2020.

On August 5, 2016, the OSMRE Director issued a policy advisory on self-bonding. The advisory was in direct response to three of the largest coal mine operators in the nation filing for Chapter 11 protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code between 2015 and 2016. Those companies held approximately $2.5 billion of unsecured or non-collateralized self-bonds that various states with federally-approved SMCRA regulatory programs previously accepted to guarantee reclamation of land disturbed by coal mining. The advisory stated that “the bankruptcy filings confirm the existence of significant issues about the future financial abilities of coal companies and how they will meet future reclamation obligations.” While recognizing the action of certain state programs to address self-bonding issues, the advisory went on to say that “each regulatory authority should exercise its discretion and not accept new or additional self-bonds for any permit until coal production and consumption market conditions reach equilibrium, events which are not likely to occur until at least 2021.” Since the issuance of this advisory, all three companies of concern have completed their plans for Chapter 11 reorganization, and either have or are expected to replace all self-bonds with other forms of financial guarantees.

In addition to the issuance of the policy advisory on self-bonding, OSMRE accepted a petition for rulemaking submitted March 3, 2016, by WildEarth Guardians. The petition requested that OSMRE revise its self-bonding regulations to ensure that companies with a history of insolvency, and their subsidiary companies, not be allowed to self-bond coal mining operations.

Limiting the use of self-bonds, as indicated in the policy advisory or potentially through a rulemaking, could impact a company's ability to continue mining. In addition, there will likely be an increased demand and potential negative impact on the availability of third party surety bonding.

On January 17, 2017, the GAO announced that it will conduct an audit of financial assurances for reclaiming coal mines (Job Code 101326) that will focus on the role of OSMRE in implementing and overseeing the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's requirements related to financial assurances.

In view of the current status of the self-bonding bankruptcies and recent executive orders concerning rulemakings, OSMRE will reconsider the scope of the policy advisory and revise or rescind, as appropriate. In addition, OSMRE will revisit the need for and scope of any potential rulemaking in response to the previously accepted petition. Furthermore, OSMRE will carefully consider the report and recommendations of the pending GAO audit of financial assurances currently underway. The OSMRE will solicit public input prior to finalizing any decision on the need for further rulemaking.

The OSMRE will continue to monitor the status of self-bonding issues in state programs in cooperation with the IMCC and other stakeholders (sureties, industry, and environmental groups).

On July 27, 2016, the OSMRE Director issued a policy memo to staff providing direction on the enforcement of the existing regulations related to violations of the CWA caused by SMCRA-permitted operations and related issues, such as responses to self-reported violations of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) limits and OSMRE responses to Notices of Intent (NOI) to sue alleging CWA violations at SMCRA-permitted operations. The policy memo specifically required an NOI to be processed as a citizen complaint, which requires OSMRE to issue a TDN to the state RA upon receipt of the NOI. In addition, the memo stated that a violation of water quality standards is also a violation of SMCRA regulations.

State regulatory authorities, as well as industry, have raised issues with this guidance document expressing concern with overlap and potential conflicts between section 702(a)(3) 3 of SMCRA and the CWA. In addition, state RAs have raised concerns about new TDNs and related enforcement actions that have been issued in response to this policy guidance. The relationship between the CWA and SMCRA and the role of the state RAs in ensuring compliance in accordance with their approved SMCRA regulatory programs have been longstanding issues. Resolution will bring certainty to the state regulatory programs as well as for the industry.

The OSMRE will revisit the policy issues and concerns in cooperation with the IMCC and will revise or rescind the memorandum, as appropriate. Review of the policy with IMCC member states will commence this calendar year; the revised or rescinded policy should be complete by the end of this calendar year. The OSMRE will consider seeking public input prior to finalizing the policy.

On July 22, 1994, then-Director Robert Uram issued a memorandum outlining the conditions under which OSMRE would waive the assessment of reclamation fees on the removal of refuse or coal waste material for use as a waste fuel in a cogeneration facility. Recently, the Pennsylvania regulatory authority (PADEP) requested that OSMRE update this policy as outlined below to incentivize reclamation efforts on sites with coal refuse reprocessing activities.

The PADEP believes that the reclamation fees deter operators from reclamation efforts on sites with coal refuse reprocessing activities. Coal refuse sites located within the Anthracite Coal Region are unable or have ceased the removal of coal refuse to be used as waste fuel at co-generation facilities. This is partly or totally due to the assessment of reclamation fees on coal refuse used as waste fuel. In addition, PADEP recommended that OSMRE consider waste derived from filter presses at existing coal preparation plants to be a “no value” 4 product, which would encourage its use as a waste fuel rather than requiring it to be disposed in a coal refuse pile.

The OSMRE will revisit the 1994 Uram Memo, with the goal of providing an incentive for use of coal refuse as a coal waste fuel. In addition, OSMRE will revisit the remining incentives provided by the 2006 amendments to SMCRA at section 415, some of which apply specifically to removal or reprocessing of abandoned coal mine waste. Additional incentives pursuant to Section 415 will require promulgation of rules, and, therefore, input from the public will be solicited.

Providing additional incentives to industry to promote remining of coal refuse and other abandoned mine sites will provide for additional reclamation of abandoned mines that would not otherwise be accomplished through the Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) program. Specific benchmarks for measuring success, such as acres of additional reclamation performed, will be developed consistent with the implementation of the incentives.

The OSMRE reviewed the current industry costs associated with the Paperwork Reduction Act and did not find any information collections that “potentially burden 5 the development or utilization of domestically produced energy resources” in accordance EO13783. It should be noted that there will be no industry costs associated with information collection based on the Stream Protection Rule, due to the Congressional Review Act nullification of that final rule.

The FWS is reviewing its final rule, “Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights,” 81 FR 79948 (Nov. 14, 2016) to determine whether revision would be appropriate to reduce burden on energy.

Additionally, below is a list of burdens and opportunities to fulfill the intent of the Executive Order:

The approval process for new ROW access can be overly restrictive and excessively lengthy. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, requires all uses, including rights-of-way, of National Wildlife Refuges to be compatible with the mission of the System. The FWS will work with stakeholders in a more timely fashion to determine if proposed ROW uses are compatible. Additionally, FWS will revise its ROW regulation to streamline the current ROW granting process to significantly decrease the time to obtain ROW approval from the current 3-12 month time frame.

The MMPA prohibits take (i.e., harass, hunt, capture, or kill) of marine mammals (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) unless authorized by the Secretary. Existing measures in the MMPA incidental take regulations require: 1) maintaining a minimum spacing of 15 miles between all active seismic source vessels and/or drill rigs during exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea; 2) no more than two simultaneous seismic operations and three offshore exploratory drilling operations authorized in the Chukchi Sea region at any time; 3) time restrictions for transit through the Chukchi Sea; 4) time and vessel restrictions in the Hanna Shoal Walrus Use Area; 5) location of polar bear dens and 1-mile buffer; 6) maximum distance around Pacific walruses and polar bears on ice and groups of Pacific walruses in water; 7) sound producing mitigation zones & shut-down/ramp up procedures; 8) marine mammal observers and monitoring requirements; and 9) excessive reporting requirements.

The FWS has the opportunity to review the Chukchi Sea incidental take regulation which expires in 2018, and the regulation for the southern Beaufort Sea expires in 2021. They may either be allowed to expire or be revised and reissued.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce (delegated to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, respectively), to ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. However, the time and expense associated with satisfying the interagency consultation requirements are unnecessarily burdensome.

The FWS has discretion to create efficiencies and streamlining in the consultation process through targeted revision to regulations and/or guidance and is reviewing opportunities for further process improvements.

A number of groups, most prominently the Western Governors' Association, have worked to evaluate and develop recommendations to improve the application of the ESA. For example, the Western Governors' Association developed the Western Governors' Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act Initiative (Initiative), which conducts broad-based stakeholder discussions focused on issues such as identifying means of incentivizing voluntary conservation, elevating the role of states in species conservation, and improving the efficacy of the ESA. Interior intends to build on these efforts to improve the application of the ESA in a manner that ensures conservation stewardship, while reducing unneeded burdens on the public, including the energy industry.

Federal Courts of Appeals have split on whether the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) imposes criminal liability on companies and individuals for the inadvertent death of migratory birds resulting from industrial activities. Three circuits—the fifth, eighth, and ninth—have held that it does not, limiting taking liability to deliberate acts done directly and intentionally to migratory birds. Two circuits—the second and tenth—have held that it does. On January 10, 2017, the Office of the Solicitor issued an opinion regarding the issue, which was subsequently suspended pending further review of the opinion and the underlying regulations and decisions. This review is currently ongoing, and may serve as the basis for the development of new internal guidance or regulations that provide clarity to this longstanding issue.

The FWS intends to evaluate the merits of a general permit for incidental take under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Action Act (BGEPA). When the bald eagle was delisted under the ESA, FWS issued a rule establishing a permit program for incidental take under BGEPA. On December 16, 2016, FWS adopted a final rule intended to address some of industry's concerns regarding the BGEPA incidental take permit process (81 FR 91494). One measure strongly supported by industry, a general permit for activities that constitute a low risk of taking eagles, was not considered as part of this rulemaking process, though FWS did accept comments on the subject for consideration in a future rulemaking. The FWS is reviewing these comments to determine whether additional regulatory changes would be appropriate to reduce the burden on industry.

The BOR is the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, operating 53 hydroelectric power facilities, comprising 14,730 megawatts of capacity. Each year, BOR generates over 40 million megawatt-hours of electricity (the equivalent demand of approximately 3.5 million US homes),6 producing over one billion dollars in Federal revenue. In addition to our authorities to develop, operate, and maintain Federal hydropower facilities, BOR is also authorized to permit the use of our non-powered assets to non-Federal entities for the purposes of hydropower development via a lease of power privilege (LOPP).

The BOR is committed to facilitating the development of non-Federal hydropower at our existing Federal assets. Acting on this commitment, BOR has undertaken a number of activities, including:

Assessments identify technical hydropower potential at existing BOR facilities, irrespective of financial viability.

A BOR LOPP is a contractual right given to a non-Federal entity to use a BOR asset (e.g. dam or conduit) for electric power generation consistent with BOR project purposes.

The BOR has conducted LOPP outreach with stakeholder groups and hydropower industry associations; and made resources and staff available via a LOPP website: https://www.usbr.gov/power/LOPP/index.html. The BOR has also partnered with sister agencies (United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy) under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Hydropower to, in part, encourage and streamline non-Federal development on Federal infrastructure.

Through these activities, BOR has made resources available to developers and peeled back the barriers that may burden non-Federal hydropower development—while continuing to protect the Federal assets that our customers, operating partners, and stakeholders have depended on for over a century. The response BOR has received from these groups (including the development community) in this effort has been overwhelmingly positive. LOPP projects provide a source of reliable, domestic, and sustainable generation—that supports rural economies and the underlying Federal water resource project.

The BIA provides services to nearly 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives in 567 federally recognized tribes in the 48 contiguous States and Alaska. The BIA's natural resource programs assist tribes in the management, development, and protection of Indian trust land and natural resources on 56 million surface acres and 59 million subsurface mineral estates. These programs enable tribal trust landowners to optimize sustainable stewardship and use of resources, providing benefits such as revenue, jobs and the protection of cultural, spiritual, and traditional resources. Income from energy production is the largest source of revenue generated from trust lands, with royalty income of $534 million in 2016.

Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERAs) are authorized under Title V of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. A TERA is a means by which a tribe could be authorized to review, approve, and manage business agreements, leases, and rights-of-way pertaining to energy development on Indian trust lands, absent approval of each individual transaction by the Secretary. Interior promulgated TERA regulations in 2008 at 25 CFR part 224. The TERAs offer the opportunity to promote development of domestically produced energy resources on Indian land; however, 12 years after the passage of the Act and 9 years after the issuance of TERA regulations, not one tribe has sought Interior's approval for a TERA. One theory asserted by at least one tribe as to the failure of this legislation is the Act does not address precisely how much Federal oversight would disappear for tribes operating under TERAs. Specifically, Interior had not defined the term “inherently Federal functions” that Interior will retain following approval of a TERA. This term appears in Interior's regulations at 25 CFR 224.52(c) and 224.53(e)(2), but not in the Act. Without some assurance as to the benefits (in terms of less Federal oversight) a tribe would receive through clarification of “inherently Federal functions,” tribes have no incentive to undergo the intensive process of applying for a TERA. Clarification of this phrase would also address Recommendation 5 of GAO-15-502, Indian Energy Development: Poor Management by BIA Has Hindered Energy Development on Indian Lands (June 2015). The recommendation directed Interior to “provide additional energy development-specific guidance on provisions of TERA regulations that tribes have identified to Interior as unclear.”

The BIA has been working closely with the Office of the Solicitor to develop guidance on how Interior will interpret the term “inherently Federal functions.” It is expected that by providing this certainty as to the scope of Federal oversight, tribes will better be able to justify the process of applying for a TERA. The BIA expects to have the guidance finalized and available on its website by October 2017.

The BIA anticipates that the benefits of this action will be to promote the use of TERAs, which will both save tribes the time and resources necessary to seek and obtain Interior approval of each transaction related to energy development on Indian land, and will help ease Interior's workload by eliminating the need for Departmental review of each individual transaction.

The reduction in burden will be measured by the number of tribes that choose to obtain TERAs. Once each tribe obtains a TERA, Interior will work with the tribe to estimate savings in terms of time and resources.

Noting that the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska (NPR-A) is the largest block of federally managed land in the United States and offers economically recoverable oil and natural gas, the Secretary issued an order focusing on management of this area in a manner that appropriately balances promoting development and protecting surface resources. See Secretarial Order 3352, “National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska” (May 31, 2017). Currently, 11 million acres (or 48 percent) of the total 22.8 million acres in the NPR-A are closed to leasing under the current Integrated Activity Plan (IAP). The Secretarial Order requires review and revision of the IAP for management of the area and, within the existing plan, maximizing the tracts offered during the next lease sale.

Implemented properly, mitigation can be a beneficial tool for advancing the Administration's goals of American energy independence and security, while ensuring public resources are managed for the benefit and enjoyment of the public.

Interior seeks to establish consistent, effective and transparent mitigation principles and standards across all its Agencies. Interior and its bureaus and offices intends to develop consistent terminology, reduce redundancies, and simplify frameworks so that the Federal mitigation programs and stepped down programs are more predictable and consistent. Some mitigation is facilitated by goodwill and some is through our regulatory paradigm.

The Mitigation Manual Section and Handbook provide direction on the use of mitigation, including compensatory mitigation, to support BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mandates. The BLM is reviewing whether the 2016 Manual and Handbook replaced several IMs (IM Numbers 2005-069, 2008-204, and 2013-142) issued by BLM for the same purpose.

The BLM is considering revisions to the Manual and Handbook to provide greater predictability (internally and externally), ease conflicts, and may reduce permitting/authorizations times.

Measuring success would be largely quantitative. The BLM would continue to track impacts from land use authorizations and would also track the type and amount of compensatory mitigation implemented and its effectiveness, preferably in a centralized database.

The BLM is drafting an IM that provides interim direction regarding new and ongoing mitigation practices while the Manual and Handbook are being reviewed and revised. Use of the existing Manual and Handbook would continue, as modified and limited by this IM, until they are superseded.

Manual 6220 provides guidance for managing BLM National Conservation Lands designated by Congress or the President as National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, and similar designations (NM/NCA) in order to comply with the designating Acts of Congress and Presidential Proclamations, FLPMA, and the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (16 U.S.C. 7202). Manual 6220 requires that when processing a new ROW application, BLM will determine, to the greatest extent possible, through the NEPA process, the consistency of the ROW with the Monument or NCA's objects and values; consider routing or siting the ROW outside of the Monument or NCA; and consider mitigation of the impacts from the ROW. Land use plans must identify management actions, allowable uses, restrictions, management actions regarding any valid existing rights, and mitigation measures to ensure that the objects and values are protected. The manual requires that a land use plan for a Monument or NCA should consider closing the area to mineral leasing, mineral material sales, and vegetative sales, subject to valid existing rights, where that component's designating authority does not already do so.

A review of Manual 6220 to identify where clarity could be provided for mitigation, notification standards, and compatible uses, may potentially reduce or eliminate burdens. The BLM will review Manual 6220 following the proposed revisions to BLM Mitigation Manual Section (MS-1794) and Handbook (H-1794-1) to ensure that Manual 6220 conforms to the BLM's revised mitigation guidance.

Addressing any potential issues, along with providing consistency with BLM Mitigation Manual is expected to provide greater predictability (internally and externally), reduce conflicts, and may reduce permitting/authorizations times.

Success will be measured in BLM meeting legal obligations under the designating Act or Proclamation for each unit and the allowance of compatible multiple uses, consistent with applicable provisions in the designating Act or Proclamation.

Secretarial Order 3349 also revoked a prior order regarding mitigation and directed bureaus to examine all existing policies and other documents related to mitigation and climate change. (See Secretarial Order 3330 “Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of the Interior.”) Actions Interior is taking to implement this direction include:

Manual 6400 provides guidance for managing eligible and suitable wild and scenic rivers and designated wild and scenic rivers in order to fulfill requirements found in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA). Subject to valid existing rights, the Manual states that minerals in any Federal lands that constitute the bed or bank or are situated within 1/4 mile of the bank of any river listed under section 5(a) are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws, for the time periods specified in section 7(b) of the WSRA. The Manual allows new leases, licenses, and permits under mineral leasing laws be made, but requires that consideration be given to applying conditions necessary to protect the values of the river corridor. For wild river segments, the Manual requires that new contracts for the disposal of saleable mineral material, or the extension or renewal of existing contracts, should be avoided to the greatest extent possible to protect river values.

Manual 6400 will be reviewed following the proposed revisions to BLM Mitigation Manual Section and Handbook to ensure that it conforms to BLM revised mitigation guidance. Although the requirements for minerals and mineral withdrawals are legally mandated under the mining and mineral leasing laws in sections 9(a) and 15(2) of the WSRA, Manual 6400 will be reviewed for opportunities to clarify discretionary decision-space.

Ensuring consistency with the BLM Mitigation Manual will foster greater predictability (internally and externally), reduce conflicts, and may reduce permitting/authorizations times.

Success will be measured in terms of complying with the WSRA and identifying and allowing compatible multiple uses.

Manual 6280 provides guidance for managing trails under study, trails recommended as suitable, and congressionally designated National Scenic and Historic Trails to fulfill the requirements of the National Trails System Act (NTSA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Manual 6280 identifies mitigation as one way to address substantial interference with the natural and purposes for which a National Trail is designated.

Manual 6280 will be reviewed following the proposed revisions to the BLM Mitigation Manual Section and Handbook to ensure it conforms to the BLM revised mitigation guidance. Although many of the requirements are legally mandated under the National Trails System Act, Manual 6280 will be reviewed for opportunities to clarify any discretionary decision-space to reduce or eliminate burdens.

Addressing any potential issues, along with providing consistency with the BLM Mitigation Manual is expected to provide greater predictability (internally and externally), reduce conflicts, and may reduce permitting/authorizations time.

Success will be measured in terms of complying with the NTSA and identifying and allowing compatible multiple uses.

The FWS has the authority to recommend, but not require, mitigation for impacts to migratory bird habitat under several Federal authorities. Pursuant to a Memoranda of Understanding with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), implementing EO13186 (January 10, 2001), FWS evaluates the impacts of FERC-licensed interstate pipelines to migratory bird habitat.

The FWS is developing Service-wide guidance to ensure the bureau is consistent, fair and objective, appropriately characterizes the voluntary nature of compensatory mitigation for impacts to migratory bird habitat, and demonstrates a reasonable nexus between anticipated impacts and recommended mitigation. The FWS anticipates it will take 3 months to finalize the guidance.

Guidance will result in timely and practicable licensing decisions, while providing for the conservation of migratory Birds of Conservation Concern.

Success will be measured by timely issuance of licenses that contain appropriate recommendations that do not impose burdensome costs to developers.

The FWS Regional and Field Offices will provide informal guidance through email and regularly scheduled conference calls to educate and remind staff of policy.

The CCAAs are developed to encourage voluntary conservation efforts to benefit species that are candidates for listing by providing the regulatory assurance that take associated with implementing an approved candidate conservation agreement will be permitted under section 10(a)(1)(A) for the Endangered Species Act if the species is ultimately listed, and that no additional mitigation requirements will be imposed.

Recent revisions to the CCAA regulations and policy and the adoption of “net conservation benefit” as an issuance standard has been perceived by some to impose an unnecessary, ambiguous, and burdensome standard that will discourage voluntary conservation. There are also concerns with the preamble language that suggested that CCAAs may not be appropriate vehicles for permitting take of listed species resulting from oil and gas development activities.

The FWS will solicit public review and comment on the need and basis for a revision of the CCAA regulation and associated policy for the purpose of evaluating whether it should maintain or revise the current regulation and policy or reinstate the former ones. The FWS anticipates that it will take 3 months to prepare the Federal Register Notice soliciting public review and comments. The FWS will then publish the Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period. Based upon comments received, FWS will decide whether and how to revise the regulation and policy.

The anticipated benefits will be ensuring the CCAA standard is clear and encourages stakeholder participation in voluntary conservation of candidate and other at-risk species.

Success will be measured by FWS providing timely assistance to developers if they seek a CCAA.

The FWS Headquarters will provide Regional and Field Offices with informal guidance through email and regularly scheduled conference calls to remind staff of the regulation and policy review.

In 2016, FWS finalized revisions to its 1981 Mitigation Policy, which guides FWS recommendations on mitigating the adverse impacts of land and water development on fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats.

Some stakeholders believe the revised policy's mitigation planning goal exceeds statutory authority.

The FWS will solicit public review and comment for the purpose of evaluating the policy. The FWS anticipates that it will take 3 months to prepare the Federal Register Notice soliciting public review and comment on the policy. The FWS will then publish the Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period. Based upon comments received, FWS will decide whether and how to revise the policy.

The anticipated benefits will be timely and practicable mitigation recommendations by FWS staff to energy developers (and others) that promote conservation of species and their habitats.

Success will be measured by incorporation of recommendations without delays to the permitting or licensing process.

The FWS Headquarters will provide FWS Regional and Field Offices informal guidance through email and regularly scheduled conference calls to remind staff of the policy review.

In 2016, FWS finalized its ESA Compensatory Mitigation Policy (CMP), which steps down and implements the 2016 revised the FWS Mitigation Policy (including the mitigation planning goal). The CMP was established to improve consistency and effectiveness in the use of compensatory mitigation. Its primary intent is to provide FWS staff with direction and guidance in the planning and implementation of compensatory mitigation.

Some stakeholders believe the mitigation planning goal exceeds statutory authority.

The FWS will solicit public review and comment for the purpose of evaluating whether it should modify the policy. Additional legal review will be undertaken after comments are reviewed. The FWS anticipates that it will take three months to prepare the Federal Register Notice soliciting public review and comment on the policy. The FWS will then publish the Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period. Based upon comments received, FWS will decide whether and how to revise the policy.

The anticipated benefits will be timely and practicable mitigation recommendations by FWS staff to energy developers (and others) that promote conservation of species and their habitats.

Success will be measured by incorporation of recommendations without delays to the permitting or licensing process.

The FWS Headquarters will provide FWS Regional and Field Offices informal guidance through email and regularly scheduled conference calls to remind staff of the policy review.

This document provides interim guidance for implementing the Service's CMP. The guidance provides operational detail on the establishment, use, and operation of compensatory mitigation projects and programs as tools for offsetting adverse impacts to endangered and threatened species, species proposed as endangered or threatened, and designated and proposed critical habitat under the ESA.

Within 6 months of completing revisions to the ESA Compensatory Mitigation Policy (CMP) (or deciding revisions to the CMP are not necessary), FWS will revise the interim implementation guidance (to be consistent with the revised CMP) and make it available for public review and comment in the Federal Register for 60 days. Within 6 months of close of the comment period, FWS will publish the final implementation guidance in the Federal Register (Note: we anticipate that the implementation guidance may need to be reviewed under the Paperwork Reduction Act, which may affect the timeline).

The anticipated benefits will be timely and practicable mitigation recommendations by FWS staff to energy developers (and others) that promote conservation of species and their habitats.

Success will be measured by incorporation of recommendations without delays to the permitting or licensing process.

The FWS Headquarters will issue a memorandum to Regional and Field staff reiterating the limited applicability of the CMP's mitigation planning goal and that decisions related to compensatory mitigation must comply with the ESA and its implementing regulations.

Interior is reviewing bureau reports of the work conducted to identify requirements relevant to climate that can potentially burden the development or uses of domestically produced energy resources. Most of the bureaus found no existing requirements in place. A couple of bureaus have non-regulatory documents (i.e., handbook, memo, manual, guidance, etc.) that inwardly focus on their units and workforce management activities. Interior is reviewing these to better understand their connection to other management, operations and guidance documents.

The BLM rescinded its Permanent Instruction Memorandum (PIM) 2017-003 (Jan. 12, 2017).

This Permanent IM transmitted the CEQ guidance on consideration of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the effects of climate change in NEPA reviews, and provided general guidelines for calculating reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect GHG emissions of proposed actions.

As the CEQ guidance was withdrawn pursuant to section 3 of EO13783, the BLM Permanent IM was rescinded. In the future, BLM will consider issuing new guidance to its offices on approaches for calculating reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect GHG emissions of proposed and related actions.

Any new IM would provide guidance on consideration of GHG emissions and the effects of climate change in NEPA reviews. The BLM is also developing a unified Air Resources Toolkit that can be used across all organizational levels to consistently calculate, as needed and appropriate, relevant air emissions for a variety of BLM resource management functions. Once available, this toolkit will expedite analysis of reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions associated with energy and mineral development.

To ensure that Interior is considering the input of all viewpoints affected by the identified actions to reduce the burden on domestic energy, Interior has been, and will continue to, seek from outside entities through various means of public outreach including, but not limited to, working closely with affected stakeholders. In accordance with Administrative Procedure Act requirements, the Department is seeking public input on each proposal to revise or rescind individual energy-related regulatory requirements. The Department is also considering input it receives as part of its regulatory reform efforts through www.regulations.gov when such input relates to energy-related regulations.

The Department's outreach efforts encompass state, local, and tribal governments, as well as stakeholders such as the Western Governors' Association, Interstate Mining Compact Commission, and natural resource and outdoorsmen groups. To comply with tribal consultation requirements, Interior will host a separate consultation with official representatives of tribal governments on matters that substantially affect tribes, in accordance with the Department's policy on consultation with tribal governments.

Interior is aggressively working to put America on track to achieve the President's vision for energy dominance and bring jobs back to communities across the country. Working with state, local and tribal communities, as well as other stakeholders, Secretary Zinke is instituting sweeping reforms to unleash America's energy opportunities.

Secretarial Orders and Secretary's Memorandum

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On June 7, 2017, the company Powerboat P1-USA, LLC notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the Ft. Lauderdale Grand Prix of the Seas race annually. This event will occur yearly on one weekend (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) in November. The race course will be located directly east of South Beach Park in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. The special local regulation is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. On September 6, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, “Special Local Regulation; Atlantic Ocean, Ft. Lauderdale, FL” (82 FR 42050). Therein we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this race During the comment period that ended October 6, 2017, we received five comments.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this event which will take place this year on November 17, 2017.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Miami (COTP) has determined that that potential hazards associated with the high speeds of the participants during the races would be a safety concern for anyone who would enter the race area. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within the established race area, marked with buoys.

As noted above, we received five comments on our NPRM published September 6, 2017. All comments were in favor of this regulation. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a special local regulation for this event occuring annually on one weekend (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) in November, with the precise date of the event each year to be published in a notice of enforcement in the Federal Register. The special local regulation covers all navigable waters within the established race area, marked with buoys, approximately one mile north of the Port Everglades inlet. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters during the Fort Lauderdale Grand Prix of the Seas race event. Only those vessels participating in the event may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area, and all vessels and persons in the regulated area must follow the direction of Coast Guard personnel, law enforcement, and race officials.

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 time-of-year of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this regulated area, which will impact a small designated area of the Atlantic Ocean in Fort Lauderdale, FL, directly adjacent to the shore, for three days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting three days that will impact a small area in the vicinity of the Port Everglades Inlet. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 201 of the Commandant Instructions. 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 100 as follows:

The North Carolina Department of Transportation, owner and operator of the US 64/Alligator River Bridge that carries US 64 over the AICW, Alligator River, mile 84.2, at near Columbia, NC, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to facilitate application of an epoxy overlay for the drawbridge's entire bridge deck. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 14 feet above mean high water in the closed position and unlimited feet above mean high water in the open position.

The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; on Monday, November 6, 2017, through Saturday, November 11, 2017, and Monday, November 13, 2017, through Friday, November 17, 2017.

The AICW, Alligator River is used by a variety of vessels including, small commercial vessels, tug and barge traffic, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will open on signal during closure period, if at least 2 hours notice is given. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternative route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

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 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable.

The contractor for Ameren Electric Company, The L.E. Meyers Co., notified the Coast Guard on September 25, 2017 that the work would begin November 1, 2017 at 6 a.m. between Illinois River mile marker (MM) 83.0 and MM 87.0, which will cause safety concerns to vessels and obstruct the navigational channel. The contractor will be using helicopters in the placement of steel structures to support new power lines and to stretch the new power lines across the river. Due to the risks associated with power line work crossing the navigational channel, a safety zone is needed. We must establish this temporary safety zone by November 1, 2017 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

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. Delaying the effective date of the rule is contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life and property from the hazards associated with the overhead power line work.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with overhead power line construction presents a safety concern for all navigable waters of the Illinois River between MM 83.0 and MM 87.0. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters in the temporary safety zone before, during, and after the overhead power line work.

This rule establishes a safety zone each day from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. beginning on November 1, 2017 and ending on December 15, 2017, or until conditions allow for safe navigation, whichever occurs earlier. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between MM 83.0 and MM 87.0 on the Illinois River in Beardstown, IL. The safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of life and vessels on these navigable waters during overhead power line work. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Exact times of the closures and any changes to the planned schedule will be communicated to mariners using Broadcast and Local Notice to Mariners.

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, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This temporary final rule establishes a temporary safety zone impacting a four mile area on the Illinois River for a limited time period of twelve hours on forty-five separate days. Additionally, from November 1, 2017 to November 11, 2017 the safety zone will be enforced for only five days while steel structures are being flown over the river and put in place to support the new power lines. During the dates from November 12, 2017 to December 15, 2017 new power lines will be stretched across the river. During the enforcement period, vessels are prohibited from entering into or remaining within the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP or other designated representative. The contractor performing the work will communicate to the COTP when work is not being performed and allow for affected vessel traffic to pass through the area.

Additionally, notice of the safety zone or any changes in the planned schedule will be made via Broadcast and Local Notice to Mariners. Entry into this safety zone may be requested from the COTP or other designated representative and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding these rules. 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 safety zone lasting twelve hours on thirty-nine separate days that will prohibit entry from MM 83.0 to MM 87.0 on the Illinois River from November 1, 2017 to December 15, 2017. 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:

The purpose of E.O. 13783 is to eliminate unnecessary Federal procedures that obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of energy resources. On National Forest System lands, the USDA and the Forest Service play an important role in assuring that activities associated with Federal and private energy mineral resources, renewable energy projects, and energy-related transmission and distribution facilities are conducted in a manner that minimizes adverse effects on Federal surface resources while avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation.

Pursuant to Section 2 of E.O. 13783, the Forest Service reviewed more than 70 agency actions, including regulations, policies, guidance, orders, agreements with partner agencies, and programmatic analyses at the Washington Office and field levels of the agency to assess whether they unduly burden clean and safe domestic energy development. As a result of that review, the Forest Service recommends revising or rescinding parts of 15 agency actions to alleviate or eliminate undue burdens on the prudent development or use of domestic energy sources. Consistent with E.O. 13783, it is in the national interest to promote the clean and safe development of America's vast energy resources. Adopting these recommendations would result in the revision of parts of three regulations, five policies, four agreements with other agencies, one programmatic analysis, and one order and rescinding part of one policy. The Forest Service's recommendations are principally associated with streamlining agency procedures or clarifying agency policy to facilitate more efficient processing of energy proposals by the agency alone or in coordination with its partners.