Federal Register Vol. 82, No.239,

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2014-0055, dated March 7, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2017 (82 FR 22763). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that analysis following a special certification review of the horizontal stabilizer determined that wear of the bearing plate slider bushings could cause disconnection of elevator hinge number 4 or number 6. This disconnection could excite the horizontal stabilizer under certain in-flight speed/altitude conditions and lead to degradation of the structure due to tab flutter, hinge wear, spar chord corrosion, hinge rib web chafing, hinge rib chord cracking, and inspar lower skin cracking. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections and checks of elevator hinge numbers 4 and 6 and related components, repetitive replacements and tests of the bearing plate, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary.

We are issuing this AD to detect and correct wear of the bearing plate slider bushings, which could result in heavy airplane vibration and damage and could lead to departure of the elevator and/or horizontal stabilizer from the airplane, and loss of continued safe flight and landing.

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

Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) concurred with the content of the NPRM.

Boeing stated that no inspections are specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1099, Revision 1, dated October 21, 2016, for Group 1 airplanes and requested that the reference to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1099, Revision 1, dated October 21, 2016, be removed from paragraph (g) of this AD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) observed that in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, the reference to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1099, Revision 1, dated October 21, 2016, for Group 1 airplanes, is not consistent with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1099, Revision 1, dated October 21, 2016, which states only that Group 1 airplanes have exceeded their limit of validity (LOV) and gives no further advice.

We agree with the commenters. We have removed the reference to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1099, Revision 1, dated October 21, 2016, from the compliance requirements specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

EASA suggested that the inspections and checks in the proposed AD be extended to all hinges because any other loose hinge could create overloading in adjacent hinges, and therefore could contribute to the failure of hinges 4 and 6.

We do not agree with the commenter's assessment. We have consulted with Boeing and confirmed the following information.

Hinge fittings 1 and 2 support thrust loads only and do not have the sliding bearing plates. Therefore, these fittings do not need inspections to address the unsafe condition.

Boeing's flutter analysis shows that failure (disconnect) at either hinge 4 or 6 is flutter critical. However, a failed hinge 3 or 5, with the shorter span between adjacent hinges, will have less weight relative to stiffness, such that instability does not occur.

The fatigue loads on the affected Model 737 airplane elevator are not substantial. If hinge 3 or 5 becomes loose, the load increase on hinge 4 or 6 is insignificant. If hinge 3 or 5 fails, the inspection and replacement program in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1099, Revision 1, dated October 21, 2016, will still detect any crack at hinge 4 or 6 before it becomes critical. In addition, the normal maintenance procedure of hinge lubrication per the Maintenance Planning Document during a C check should detect a failed hinge 3 or 5.

We have not changed this AD in this regard.

EASA requested clarification of the reason that paragraph (i) of the proposed AD includes no repeat instruction for Group 2, Configuration 1 airplanes, regarding bearing plate replacement.

Group 2, Configuration 1 airplanes are not included in paragraph (i) of this AD, which contains requirements for repetitive bearing plate replacements and tests, because these airplanes do not have the bearing plates. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

EASA requested confirmation that sufficient access exists to adequately inspect and test all areas via the methods defined.

Boeing has confirmed that sufficient access exists. Additionally, Boeing has released 737-55A1099 Information Notice 01, dated May 23, 2017, to notify operators that hinge 4 inspections cannot be accomplished if existing repairs are installed in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-55-1059, Revision 1, dated April 6, 2016. In that case, alternative inspection procedures must be approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.

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

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

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

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

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

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1099, Revision 1, dated October 21, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections and checks of elevator hinge numbers 4 and 6 and related components, repetitive replacements and tests of the bearing plate, and related investigative and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 192 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary related investigative and corrective actions that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau Models ASH 25M and ASH 26E gliders. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 22, 2017 (82 FR 44361). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

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

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

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

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

We reviewed Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau ASK 21 Mi Technical Note No. 11, ASW 22 BLE 50R Technical Note No. 16, ASH 25 M/Mi Technical Note No. 32, ASH 26 E Technical Note No. 19 (single document), dated January 8, 2016. The service information describes procedures for replacing the exhaust silencer with an improved part. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 35 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $3,900 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $160,300, or $4,580 per product.

We have no way of determining the number of products that have an affected exhaust silencer, part number 800.65.0001, installed that will need to be replaced. Therefore, this cost estimate includes all affected gliders on the U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0911; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012-21-04, Amendment 39-17220 (77 FR 64701, October 23, 2012) (“AD 2012-21-04”). AD 2012-21-04 applied to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A310 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes).

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2017 (82 FR 35911). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracked fuel pump canister hoods located in fuel tanks and new in-service events of wing-outer tank fuel pump canister hood cracking. The NPRM proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2012-21-04, reinstate terminated inspections, and add optional terminating actions. We are issuing this AD to prevent any detached canister hood fragments/debris from being ingested into the fuel feed system, and becoming a potential source of ignition with consequent fire or explosion.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0051, dated March 23, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A310 series airplanes; and Model A300-600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0714.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. The commenter, John Sanderson, supported the NPRM.

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

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

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

Airbus has issued the following service information.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0089, Revision 03, dated December 16, 2016. This service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of all fuel pump locations (center, wing-inner, and wing-outer tank), and replacing any cracked hood halves of fuel pump canisters.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0092, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014; Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6110, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2175, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014. This service information describes procedures for replacement of the hood halves of the fuel pump canisters with newer design hood halves for the wing-inner tank and the center tank fuel pumps. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0094, Revision 00, dated January 9, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacement of the hood halves of the fuel pump canisters with newer design hood halves for the wing-outer tank.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6106, Revision 03, dated December 16, 2016; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2173, Revision 03, dated December 16, 2016. This service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of all fuel pump locations (center, wing-inner, wing-outer, and trim tank), and replacing any cracked hood halves of fuel pump canisters. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6114, Revision 00, dated January 9, 2017; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2178, Revision 00, dated January 9, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacement of the hood halves of the fuel pump canisters with newer design hood halves for the wing-outer tank and the trim tank fuel pumps. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 168 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2012-21-04, and retained in this AD take about 12 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per workhour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2012-21-04 is $1,020 per product.

We also estimate that it will take about 9 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the new basic requirements of this AD on U.S. operators to be $128,520, or $765 per product.

In addition, we estimate that the optional terminating actions will take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $255, for a cost of $340 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0224, dated November 10, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes; and Airbus Model A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission A28L006-17, Rev. 00, dated November 3, 2017. The service information describes procedures for inspection of certain fuel pumps for cavitation erosion, and corrective actions. The service information also describes dispatch restrictions that affect the MEL. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the unsafe condition could result in an ignition source in the fuel tank, which could result in a fuel tank explosion. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-1104; Product Identifier 2017-NM-153-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 107 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

I. Executive Summary

This action amends the prohibition of flight operations in specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. Due to a reduction in the level of risk to U.S. civil aviation operating in limited portions of the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR where the FAA had prohibited U.S. civil aviation operations under SFAR No. 115, title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 91.1611, this action amends SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, to reduce the amount of airspace in the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR in which U.S. civil aviation operations are prohibited. Specifically, the FAA is revising SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, to prohibit U.S. civil aviation operations in the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, except that airspace east of a line drawn direct from KAPET (163322N 0530614E) to NODMA (152603N 0533359E), southeast of a line drawn direct from NODMA to ORBAT (140638N 0503924E) then from ORBAT to PAKER (115500N 0463500E), south of a line drawn direct from PAKER to PARIM (123142N 0432712E), and west of a line drawn direct from PARIM to RIBOK (154700N 0415230E). However, there continues to be an unacceptable level of risk to U.S. civil aviation operations in the remainder the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, as described in this rule, resulting from terrorist and militant activity. Consequently, the FAA is also amending this SFAR to extend its expiration date until January 7, 2020. The FAA finds this action necessary due to continued hazards to U.S. civil aviation operations in these areas.

The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49, U.S. Code. Subtitle I, sections 106(f) and (g), describe the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise his authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.

This regulation is within the scope of FAA's authority under the statutes cited previously, because it continues to prohibit the persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, from conducting flight operations in specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR due to the continued hazards to the safety of such persons' flight operations, as described in the Background section of this final rule.

Title 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Section 553(d) also authorizes agencies to forgo the delay in the effective date of the final rule for good cause found and published with the rule. In this instance, the FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment, because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. To the extent that the rule is based upon classified information, such information is not permitted to be shared with the general public. Also, threats to U.S. civil aviation and intelligence regarding these threats are fluid. As a result, the agency's original proposal could become unsuitable for minimizing the hazards to U.S. civil aviation in the affected airspace during or after the notice and comment process. The FAA further finds an immediate need to address the continued hazard to U.S. civil aviation that exists in specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR from terrorist and militant activity. This hazard is further described in the Background section of this rule. Finally, it is contrary to the public interest to delay this change in the boundaries of the SFAR to permit U.S. civil aviation operations on two jet routes that were previously prohibited, thereby potentially reducing travel time and costs.

For the reasons described previously, the FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule. The FAA also finds that this action is fully consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A) to ensure that the FAA exercises its duties consistently with the obligations of the United States under international agreements.

On January 7, 2016, the FAA published a final rule to prohibit U.S. civil aviation operations in specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, excluding that airspace east and southeast of a line drawn direct from KAPET (163322N 0530614E) to NODMA (152603N 0533359E), then direct from NODMA to PAKER (115500N 0463500E), due to the hazardous situation faced by U.S. civil aviation from ongoing military operations, political instability, violence from competing armed groups, and the continuing terrorism threat from extremist elements associated with the fighting and instability in Yemen. 81 FR 727.

In taking that action, the FAA determined that international civil air routes that transit the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR and aircraft operating to and from Yemeni airports were at risk from terrorist and militant groups potentially employing anti-aircraft weapons, including Man-Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS), surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), small-arms fire, and indirect fire from mortars and rockets. Due to the fighting and instability, as of January 2016, the FAA stated that there was a risk of possible loss of state control over more advanced anti-aircraft weapons to terrorist and militant groups. Some of the weapons that the FAA was concerned about have the capability to target aircraft at higher altitudes and/or during approach and departure and have weapon ranges that could extend into the near off-shore areas along Yemen's coastline.

In the January 2016 final rule, the FAA also indicated that U.S. civil aviation was at risk from combat operations and other military-related activity associated with the fighting and instability and that there was an ongoing threat of terrorism. Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) remained active in Yemen and had demonstrated the capability and intent to target U.S. and Western aviation interests. Various Yemeni airports had been attacked during the fighting, including Sanaa International Airport (OYSN) and Aden International Airport (OYAA), resulting in instances of damage to airport facilities and temporary closure of the airports.

Additionally, in the January 2016 final rule, the FAA assessed that there was a risk to U.S. civil aviation from potential strategic SAM systems. Some of these strategic air defense SAMs, at that time, posed a potential threat to civil aviation. On March 28, 2015, a probable SAM missile was launched from the vicinity of Al Hudaydah, Yemen, along the Red Sea. Collectively, the hazards previously described led the FAA to publish SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, on January 7, 2016.

Over the last two years, the situation in Yemen has slightly improved, as a coalition of Yemeni government forces, supporting nations, and allied militia elements have successfully limited the area of opposition force control and reduced some of the opposition force weapon capabilities. Opposition elements in Yemen do not currently possess functional medium-/long-range strategic SAM capabilities. As a result, there is a reduced level of risk to U.S. civil aviation operations on certain international air routes that transit offshore areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR. The FAA has determined that the risk to U.S. civil aviation in limited areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, including these international air routes, has been sufficiently reduced to allow the FAA to shrink the boundaries of its prohibition of U.S. civil aviation operations in specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR.

Specifically, the FAA is revising SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, to prohibit flight operations in the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, excluding that airspace east of a line drawn direct from KAPET (163322N 0530614E) to NODMA (152603N 0533359E), southeast of a line drawn direct from NODMA to ORBAT (140638N 0503924E) then from ORBAT to PAKER (115500N 0463500E), south of a line drawn direct from PAKER to PARIM (123142N 0432712E), and west of a line drawn direct from PARIM to RIBOK (154700N 0415230E). This change will permit U.S. operators to use two jet routes, UT702 and M999, that they were previously prohibited from using under SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611. The FAA emphasizes that use of jet route UN303 remains prohibited.

Opposition forces and terrorist elements continue to operate in various locations with either ongoing fighting or the potential for combat operations to occur with little or no warning. Opposition and terrorist elements, such as AQAP and the Islamic State of Iraq and ash Sham (ISIS) in Yemen, possess a variety of anti-aircraft weapons, to include MANPADS and possible SAMs, which pose an ongoing risk to U.S. civil aviation in Yemeni territory occupied by or influenced by those elements and in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR within the revised SFAR boundaries described in this rule.

Therefore, as a result of the significant continuing risk to the safety of U.S. civil aviation in specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, with the revised boundaries previously described, the FAA also amends SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, to extend its expiration date from January 7, 2018, to January 7, 2020, to maintain the prohibition on flight operations in those areas by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.

The FAA will continue to actively monitor the situation and evaluate the extent to which U.S. civil operators may be able to safely operate in specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, with the revised boundaries previously described, in the future. Further amendments to SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, may be appropriate if the risk to aviation safety and security changes. The FAA may amend or rescind SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, as necessary, prior to its expiration date.

The FAA also republishes, with minor revisions, the approval process and exemption information for this SFAR, so that persons described in paragraph (a) of the rule will be able to refer to this final rule, rather than having to search through previous final rules to find the relevant approval process and exemption information. This approval process and exemption information is consistent with other similar SFARs and recent agency practice.

If a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government determines that it has a critical need to engage any person covered under SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, including a U.S. air carrier or a U.S. commercial operator, to conduct a charter to transport civilian or military passengers or cargo, or other operations, in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, that department, agency, or instrumentality may request that the FAA approve persons covered under SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, to conduct such operations. An approval request must be made directly by the requesting department, agency or instrumentality of the U.S. Government to the FAA's Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety in a letter signed by an appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. Requests for approval submitted to the FAA by anyone other than the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality will not be accepted and will not be processed. In addition, the senior official signing the letter requesting FAA approval on behalf of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality must be sufficiently highly placed within the organization to demonstrate that the senior leadership of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality supports the request for approval and is committed to taking all necessary steps to minimize operational risks to the proposed flights. The senior official must also be in a position to: (1) Attest to the accuracy of all representations made to the FAA in the request for approval and (2) ensure that any support from the requesting U.S. government department, agency, or instrumentality described in the request for approval is in fact brought to bear and is maintained over time. Unless justified by exigent circumstances, requests for approval must be submitted to the FAA no less than 30 calendar days before the date on which the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality wishes the proposed operations, if approved by the FAA, to commence.

The letter must be sent by the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Electronic submissions are acceptable, and the requesting entity may request that the FAA notify it electronically as to whether the approval request is granted. If a requestor wishes to make an electronic submission to the FAA, the requestor should contact the Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, at (202) 267-8166 to obtain the appropriate email address. A single letter may request approval from the FAA for multiple persons covered under SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, and/or for multiple flight operations. To the extent known, the letter must identify the person(s) covered under the SFAR on whose behalf the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality is seeking FAA approval, and it must describe—

• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the mission being supported;

• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;

• To the extent known, the specific locations in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR and the airports, airfields and/or landing zones at which the aircraft will take-off and land; and

• The method by which the department, agency, or instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of the proposed operations (e.g., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-flight phases).

The request for approval must also include a list of operators with whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or cooperative agreement(s) (or with whom its prime contractor has a subcontract(s)) for specific flight operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR. Additional operators may be identified to the FAA at any time after the FAA approval is issued. However, all additional operators must be identified to, and obtain an Operations Specification (OpSpec) or Letter of Authorization (LOA), as appropriate, from the FAA for operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, before such operators commence such operations. The approval conditions discussed below will apply to any such additional operators. Updated lists should be sent to the email address to be obtained from the Air Transportation Division by calling (202) 267-8166.

If an approval request includes classified information, requestors may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Michael Filippell for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the For Further Information Contact section of this final rule.

FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of their responsibility to comply with all other applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators of civil aircraft must also comply with the conditions of their certificate, OpSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators must further comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government departments and agencies that may apply to the proposed operations, including, but not limited to, the Transportation Security Regulations issued by the Transportation Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security.

If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's Aviation Safety Organization will send an approval letter to the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality informing it that the FAA's approval is subject to all of the following conditions:

(1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator, while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational objectives.

(2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to the FAA:

(a) A written release of the U.S. Government from all damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising out of or related to the approved operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR; and

(b) the operator's agreement to indemnify the U.S. Government with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising out of or related to the approved operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR.

(3) Other conditions that the FAA may specify, including those that may be imposed in OpSpecs or LOAs, as applicable.

The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance policy issued by the FAA under chapter 443 of title 49, United States Code.

If the proposed operation(s) is approved, the FAA will issue an OpSpec or an LOA, as applicable, to the operator(s) identified in the original request authorizing them to conduct the approved operation(s), and will notify the department, agency, or instrumentality that requested the FAA's approval of any additional conditions beyond those contained in the approval letter. The requesting department, agency, or instrumentality must have a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement (or its prime contractor must have a subcontract) with the person(s) described in paragraph (a) of this SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, on whose behalf the department, agency, or instrumentality requests FAA approval.

Any operations not conducted under an approval issued by the FAA through the approval process set forth previously must be conducted under an exemption from SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611. A request by any person covered under SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, for an exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11, and will require exceptional circumstances beyond those contemplated by the approval process set forth above. In addition to the information required by 14 CFR 11.81, at a minimum, the requestor must describe in its submission to the FAA—

• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the operation;

• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;

• The specific locations in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR and the airports, airfields and/or landing zones at which the aircraft will take-off and land;

• The method by which the operator will obtain current threat information, and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations (e.g., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-flight phases); and

• The plans and procedures that the operator will use to minimize the risks, identified in the Background section of this rule, to the proposed operations, so that granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety or would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by this SFAR. The FAA has found comprehensive, organized plans and procedures of this nature to be helpful in facilitating the agency's safety evaluation of petitions for exemption from other flight prohibition SFARs.

Additionally, the release and agreement to indemnify, as referred to above, will be required as a condition of any exemption that may be issued under SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611.

The FAA recognizes that operations that may be affected by SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, including this amendment, may be planned for the governments of other countries with the support of the U.S. Government. While these operations will not be permitted through the approval process, the FAA will process exemption requests for such operations on an expedited basis and prior to any private exemption requests.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), 19 U.S.C. Chapter 13, prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. Chapter 25, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this final rule has benefits that justify its costs and is a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, because it raises novel policy issues contemplated under that Executive Order. The rule is also “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States, and will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, by exceeding the threshold identified previously.

Department of Transportation Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows.

Due to the significant hazards to U.S. civil aviation described in the Background section of this rule, this rule extends the prohibition against U.S. civil flights in specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, as described in this rule. Since there has been a reduction in the level of risk to U.S. civil aviation operations in limited portions of the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR in which the FAA had previously prohibited such operations, this action amends SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, to reduce the amount of airspace in which U.S. civil flight operations are prohibited. This change will permit U.S. operators to use two jet routes that they were previously prohibited from using under SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611: UT702 and M999.

The FAA believes there are very few U.S. operators who wish to operate in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR where U.S. civil aviation operations will continue to be prohibited. The FAA has not received any requests for approval or exemption to conduct flight operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR covered by this regulation. Consequently, the FAA estimates the costs of this rule to be minimal. These minimal costs are exceeded by the benefits of avoided deaths, injuries, and property damage that could result from a U.S. operator's aircraft being shot down (or otherwise damaged) due to the hazards described in the Background section of this final rule. In addition, allowing U.S. civil aviation to use the M999 and UT702 routes will benefit U.S. operators who regularly transit the Middle East area, since they will no longer be required to use less direct routes. This change may reduce flight times and certain operating expenses, such as fuel, resulting in potential cost savings for affected U.S. operators. Consequently, the FAA estimates that the benefits of this rule will exceed the costs.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. As discussed above, the FAA estimates the costs of this rule to be minimal. Moreover, few, if any, operators will be affected by this rule, as the FAA believes that most operators do not wish to operate in specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR in which U.S. civil flight operations will continue to be prohibited, due to the hazards described in the Background section of this rule. Additionally, this rule will allow U.S. civil aviation to use the M999 and UT702 routes, and, to that extent, it may benefit small U.S. operators if they regularly transit the Middle East area, since they will no longer be required to use less direct routes. This change may reduce flight times and certain operating expenses, such as fuel, resulting in potential cost savings for affected small U.S. operators.

Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

The FAA has assessed the effect of this final rule and determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation from a hazard to their operations in specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, a location outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100 million.

This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA's policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to this regulation.

The FAA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions (44 FR 1957, January 4, 1979), and DOT Order 5610.1C, Paragraph 16. Executive Order 12114 requires the FAA to be informed of environmental considerations and take those considerations into account when making decisions on major Federal actions that could have environmental impacts anywhere beyond the borders of the United States. The FAA has determined that this action is exempt pursuant to Section 2-5(a)(i) of Executive Order 12114, because it does not have the potential for a significant effect on the environment outside the United States.

In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 8-6(c), FAA has prepared a memorandum for the record stating the reason(s) for this determination; this memorandum has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.

The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a national security function of the United States.

An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the internet by—

• Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

• Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or

• Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at http://www.fdsys.gov.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Please identify the docket or amendment number of this rulemaking in your request.

Except for classified material, all documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced above.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

I. Background

The Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act. The CGBPA was enacted on July 17, 2008. The Act established as a consumer product safety rule ASTM International's (ASTM) F2517-05's child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers. All portable gasoline containers manufactured on or after January 17, 2009 for sale to consumers in the United States must conform to ASTM F2517's child-resistance requirements. By mandating closures that resist access by children up to 51 months of age (4 years and 3 months), the Act seeks to reduce hazards to children, including children ingesting gasoline and inhaling gasoline fumes, and the risk of burns from fires and explosions that may occur when children access gasoline stored in portable gasoline containers. The Act did not require the Commission to undertake any action for the Act's provisions to take effect; rather, ASTM 2715-05's child-resistance requirements were made mandatory through operation of law. The Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act, Public Law 110-278; 122 Stat. 2602, Sec. 2(b) (July 17, 2008), codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 2056.

CGBPA Provisions Regarding Updates to ASTM F2517. Under the Act, ASTM must notify the Commission of any revision to the child-resistance requirements for closures contained in ASTM F2517. Once ASTM notifies the CPSC of ASTM's revisions to this voluntary standard, the revisions will be incorporated by operation of law and will become the consumer product safety standard within 60 days after such notice. However, the Commission can prevent such incorporation if the Commission determines that revisions to the voluntary standard do not carry out the purposes of the child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers as specified in ASTM F2517, and so notifies ASTM.

On February 11, 2015, ASTM gave notice to CPSC of revisions to ASTM F2517-05. The revised standard was designated as ASTM F2517-15. The Commission determined that the revisions to the voluntary standard stated in ASTM F2517-15 carried out the purposes of the child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers. Accordingly, by operation of law, the revisions became effective 60 days after February 11, 2015, on April 13, 2015. So that the Code of Federal Regulations would include the standard, the Commission published a direct final rule, 80 FR 16961 (March 31, 2015), codifying the Commission's incorporation by reference of ASTM F2517-15 at 16 CFR part 1460.

2017 Revisions to ASTM F2517. On November 13, 2017, ASTM notified the Commission that it has again revised ASTM F2517. On October 1, 2017, ASTM approved publication of ASTM F2517-17, and published the standard in November 2017. Unless the Commission determines that the revisions to ASTM F2517-17 fail to carry out the purposes of the child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers specified in ASTM F2517, and notifies ASTM of this determination, the revisions to ASTM F2517 become a mandatory consumer product safety standard by operation of law, effective January 12, 2018.

As set forth in this preamble, the Commission has determined that the revisions made to ASTM F2517 carry out the purposes of the child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers. Accordingly, by operation of law, the requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers, as specified in ASTM F2517-17, are mandatory for all such containers sold or imported into the United States that were manufactured on or after January 12, 2018. To provide clarity to the regulated industry, the Commission will revise our regulation at 16 CFR part 1460 to reflect the incorporation by reference of this revised voluntary standard.

The rule codifies the child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers as stated in ASTM F2517-17. These requirements are mandatory effective January 12, 2018. The Commission is publishing this direct final rule incorporating by reference ASTM F2517-17 so that the Code of Federal Regulations will reflect the current version of this mandatory standard.

Revisions to ASTM F2517 in the 2017 update increase the stringency of the testing requirements or refine the testing environment to aid in test reliability. These changes are described in more detail in the Staff's Briefing Memorandum.1 Changes to the voluntary standard include:

• Reducing the amount of water required in a tested container from a half-filled container to a quarter-filled container. Decreasing the amount of liquid required for the test makes the container weigh less, increasing the likelihood that children are able to manipulate a container to access the liquid.

• For containers with multiple closures, removing the requirement to seal off closures not being tested. Manufacturers report that children are distracted by sealing mechanisms on closures not being tested. Accordingly, this revision removes the distraction and focuses the children's attention on attempting to open, or “get the liquid out” of the closure being tested. Although children are instructed to try and open one closure at a time on the container, the test is strengthened by failing a container if a child is able to access liquid from any closure during testing.

• Adding requirements to measure and document the torque needed to secure a closure. Currently, the standard requires testing on new portable gasoline containers that have not been exposed to fuel or residue. ASTM members are concerned that degradation of a portable gasoline container could occur after exposure to fuel, which may affect the torque value of the child-resistant closures. This requirement is intended to aid in consideration of a future provision that would limit the change in torque value after exposure to fuel.

• Clarifying test instructions and requirements to remove possible ambiguities in the test procedure. ASTM F2517-17 adds information and instructions regarding how manufacturers should seek consent for testing children at daycare facilities. The revised standard also updates instructions given to the children during testing to reflect newer child resistant closure technology that does not necessarily “open” in the traditional sense. Children are now instructed: “Please try to open this for me or get the liquid out.”

• Allowing the option to use central location testing. Previously, testing was primarily conducted at daycare facilities. Manufacturers expressed frustration with the decreasing number of daycare facilities willing to participate in testing portable gasoline containers. ASTM F2517-17 allows the option to conduct testing at a central location, providing a more feasible testing venue and allowing the industry to continue to develop newer child-safe products. Additionally, a new Appendix to ASTM F2517-17 provides non-mandatory recommendations for laboratory testing procedures that are intended to prevent fraud in testing.

After reviewing the changes to the child-resistance requirements in F2517-17, as outlined above, the Commission determines that the revised standard carries out the purposes of the Act for closures on portable gasoline containers. Each revision increases the stringency of the testing requirements or refines the testing environment to aid in test reliability. Accordingly, the 2017 revisions to the child-resistance requirements of ASTM F2517 will be incorporated into the CPSC mandatory rule, as provided in the Act. However, because the scope of the consumer product safety rule is established by the CGBPA, this rule does not incorporate by reference the scope section of ASTM F2517-17 or Appendix X2 that relates to the scope section of ASTM F2517-17.

The Commission is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires notice and comment rulemaking except when the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public procedure are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) endorsed direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite promulgation of rules that are noncontroversial and that are not expected to generate significant adverse comment. ACUS also recommended using direct final rulemaking when an agency concludes that notice and comment is “unnecessary” under the APA's good cause exemption. See ACUS, Recommendation, 95-4, 60 FR 43108, 43110 (August 18, 1995).

This rule will revise the reference at 16 CFR part 1460 to refer to ASTM F2517-17, which will be in full force and effect by operation of law on January 12, 2018. In these circumstances, where the substantive requirements are mandated by statute and become effective under the statute, public comment on updating the reference to the ASTM standard serves little purpose. Moreover, we do not expect that updating the reference would be controversial or result in significant adverse comment. As a result, the Commission believes that a direct final rule codifying the revised standard in these circumstances is appropriate.

Unless we receive a significant adverse comment by December 28, 2017, the rule will become effective on January 12, 2018. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be one in which the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including an assertion challenging the rule's underlying premise or approach, or a claim that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without change. Should the Commission receive a significant adverse comment, the Commission would withdraw this direct final rule. Depending on the comments and other circumstances, the Commission may then incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking providing an opportunity for public comment.

Section 1460.3 of the final rule provides that closures on portable gasoline containers must comply with the child-resistance requirements of ASTM F2517-17. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. The OFR's regulation requires that, for a final rule, agencies must discuss in the rule's preamble ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble to the rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).

In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section II of this preamble summarizes the provisions of ASTM F2517-17. Interested persons may purchase a copy of ASTM F2517-17 from ASTM, either through ASTM's website or by mail at the address provided in the rule. One may also inspect a copy of the standard at the CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

As discussed in the preceding section, this is a direct final rule. Unless the Commission receives a significant adverse comment by December 28, 2017, the rule will become effective on January 12, 2018. Portable gasoline containers manufactured or imported on or after January 12, 2018 must comply with the child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers in ASTM F2517-17.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA or any other statutes unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 605. This rule updates the reference in part 1460 to reflect requirements in the revised voluntary standard, ASTM F2517-17, that will take effect through operation of law, as specified in the CGBPA. Because the rule does not impose any requirements beyond those put in place by the CGBPA, the rule does not create new substantive obligations for any entity, including any small entity. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.

This direct final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) is not required.

Section 26(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a “consumer product safety standard under [the CPSA]” is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. As discussed above, under the CGBPA, the child-resistance requirements of ASTM F2517 are a consumer product safety standard under the CPSA. Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act, Public Law 110-278, Sec. 2(a) (July 17, 2008). The child-resistance requirements of ASTM F2517-17, which will be codified under this rule, will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA.

Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program. Because ASTM F2517-17 is a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, portable gasoline containers manufactured or imported on or after January 12, 2018, are subject to the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA with respect to ASTM F2517-17.

For the reasons stated above, the Commission amends 16 CFR part 1460 as follows:

On March 1, 2017, the Commission adopted rule and form amendments requiring registrants that file registration statements and reports subject to the exhibit requirements under Item 601 of Regulation S-K,1 or that file Forms F-10 2 or 20-F,3 to include a hyperlink to each exhibit listed in the exhibit index of these filings.4 To enable the inclusion of hyperlinks, the amendments also require that registrants submit all filings on EDGAR in HyperText Markup Language (“HTML”) format because the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (“ASCII”) format cannot support functional hyperlinks.5

The amendments took effect on September 1, 2017 for most registrants. Registrants that are “smaller reporting companies,” as defined in Rule 405 6 under the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 12b-2 7 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or are neither “large accelerated filers” nor “accelerated filers,” as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2, and that submit filings in ASCII will not need to comply with the new rules until September 1, 2018, one year after the effective date for other filers.8 The Commission deferred establishing a compliance date for any Form 10-D filing that will require a hyperlink to an exhibit filed with Form ABS-EE until Commission staff completed programming changes to EDGAR to allow Form 10-D filers to include the Form 10-D and Form ABS-EE in a single EDGAR submission so that the required hyperlinks could be created at the time the Form 10-D is filed.9 Such programming changes have now been completed.10

Any registrant filing a Form 10-D on or after June 1, 2018, must include a hyperlink to any exhibit filed with Form ABS-EE that is included in the exhibit index of Form 10-D.11

The Commission is adopting new temporary rule 30b1-9(T) [17 CFR 270.30b1-9(T)] under the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.] (“Investment Company Act”). The Commission is also delaying the compliance dates associated with the requirement for smaller fund complexes to file reports on new Form N-PORT [referenced in 17 CFR 274.150] under the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.] and new rule 30b1-9 [17 CFR 270.30b1-9] under the Investment Company Act. In addition, the Commission is delaying the effective date associated with: the rescission of rule 30b1-5 [17 CFR 270.30b1-5] under the Investment Company Act; amendments to rules 8b-33 [17 CFR 270.8b-33], 30a-2 [17 CFR 270.30a-2], 30a-3 [17 CFR 270.30a-3], and 30d-1 [17 CFR 270.30d-1] under the Investment Company Act; amendments to Forms N-1A [referenced in 17 CFR 274.11A], N-2 [referenced in 274.11a-1], and N-3 [referenced in 274.11b] under the Investment Company Act and the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.] (“Securities Act”); the rescission of Form N-Q [referenced in 17 CFR 274.130] under the Investment Company Act and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.] (“Exchange Act”); and amendments to rule 401 [17 CFR 232.401] of Regulation S-T [17 CFR 232].

In recognition of the importance of sound data security practices and protocols for sensitive, nonpublic information, the Commission is modifying its approach to the requirement to submit reports on Form N-PORT on the EDGAR system. Funds in larger fund groups would have been required to submit reports on Form N-PORT in EDGAR no later than July 30, 2018. The Commission is adopting a temporary final rule that requires funds in larger fund groups to maintain in their records the information that is required to be included in Form N-PORT beginning no later than July 30, 2018. This information will be subject to examination by Commission staff. As a result, funds in larger fund groups must begin to submit reports on Form N-PORT on EDGAR by April 30, 2019, and smaller fund groups must begin to submit reports on Form N-PORT by April 30, 2020. In addition, the Commission is delaying the rescission of current Form N-Q and delaying the effectiveness of certain amendments to other rules and forms.

On October 13, 2016, the Commission adopted new rules and forms as well as amendments to its rules and forms to modernize the reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies.1 In particular, the Commission adopted new Form N-PORT, which requires certain registered investment companies to report information about their monthly portfolio holdings to the Commission in a structured data format. We also adopted new Form N-CEN, which requires registered investment companies, other than face-amount certificate companies, to annually report certain census-type information to the Commission in a structured data format. In addition, we rescinded current Forms N-Q (effective August 1, 2019) and N-SAR and amended certain other rules and forms.2

As the Commission stated in the Adopting Release, Form N-PORT, as well as new rules, other forms, and amendments to existing rules and forms will, among other things, improve the information that the Commission receives from investment companies and assist the Commission, in its role as primary regulator of investment companies, to better fulfill its mission of protecting investors; maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitating capital formation. Investors and other potential users can also utilize this information to help them make more informed investment decisions.

Form N-PORT is a new portfolio holdings reporting form that will be filed by all registered management investment companies, other than money market funds and small business investment companies, and by unit investment trusts that operate as exchange-traded funds (collectively, “funds”).3 Form N-PORT requires reporting of a fund's complete portfolio holdings and additional information that will facilitate risk analysis and other Commission oversight. Reports on Form N-PORT are required to be filed in an extensible markup language (“XML”) structured data format no later than 30 days after the close of each month using the Commission's EDGAR system.4 In general, reports on Form N-PORT for every third month of each fiscal quarter will be available to the public 60 days after the end of the fiscal quarter.5

Certain information reported on Form N-PORT will be kept nonpublic. As we noted in the Adopting Release, we recognize that more frequent portfolio disclosure than was currently required could potentially harm fund shareholders by expanding the opportunities for professional traders to engage in predatory trading practices.6 In addition, some of the information required by Form N-PORT could imply a false sense of precision because such data, by design, are an aggregation of multiple assumptions and projections.7 In light of these considerations, the Commission in the Adopting Release determined not to make public the information reported on Form N-PORT for the first and second months of each fund's fiscal quarter that is identifiable to any particular fund or adviser; any information reported with regards to country of risk and economic exposure, delta, or miscellaneous securities; or explanatory notes related to any of those topics that is identifiable to any particular fund or adviser.8 In addition, the information on Form N-PORT that will be made public will only be made public after an additional 30-day delay (i.e., 60 days after quarter-end). Moreover, we determined to make all reports for the first six months following June 1, 2018 nonpublic in order to allow funds and the Commission a period of time to fine-tune the technical specifications and data validation processes for reports on Form N-PORT.9

When we adopted the Form N-PORT filing requirement, we provided for an effective date of January 17, 2017, with a tiered set of compliance dates based on a fund group's asset size. Specifically, for larger entities—funds that together with other investment companies in the same “group of related investment companies” have net assets of $1 billion or more as of the end of the most recent fiscal year of the fund (“larger fund groups”)—we adopted a compliance date of June 1, 2018.10 This would have resulted in larger fund groups filing their first reports on Form N-PORT, reflecting data as of June 30, no later than July 30, 2018.11 For smaller fund groups, we adopted a compliance date of June 1, 2019, anticipating that smaller fund groups would benefit from this extra time to comply and potentially would benefit from the lessons learned by the larger fund groups during the adoption period for Form N-PORT.12

As we noted in the Adopting Release, we recognize the importance of sound data security practices and protocols for sensitive, nonpublic information, including information that may be competitively sensitive.13 To that end, the Adopting Release acknowledged that Commission staff was working to design controls and systems for the use and handling of Form N-PORT data in a manner that reflects the sensitivity of the data and is consistent with the maintenance of its confidentiality.14 In the Adopting Release, the Commission also stated that it “expect[ed] that the staff will have reviewed the controls and systems in place for the use and handling of nonpublic information reported on Form N-PORT.” 15

In May 2017, the Commission's Chairman initiated an assessment of the Commission's internal cybersecurity risk profile and its approach to cybersecurity.16 The Chairman also directed the staff to take a number of steps designed to strengthen the Commission's cybersecurity risk profile, with an initial focus on EDGAR.17 As the Chairman explained, the Commission receives, stores, and transmits substantial amounts of data, including sensitive and nonpublic data, in support of its mission.18 Much of that data is collected through EDGAR, which receives and processes over 1.7 million electronic filings per year.19 Thus, as part of the Commission's efforts to strengthen its cybersecurity risk profile going forward, the Commission has initiated a focused review and, as necessary or appropriate, uplift of the EDGAR system.20 The Commission has added, and expects to continue to add, additional resources to these efforts, which are expected to include outside consultants, and will increase the focus on data security matters.21 As the Chairman has indicated, these efforts will require substantial time and effort to complete.22

Certain of these measures, which will be designed to improve EDGAR's functionality and security, could negatively affect EDGAR's ability to validate and accept Form N-PORT filings in a timely manner, in particular during peak filing periods. Efforts to address any such potential effects on performance are underway, but we have determined to delay by nine months the requirement that funds file reports on Form N-PORT through the EDGAR system in order to provide time to complete this review and to implement and test any resulting modifications to the EDGAR system.23 This delay of filing reports on Form N-PORT on EDGAR is necessary for Commission staff to complete and review any modifications to EDGAR that are necessary to process these filings effectively and securely, given their frequency, volume, and complexity, as well as the nonpublic nature of much of the data.

To effectuate the nine-month delay, we have determined to adopt temporary rule 30b1-9(T), which will have the effect of delaying the EDGAR submission requirements associated with Form N-PORT for larger fund groups until April 2019. As a result, funds in larger fund groups that previously would have been required to submit their first reports on Form N-PORT on EDGAR for the period ending June 30, 2018 (no later than July 30, 2018) will now be required to submit their first reports on EDGAR by April 30, 2019.24 During this period, funds in larger fund groups that are subject to the June 1, 2018 compliance date must satisfy their reporting obligation by maintaining in their records the information required to be included in Form N-PORT instead of submitting the information via EDGAR.25 To provide for Commission access to this information for a reasonable period of time, consistent with current record retention requirements for registered investment companies, the temporary rule provides that the information maintained in the company's records shall be treated as a record under section 31 of the Investment Company Act and rule 31a-1 hereunder and subject to the requirements of rule 31a-2.26 Like all fund records under the Act, this information is subject to examination by Commission staff.27 Temporary rule 30b1-9(T) does not change the June 1, 2018 compliance date adopted for Form N-PORT for larger fund groups—it instead requires a temporary method for larger fund groups to fulfill their Form N-PORT reporting obligations.28

The Adopting Release delayed compliance for smaller fund groups by one year so that they could benefit from the lessons learned by the larger fund groups' earlier compliance date.29 In order to maintain this benefit the compliance date for smaller fund groups will be delayed by nine months from the original compliance date (until March 1, 2020). Not providing smaller fund groups with a compliance date delay would deprive them of receiving the full benefit of the tiered filing requirement that we previously adopted. However, the temporary rule is not relevant to these smaller fund groups,30 as the relevant provision of the temporary rule applies until April 1, 2019—before the new compliance date for smaller fund groups (March 1, 2020). As a result, smaller fund groups are not subject to a requirement to prepare and then retain as a record the information required on Form N-PORT; rather, they will, pursuant to the Adopting Release and this release, need to prepare and file Form N-PORT beginning on or after the delayed March 1, 2020 compliance date.

In order for investors and other users to continue to receive at the least the same information that they currently receive regarding fund portfolio holdings, we are requiring funds to continue filing public reports on Form N-Q until they begin filing reports on Form N-PORT using EDGAR (i.e., the March 31, 2019 reporting period for larger fund groups and March 31, 2020 for smaller fund groups). As the Commission concluded in the Adopting Release, Form N-PORT will render reports on Form N-Q unnecessarily duplicative. To that end, the Commission staff recently provided guidance that once a fund begins filing reports on Form N-PORT, it will no longer be required to file reports on Form N-Q.31 The Adopting Release rescinded Form N-Q, effective August 1, 2019. This effective date would have allowed funds sufficient time to satisfy Form N-Q's 60-day filing requirement with regard to their final filing on Form N-Q for the reporting period preceding their first filing on Form N-PORT.32 We also adopted certain changes to Form N-CSR to account for the rescission of Form N-Q.33 Specifically, as we noted in the Adopting Release, when a fund ceases filing reports on Form N-Q, its certification on Form N-CSR must state that the certifying officer has disclosed any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the most recent fiscal half-year, rather than the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter as currently required.34

As a result of this delay of the compliance date for filing reports on Form N-PORT for smaller fund groups by nine months, smaller fund groups will now satisfy their final filing requirements for Form N-Q by May 1, 2020. We are therefore delaying the effective date for the rescission of Form N- Q until May 1, 2020.35 Correspondingly, the compliance dates for the amendments to the certification requirements of Form N-CSR will be March 1, 2019, for larger fund groups, and March 1, 2020, for smaller fund groups.36

In the Adopting Release, the Commission determined that having a six-month time period where larger fund groups are required to file reports on Form N-PORT with the Commission, but where those reports are not disclosed publicly, will allow funds and the Commission to make adjustments to fine-tune the technical specifications and data validation processes.37 Because larger fund groups will now be required to submit the reports on EDGAR as of March 31, 2019, those reports for the periods ending March 31, 2019 through September 30, 2019 will be kept nonpublic to preserve the six-month period noted above.38 As before, portfolio information attached as exhibits to Form N-PORT for the first and third quarters of a fund's fiscal year will still be made public during this period, to ensure that information about funds' portfolio holdings continues to be publicly available to investors and other users during the six-month period when reports on Form N-PORT will not be made publicly available.39

We note that our action today does not affect requirements with respect to Form N-CEN.40 Because those reports will be immediately made public upon filing and because their annual frequency of filing and their smaller size are expected to impose fewer demands on the EDGAR system, we have determined not to change the submission requirements with respect to that form at this time.

The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires an agency to publish notice of a rulemaking in the Federal Register and provide an opportunity for public comment.41 This requirement does not apply, however, if the agency “for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 42 We have determined to immediately adopt this temporary rule delaying the requirement that funds file reports on Form N-PORT through the EDGAR system for nine months and making the accompanying changes described above. The Commission has determined that the range of potential technological matters accompanying the ongoing and anticipated improvements to the EDGAR system warrant a delay in accepting this entirely new set of EDGAR filings, which involve complex structured data files, until after the EDGAR upgrades that are underway are tested. This judgment is based on the Commission's ongoing, internal assessment of the range of potential modifications to enhance the EDGAR system's functionality, performance, and security. Accordingly, we have concluded that soliciting public comment on this issue would be neither necessary, practicable, nor in the public interest.

In addition, providing immediate certainty to funds is critical because we understand that funds are currently organizing their systems and procedures to comply with the requirements and dates set forth in the Adopting Release. Funds need to know that there will be a nine-month delay of the requirement that they file reports on Form N-PORT through the EDGAR system, and that as a result they will have to maintain their systems for filing reports on Form N-Q longer than contemplated in the Adopting Release. The Commission is concerned, for example, that absent the certainty provided by a final rule funds may eliminate those systems as part of the transition to Form N-PORT. Providing notice and comment would defeat this goal of giving certainty as to funds' obligations in light of the necessary delays stemming from the Commission's recent cybersecurity initiatives. Under these circumstances, notice and comment would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

For these reasons, the Commission finds that good cause exists to dispense with notice and comment regarding the delay of the requirement to submit reports on Form N-PORT on EDGAR and the associated changes outlined above.43

The Commission is sensitive to the economic effects, including the benefits and costs and the effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation that will result from this temporary final rule and from the nine-month delay of the requirement that funds submit reports on Form N-PORT through EDGAR, the associated delay for the same period of the rescission of Form N-Q, the delay of the semi-annual certification requirement in Form N-CSR, the delay of the effectiveness of certain amendments to other rules and forms, and the change in the six-month period during which filed reports on Form N-PORT with the Commission will be kept nonpublic.44

The Commission relies on information included in reports filed by funds to monitor trends, identify risks, and inform its regulatory functions. Similarly, investors and other market participants rely on funds' public filings to assist in their investment decisions and understanding of financial markets. Form N-PORT, which requires reporting of a fund's complete portfolio holdings on a monthly basis with every third month available to the public, will contribute substantially to information made available to the Commission and the public by funds. As the Commission has previously stated,45 the adoption of Form N-PORT will modernize fund reporting, improve the ability of the Commission to fulfill its regulatory functions, and allow investors to make more informed investment decisions.

The Commission has now determined to delay the requirement that funds submit Form N-PORT through the EDGAR system by nine months to provide time to complete the necessary adjustments to the technical specifications and data validation processes and to complete the necessary functionality, performance, and security enhancements. The Commission's implementation of this delay, while facilitating changes to the EDGAR system, will impose certain costs on market participants, including costs associated with delayed access to structured portfolio holdings data, costs associated with continuing to file Form N-Q, and recordkeeping costs associated with Form N-PORT for larger fund groups. The economic effects of the delay are discussed in more detail below.

The current required reporting of information by funds (e.g., reports on Forms N-Q, N-CSR, and N-SAR), as well as the changes in reporting and disclosure brought by the adoption of Form N-PORT, serve as the baseline against which the costs and benefits as well as the impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation are discussed.46 Additionally, the baseline takes into account the fact that some funds likely have started updating their systems and processes to comply with the new Form N-PORT requirements adopted in October 2016.

The entities affected by the delay of the EDGAR submission requirement for reports on Form N-PORT are generally the funds that will report using Form N-PORT; those entities that currently report using Form N-Q and would have ceased doing so as of the applicable Form N-PORT compliance date; and those entities that will rely on either filed information, including the Commission and current and future users of investment company portfolio information including investors, third-party information providers, and other interested potential users.

As of the end of 2016, approximately 95.8 million individuals owned shares of registered investment companies, representing 55.9 million or 44.4% of U.S. households.47 We estimate that, as of the end of 2016, there were 17,072 funds registered with the Commission, of which 11,548 are required to file Form N-PORT (i.e., 9,090 mutual funds (excluding money market funds), 1,716 ETFs (including eight ETFs organized as UITs and 1,708 ETFs that are management investment companies), and 742 closed-end funds (excluding SBICs)).48 Of the fund groups required to file Form N-PORT, 68.9% of fund groups, representing 0.6% of all fund assets, have net assets below $1 billion. We also estimate that there are 11,540 funds that currently report on Form N-Q and will be required to report on Form N-PORT,49 all of which would have ceased reporting on Form N-Q as of the applicable Form N-PORT compliance date(s).50

We are mindful of the costs and benefits of the delay in filings on Form N-PORT, the new recordkeeping requirement, and the associated delays in the effectiveness of certain amendments and rescissions. The Commission notes that, where possible, it has sought to quantify the benefits and costs, and effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation expected to result from the delay in the date for submitting Form N-PORT on EDGAR, the related delay in the rescission of Form N-Q, and the other changes made in this release. However, the Commission is unable to quantify many of the economic effects because it lacks information necessary to provide reasonable estimates. Effects that we are unable to quantify include the extent to which investors would be able to use the information in Form N-PORT to make more informed investment decisions either through direct use or through third-party service providers.

The EDGAR submission requirement was designed to enhance the Commission's ability to access efficiently and timely monthly investment portfolio information of a large number of funds in a structured format, and to also enhance investors' ability to make more informed investment decisions. The delay in the requirement to submit Form N-PORT on EDGAR will benefit reporting funds as well as funds' current and prospective investors, because it will allow the Commission time to make progress in the EDGAR system review and to implement and test resulting modifications to the EDGAR system.51 This will allow the large amounts of new, complex data to be submitted on EDGAR with additional security measures in place. This, in turn, will help ensure that the information contained in Form N-PORT, once submitted to EDGAR, is readily accessible and usable.

The Commission acknowledges, however, that there are costs to a delay in the receipt of Form N-PORT information. The delay in the EDGAR submission requirement could potentially temporarily affect the Commission's ability to readily incorporate Form N-PORT information into its mission through better informed policy decisions and oversight, more specific guidance and comments in the disclosure review process, and more targeted examination and enforcement efforts.52 This impact is likely mitigated, however, because during the nine-month delay in the EDGAR submission requirement, larger fund groups must still prepare and maintain in their records the information that is required to be included on Form N-PORT.53 Further, both smaller fund groups and larger fund groups must also prepare and submit reports on Form N-Q. There is overlap between the information that funds will continue to report on Form N-Q and that required in Form N-PORT; however, funds file Form N-Q in a non-structured data format, file the form less frequently, and report fewer data points than on Form N-PORT.54

The nine-month delay of the EDGAR submission requirement will also delay the ability of current and future users of investment company portfolio information, including investors, third-party information providers, and academics, to access additional publicly available data in a structured format. This delay in the Form N-PORT submission will defer the increase in the transparency of a fund's investment strategies and will also postpone the increase in the ability of investors and other potential users to more efficiently identify the funds' risk exposures, differentiate investment companies based on their investment strategies, and make more informed investment decisions. Any costs of such a temporary delay are partially mitigated by the fact that users of investment company portfolio information will continue to have access to relevant investment company information via the reports on Form N-Q and N-CSR for the duration of the Form N-PORT submission delay.

To the extent that the delay in the requirement to submit Form N-PORT on EDGAR for larger fund groups and the delay in the requirement to file Form N-PORT for smaller fund groups change costs borne by fund groups, these changes will come in the form of a reduction in the cost of submitting reports on Form N-PORT on EDGAR. For larger fund groups, there will be a cost saving associated with the nine-month delay in the requirement to prepare the funds' systems to accommodate the XML-based reports to the extent those fund groups choose another format to prepare and maintain the information that is required to be included in Form N-PORT during the delay period.55 For smaller fund groups, there will be a cost saving associated with the nine-month delay in both preparing and submitting reports on Form N-PORT on EDGAR.

Based on the cost estimates in the Adopting Release for compiling and submitting Form N-PORT on EDGAR, we believe that the cost savings for larger fund groups associated with the delay in submitting Form N-PORT on EDGAR and the delay in preparing the funds' systems to accommodate the XML Form N-PORT format requirement will be minimal. While filing with the Commission is delayed for nine months, temporary rule 30b1-9(T) will still require larger fund groups to compile the information that is required to be included in Form N-PORT during the nine months that the EDGAR submission requirement is delayed and these funds will incur the additional cost of maintaining the information required by Form N-PORT in the funds' records in an easily accessible place as required by the temporary final rule. We believe that the cost savings for smaller fund groups associated with the delay in preparing and submitting Form N-PORT on EDGAR for nine months will be likely higher compared to the cost savings for larger fund groups. These cost savings likely comprise a nine-month deferral of initial costs associated with preparing the necessary systems and processes for Form N-PORT filings and a reduction in ongoing costs associated with preparing, reviewing, and filing reports on Form N-PORT for nine months.56 Finally, for both larger and smaller funds groups, the proposed delay will temporarily defer costs associated with the public release of information that was previously held private.57

I. Background and Purpose

In July 2015, the Department of Defense (Department) issued a final rule 1 (July 2015 Final Rule) amending its regulation implementing the Military Lending Act (MLA) 2 primarily for the purpose of extending the protections of the MLA to a broader range of closed-end and open-end credit products, rather than the limited credit products that had been defined as “consumer credit.” 3 Among other amendments, the July 2015 Final Rule modified provisions relating to the optional mechanism a creditor may use when assessing whether a consumer is a “covered borrower,” modified the disclosures that a creditor must provide to a covered borrower, and implemented the enforcement provisions of the MLA.

Subsequently, the Department received requests to clarify its interpretation of points raised in the July 2015 Final Rule. The Department elected to inform the public of its views by issuing an interpretive rule in the form of questions and answers to assist industry in complying with the July 2015 Final Rule. The Department issued the first set of such interpretations on August 26, 2016 (August 26, 2016 Interpretive Rule).4 The present interpretive rule amends and adds to those questions and answers. This interpretive rule does not change the regulation implementing the MLA, but merely states the Department's preexisting interpretations of an existing regulation. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), this rulemaking is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2), this rule is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.

The following questions and answers represent official interpretations of the Department on issues related to 32 CFR part 232. For ease of reference, the following terms are used throughout this document: MLA refers to the Military Lending Act (codified at 10 U.S.C. 987); MAPR refers to the military annual percentage rate, as defined in 32 CFR 232.3(p).

In order to provide further guidance to industry and the public on the Department's view of its existing regulation, the Department amends its guidance on three questions and provides one additional question and answer. The numbering of this document follows the numbering of the questions and answers provided in the August 26, 2016 Interpretive Rule.

2. Does credit that a creditor extends for the purpose of purchasing a motor vehicle or personal property, which secures the credit, fall within the exception to “consumer credit” under 32 CFR 232.3(f)(2)(ii) or (iii) where the creditor simultaneously extends credit in an amount greater than the purchase price of the motor vehicle or personal property?

Answer: The answer will depend on what the credit beyond the purchase price of the motor vehicle or personal property is used to finance. Generally, financing costs related to the object securing the credit will not disqualify the transaction from the exceptions, but financing credit-related costs will disqualify the transaction from the exceptions.

Section 232.3(f)(1) defines “consumer credit” as credit offered or extended to a covered borrower primarily for personal, family, or household purposes that is subject to a finance charge or payable by written agreement in more than four installments. Section 232.3(f)(2) provides a list of exceptions to paragraph (f)(1), including an exception for any credit transaction that is expressly intended to finance the purchase of a motor vehicle when the credit is secured by the vehicle being purchased and an exception for any credit transaction that is expressly intended to finance the purchase of personal property when the credit is secured by the property being purchased.

A credit transaction that finances the object itself, as well as any costs expressly related to that object, is covered by the exceptions in § 232.3(f)(2)(ii) and (iii), provided it does not also finance any credit-related product or service. For example, a credit transaction that finances the purchase of a motor vehicle (and is secured by that vehicle), and also finances optional leather seats within that vehicle and an extended warranty for service of that vehicle is eligible for the exception under § 232.3(f)(2)(ii). Moreover, if a covered borrower trades in a motor vehicle with negative equity as part of the purchase of another motor vehicle, and the credit transaction to purchase the second vehicle includes financing to repay the credit on the trade-in vehicle, the entire credit transaction is eligible for the exception under § 232.3(f)(2)(ii) because the trade-in of the first motor vehicle is expressly related to the purchase of the second motor vehicle. Similarly, a credit transaction that finances the purchase of an appliance (and is secured by that appliance), and also finances the delivery and installation of that appliance, is eligible for the exception under § 232.3(f)(2)(iii).

In contrast, a credit transaction that also finances a credit-related product or service rather than a product or service expressly related to the motor vehicle or personal property is not eligible for the exceptions under § 232.3(f)(2)(ii) and (iii). For example, a credit transaction that includes financing for Guaranteed Auto Protection insurance or a credit insurance premium would not qualify for the exception under § 232.3(f)(2)(ii) or (iii). Similarly, a hybrid purchase money and cash advance credit transaction is not expressly intended to finance the purchase of a motor vehicle or personal property because the credit transaction provides additional financing that is unrelated to the purchase. Therefore, any credit transaction that provides purchase money secured financing of a motor vehicle or personal property along with additional “cashout” financing is not eligible for the exceptions under § 232.3(f)(2)(ii) and (iii) and must comply with the provisions set forth in the MLA regulation.

17. Does the limitation in § 232.8(e) on a creditor using a check or other method of access to a deposit, savings, or other financial account maintained by the covered borrower prohibit the borrower from granting a security interest to a creditor in the covered borrower's checking, savings or other financial account?

Answer: No. The prohibition in § 232.8(e) does not prohibit covered borrowers from granting a security interest to a creditor in the covered borrower's checking, savings, or other financial account, provided that it is not otherwise prohibited by other applicable law and the creditor complies with all other provisions of the MLA regulation, including the limitation on the MAPR to 36 percent. As discussed in Question and Answer #16 of these Interpretations, § 232.8(e) prohibits a creditor from using the borrower's account information to create a remotely created check or remotely created payment order in order to collect payments on consumer credit from a covered borrower or using a post-dated check provided at or around the time credit is extended.

Section 232.8(e)(3) further clarifies that covered borrowers may convey security interests in checking, savings, or other financial accounts by describing a permissible security interest granted by covered borrowers. Borrowers may convey security interests for all types of consumer credit covered by the MLA regulation.

Creditors should also note, however, that 32 CFR 232.7(a) provides that the MLA does not preempt any State or Federal law, rule or regulation to the extent that such law, rule or regulation provides greater protection to covered borrowers than the protections provided by the MLA. For example, although the MLA regulation does not prohibit borrowers from conveying security interests in all types of consumer credit covered by the regulation, including credit card accounts, such accounts may also be subject to other laws, rules and regulations governing offsets and security interests. See, e.g., 12 CFR 1026.12(d).

18. Does the limitation in § 232.8(e) on a creditor using a check or other method of access to a deposit, savings, or other financial account maintained by the covered borrower prohibit a creditor from exercising a statutory right, or a right arising out of a security interest a borrower grants to a creditor, to take a security interest in funds deposited within a covered borrower's account at any time?

Answer: No. In addition to the security interests granted by borrowers to creditors, as discussed in Question and Answer #17 of these Interpretations, above, under certain circumstances Federal or State statutes may grant creditors statutory liens on funds deposited within covered borrowers' asset accounts. Section 232.8(e) does not prohibit a creditor from exercising rights to take a security interest in funds deposited into a covered borrower's account at any time, including enforcing statutory liens, provided that it is not otherwise prohibited by other applicable law and the creditor complies with all other provisions of the MLA regulation, including the limitation on the MAPR to 36 percent. For example, under 12 U.S.C. 1757(11) Federal credit unions may “enforce a lien upon the shares and dividends of any member, to the extent of any loan made to him and any dues or charges payable by him.”

As discussed in Question and Answer #16 of these Interpretations, § 232.8(e) serves to prohibit a creditor from using the borrower's account information to create a remotely created check or remotely created payment order in order to collect payments on consumer credit from a covered borrower or using a postdated check provided at or around the time credit is extended. Section 232.8(e)(3) describes a permissible activity under § 232.8(e). However, the fact that § 232.8(e)(3) specifies a particular time when a creditor may take a security interest in funds deposited in an account does not change the general effect of the prohibition in § 232.8(e). Therefore, § 232.8(e) does not impede a creditor from—for example—exercising a statutory right to take a security interest in funds deposited in an account at any time, provided that the security interest is not otherwise prohibited by other applicable law and the creditor complies with all other provisions of the MLA regulation, including the limitation on the MAPR to 36 percent.

Creditors may exercise the right to take a security interest in funds deposited into a covered borrower's account in connection with all types of consumer credit covered by the MLA regulation, including credit card accounts, provided the creditor's actions are not prohibited by other State or Federal law, rule or regulation that provides greater protection to covered borrowers than the protections provided in the MLA. For example, although the MLA regulation does not prohibit borrowers from conveying security interests in all types of consumer credit covered by the regulation, including credit card accounts, such accounts may also be subject to other laws, rules and regulations governing offsets and security interests. See, e.g., 12 CFR 1026.12(d).

20. To qualify for the optional safe harbor under 32 CFR 232.5(b)(3), must the creditor determine the consumer's covered borrower status simultaneously with the consumer's submission of an application for consumer credit or exactly 30 days prior?

Answer: No. Section 232.5(b)(3)(i) and (ii) permit the creditor to qualify for the safe harbor when it makes a timely determination regarding the status of a consumer at the time the consumer either initiates the transaction or submits an application to establish an account, or anytime during a 30-day period of time prior to such action. Therefore, a creditor qualifies for the safe harbor under § 232.5(b) when the qualified covered borrower check that the creditor relies on is conducted at the time a consumer initiates a credit transaction or applies to establish an account, or up to 30 days prior to the action taken by the consumer. Similarly, the timing provisions in § 232.5(b)(3)(i) and (ii) permit a creditor to qualify for the safe harbor when it conducts a qualified covered borrower check simultaneously with the initiation of the transaction or submission of an application by the consumer or during the course of the creditor's processing of that application for consumer credit.

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, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. It has been determined that this is not a significant rule. This interpretive rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, or adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State or local governments. This rulemaking will not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, or raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this rulemaking will not alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs.

This amended interpretive rule does not change the regulation implementing the MLA, but merely states the Department's preexisting interpretations of an existing regulation. Moreover, the Department's interpretive views do not further prohibit or limit the sale of credit and ancillary credit-related products beyond any limits that may be set forth in the final rule. For example, under the final rule as issued, the inclusion of ancillary credit products in a hybrid transaction makes the credit transaction ineligible for the exemption from “consumer credit” under 32 CFR 232.3(f)(2)(ii) and (iii). This amended interpretive rule merely provides guidance on how the rule applies when such products are included in a credit transaction. Neither the final rule nor this amended interpretive rule prohibits the sale of ancillary credit products by the creditor as part of the credit transaction or as a separate transaction, nor does either prohibit a covered borrower from purchasing such products from the creditor or from another source. The Department estimates there remains a variety of venues for creditors to offer ancillary credit products and covered borrowers to acquire such ancillary credit products.

In evaluating any potential economic impact, the Department has consulted with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“Bureau”) 5 to assess the scope of the market for motor vehicle loans that also provide financing for a credit-related product or service, as such loans would not meet the exception from “consumer credit” in 32 CFR 232.3(f)(2)(ii). Specifically, the Department's assessment focused on guaranteed asset protection (GAP) and other credit insurance premiums, such as credit life and credit disability insurance, that are financed in connection with a credit transaction expressly intended to purchase a motor vehicle. In conducting its assessment, the Department excluded financing costs that are expressly related to the object being purchased because, as clarified in this interpretive rule, such costs would not prevent an otherwise exempt credit transaction from qualifying for the exemptions from “consumer credit” in 32 CFR 232.3(f)(2)(ii) and (iii).6 In assessing the scope of the market, the Department, in consultation with the Bureau, relied on informal surveys and reports regarding the market for financed motor vehicle transactions, the utilization of GAP and other credit insurance premiums in that market, and the typical costs to consumers associated with such ancillary credit-related products.7

Based on available data, the Department estimates the annual total market revenue for these products at $6,116.5 and $3,761.7 million, respectively, or a total of $9,878.1 million. The Department estimates that the covered borrower market for these products is .95 percent of the total market for these products, as covered borrower households represent .95 percent of total U.S. households, which implies a total possible market for covered borrowers of approximately $93.8 million. Of these covered borrowers, the Department estimates that only a very small portion of these consumers could include the Service members and their families covered by the MLA. As an example, if the typical consumer of such a product is an enlisted Service member under 25, does not have a college degree, and owns a car, the possible market value relevant to the MLA and this interpretive rule might be more like $21.7 million.8 Within this further market segment, an undetermined percentage of these products actually offer interest rates greater than 36 percent and would actually be purchased by this group, which would represent the share of products that fall under the MLA requirement. Generally, in this and other possible scenarios across age groups and other demographic characteristics, the Department anticipates the universe of products that exceed 36 percent interest in this category is very small and possibly negligible, especially considering the time that has passed since the final rule was issued. This number is anticipated to be even more likely to be negligible when considering the number of covered borrowers who would choose to consume this product particularly in light of the existing MLA requirement.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.

The Department of Defense certifies that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

This rule does not impose reporting and record keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

This rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). It has been determined that it does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This rule has no substantial effect on the States, or on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials. Nothing in this rule preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, the Department did not consult with State and local officials because it was not necessary.

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

On November 28, 2017, the Coast Guard published a temporary safety zone titled Safety Zone; Delaware River, Pipeline Removal, Marcus Hook, PA (82 FR 56170). The temporary safety zone established a safety zone from November 21, 2017, through December 8, 2017. The safety zone covers all navigable waters within 250 yards of vessels and machinery being used by personnel to conduct diving and pipe removal operations. Due to unforeseen issues with the operation, the expected dates of work have been changed and extended to February 28, 2018.

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 address the potential safety hazards associated with diving and pipeline removal operations.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Delaware Bay has determined that potential hazards associated with diving and pipe removal operations currently underway in the Delaware River, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 250-yard radius of diving and pipe removal vessels and machinery. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the operations are being conducted.

Only two changes have been made to the existing temporary rule. First, the original end date for enforcement of the safety zone was December 8, 2017, and the end date for the enforcement of the safety zone is being changed to February 28, 2018. Second, the enforcement period regulatory text, paragraph (d), has been amended to indicate what time of day the zone will be enforced. This timeframe was discussed in the regulatory analyses statements of the temporary final rule but was not included in the regulatory text itself.

This rule establishes a safety zone from December 9, 2017, through February 28, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 250 yards of vessels and machinery being used by personnel to conduct diving and pipe removal operations.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

E.O.s 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. E.O. 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the 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 E.O. 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location and duration of the security zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the Delaware River from December 9, 2017, through February 28, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16, Local Notice to Mariners, and Marine Safety Information Bulletin about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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. 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 would 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 would 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry within 250 yards of vessels and machinery being used by personnel to conduct diving and pipe removal operations. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number USCG-2017-1053 for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

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

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

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

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

Table of Contents I. General Information II. Background and Overview III. Finding of Failure To Submit for Washington State IV. Environmental Justice Considerations V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. General Information A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)

Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because no significant EPA judgment is involved in making a finding of failure to submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, where states have made no submissions or incomplete submissions, to meet the requirement. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

CAA section 110(a) imposes an obligation upon states to submit SIPs that provide for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years following the promulgation of that NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific requirements that states must meet in these SIP submissions, as applicable. The EPA refers to this type of SIP submission as the “infrastructure” SIP because it ensures that states can implement, maintain and enforce the air standards. Within these requirements, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains requirements to address interstate transport of NAAQS pollutants. A SIP revision submitted for this sub-section is referred to as an “interstate transport SIP.” In turn, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that such a plan contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from the state that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state (“prong 1”) or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state (“prong 2”). Interstate transport prongs 1 and 2, also called the “good neighbor” provisions, are the requirements relevant to this finding.

Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the EPA must determine no later than 6 months after the date by which a state is required to submit a SIP whether a state has made a submission that meets the minimum completeness criteria established per section 110(k)(1)(A). The EPA refers to the determination that a state has not submitted a SIP submission that meets the minimum completeness criteria as a “finding of failure to submit.” If the EPA finds a state has failed to submit a SIP to meet its statutory obligation to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), pursuant to section 110(c)(1) the EPA has not only the authority, but the obligation, to promulgate a FIP within 2 years to address the CAA requirement. This finding therefore starts a 2-year clock for promulgation by the EPA of a FIP, in accordance with section 110(c)(1), unless prior to such promulgation the state submits, and the EPA approves, a submittal from the state to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA will work with the state subject to this finding of failure to submit and provide assistance as necessary to help the state develop an approvable submittal in a timely manner. The EPA notes this action does not start a mandatory sanctions clock pursuant to CAA section 179 because this finding of failure to submit does not pertain to a part D plan for nonattainment areas required under section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call pursuant section 110(k)(5).

On December 14, 2012, the EPA promulgated a revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS to provide increased protection of public health and welfare from fine particle pollution.1 In that action, the EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 standard, strengthening it from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 12.0 μg/m3, which is attained when the 3-year average of the annual arithmetic means does not exceed 12.0 μg/m3. Infrastructure SIPs addressing the revised standard were due on December 14, 2015.

To date, Washington State has not submitted a good neighbor SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the EPA is issuing a finding that Washington State has failed to submit a SIP addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1-2), for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

This notice is making a procedural finding that Washington State has failed to submit a SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA did not conduct an environmental analysis for this rule because this rule would not directly affect the air emissions from particular sources. Because this rule will not directly affect the air emissions from particular sources, it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. Therefore, this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This final rule does not establish any new information collection requirement apart from what is already required by law.

This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements because the agency has invoked the APA “good cause” exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in the CAA under section 110(a) without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule responds to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs under section 110(a) to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. No tribe is subject to the requirement to submit an implementation plan under section 110(a) within 3 years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The EPA's evaluation of environmental justice considerations is contained in section IV of this document.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 12, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

On October 23, 2017 (82 FR 48944) (herein “proposed rule”), we proposed to determine that the deficiency that formed the basis for a disapproval of the contingency measures submitted for the San Joaquin Valley 1 nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (“1997 PM2.5 standards”) 2 has been corrected. We did so based on the Agency's approval of California regulations establishing standards and other requirements relating to the control of emissions from new on-road and new and in-use off-road vehicles and engines (herein, “waiver measures”) into the California State Implementation Plan (SIP), and a finding that the purposes of the contingency measure requirement, as applicable to the San Joaquin Valley based on its initial designation as a nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 standards, have been fulfilled.

Our proposed rule provides a detailed background section that describes the relevant NAAQS, area designations, the relevant SIP submittal requirements, and the relevant SIP revisions submitted and either approved or disapproved by the EPA under Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) section 110.

In short, under CAA section 172(c)(9), SIPs for areas designated as nonattainment for a NAAQS must be revised to provide for the implementation of specific measures (“contingency measures”) to take effect if the area fails to make reasonable further progress (RFP) or fails to attain by the applicable attainment date. The EPA disapproved the contingency measure element of a set of SIP revisions collectively referred to as the “2008 PM2.5 Plan,” which was developed and submitted by California to address SIP requirements triggered by the designation of the San Joaquin Valley as a nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.3

In response to the EPA's disapproval of the contingency measure element of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, California submitted a SIP revision referred to as the “2013 Contingency Measure SIP.” The 2013 Contingency Measure SIP primarily relied upon California's waiver measures, i.e., California mobile source regulations that had been waived or authorized by the EPA under CAA section 209, to provide post-attainment year emissions reductions equivalent to one year's worth of RFP.4

The EPA approved,5 but later disapproved,6 the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP in the wake of a court decision 7 that undermined the basis for the EPA's approval. The court decision at issue held that waiver measures must be approved into the SIP if California relies upon them to meet CAA SIP requirements, thereby rejecting the EPA's longstanding practice allowing California SIP credit for waiver measures notwithstanding their absence from the SIP. Our disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP became effective on June 13, 2016, and started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after June 13, 2016, and highway sanctions 6 months later, pursuant to CAA section 179 and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31, unless the State submits and the EPA approves, prior to the implementation of the sanctions, a SIP submission that corrects the deficiencies identified in the disapproval action.8

Since the disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP, we have approved the waiver measures as revisions to the California SIP,9 and our approval of them as part of the SIP addresses the specific deficiency that formed the basis of our May 12, 2016 disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP. Moreover, since the 2014 attainment year (for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan), the waiver measures and related vehicle fleet turnover have achieved post-attainment year emission reductions equivalent to approximately one year's worth of RFP as calculated for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The waiver measures have thus provided for sufficient progress towards attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards while a new attainment plan is being prepared.10 Therefore, in our proposed rule we found that the purposes of the contingency measure requirement, as applicable to the San Joaquin Valley based on the area's designation in 2005 for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, have been fulfilled, and we proposed to determine that the deficiency that formed the basis for the disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP has been corrected. We are finalizing this determination in today's action.

For a more detailed discussion of the regulatory context and rationale for our action, please see the proposed rule.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period which ended on November 22, 2017. During this period, we received no comments.

For the reasons given in our proposed rule and summarized herein, the EPA is making a final determination that the deficiency that formed the basis of our disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS has been corrected by the approval of the waiver measures as a revision to the California SIP and the finding that the waiver measures have achieved post-2014 attainment year emissions reductions sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the contingency measure requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9). This final determination permanently stops the sanctions clocks triggered by our disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP. See CAA section 179(a) and 40 CFR 52.31(d)(5).

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the EPA finds there is good cause for this action to become effective immediately upon publication. This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of the determination made herein that a deficiency in a previous SIP approval has been corrected. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rulemaking, however, does not create any new regulatory requirement such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule makes a determination that has the effect of permanently stopping sanctions clocks triggered by a previous SIP disapproval action. For these reasons, the EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

This action is a determination that a deficiency that is the basis for sanctions has been corrected and imposes no additional requirements. For that reason, this action:

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

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this action does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 12, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in WT Docket No. 17-79; FCC 17-153, adopted November 16, 2017, and released on November 17, 2017. The document is available for download at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. The complete text of this document is also available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

1. Enhancing the nation's wireless infrastructure is essential to meeting the exploding demand for robust mobile services and delivering the next generation of applications using transformative new network technologies. Review of deployment proposals pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. 306108, generally serves the public policy objective of preserving the nation's historic heritage. Not all infrastructure deployments, however, have the potential to affect historic properties. Where such potential effects do not exist, requiring an individual historic preservation review can impose needless burdens and slow infrastructure deployment.

2. Section 106 of the NHPA, 54 U.S.C. 306108, requires federal agencies to take into account the effect (if any) of their proposed undertakings on historic properties before proceeding with such undertakings. Agencies are responsible for deciding whether or not particular types of activities qualify as undertakings under the definitions in the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). See 36 CFR 800.3(a), 800.16(y). Where an agency determines that a type of activity has no potential to affect historic properties under any circumstances, the agency may unilaterally eliminate the review process for such undertakings. 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1).

3. In 2004, the Commission, the ACHP, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers agreed to the establishment of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings 2004 NPA). 47 CFR part 1. Of particular relevance here, the 2004 NPA excludes the construction of replacement structures from historic preservation review under defined conditions, but only if the structure being replaced meets the definition of a “tower,” meaning that it was constructed for the sole or primary purpose of supporting Commission-authorized antennas. See 47 CFR part 1, Appendix C, section III.B. A structure that does not qualify as a tower, such as a pole that initially was erected to support electric utility lines, does not fall within the exclusion under the 2004 NPA even if it is later used to support Commission-authorized antennas. Consequently, if such a pole must be replaced to support a communications antenna and no other exclusion applies, the pole replacement is subject to review.

4. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the present proceeding, the Commission initiated a broad examination of the regulatory impediments to wireless network infrastructure investment and deployment, and how we may remove or reduce such impediments, consistent with the law and the public interest, in order to promote the rapid deployment of advanced wireless broadband service to all Americans. See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Deployment, 32 FCC Rcd 3330 (2017) (2017 Wireless Infrastructure NPRM) ; see also Proposed Rule, 82 FR 21761 (May 10, 2017). The Commission specifically sought comment on whether to expand the categories of undertakings that are excluded from historic preservation review to include pole replacements, and whether such a step would facilitate wireless facility siting while creating no or foreseeably minimal potential for adverse impacts to historic properties. The Commission asked whether the construction of replacement poles should be excluded from Section 106 review, provided that the replacement pole is not substantially larger than the pole it is replacing, and solicited input on whether any additional conditions would be appropriate.

5. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), the Commission concludes that, in the circumstances specified below, replacement of a pole that was constructed with a sole or primary purpose other than supporting communications antennas with a pole that will support such antennas would have no potential to affect historic properties. The Commission therefore revises its rules to provide that the construction of such replacement poles will be excluded from Section 106 review when all the following conditions are met. First, paragraph (b)(3)(i) of the new rule provides that this new exclusion applies only if the original structure is a pole that can hold utility, communications, or related transmission lines; was not originally erected for the sole or primary purpose of supporting antennas that operate pursuant to a spectrum license or authorization issued by the Commission; and is not itself a historic property.

6. In addition, paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A) specifies that, to qualify for this new exclusion, the replacement pole must be located no more than 10 feet away from the original pole, based on the distance between the centerpoint of the replacement pole and the centerpoint of the original pole; provided that construction of the replacement pole in place of the original pole entails no new ground disturbance (either laterally or in depth) outside previously disturbed areas, including disturbance associated with temporary support of utility, communications, or related transmission lines. For purposes of paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A), “ground disturbance” means any activity that moves, compacts, alters, displaces, or penetrates the ground surface of previously undisturbed soils.

7. Moreover, paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(B) of the new rule provides that a replacement pole qualifies for this exclusion only if its height does not exceed the height of the original pole by more than 5 feet or 10 percent of the height of the original pole, whichever is greater. Paragraph (c)(ii)(C) establishes that the appearance of such a replacement pole must be consistent with the quality and appearance of the original pole. Notably, antennas separately deployed on a replacement pole that is exempted under the rule adopted here remain subject to existing historic preservation rules about antenna deployments, including the exemptions for equipment that is limited in size set forth in 47 CFR part 1, sections VI.A.5, VII.B.2 & 3.

8. The Commission concludes that, where all of these conditions are met, the construction of a replacement utility pole—i.e., a new pole in place of a preexisting pole that is being removed—will have no potential to affect historic properties (even assuming such properties are present), regardless of whether the original pole was built for the purpose of supporting communications equipment. The Commission further concludes that excluding such replacements from historic preservation review advances the public interest. The Commission has authority to take this step pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), which authorizes agencies to exclude undertakings that have no potential to affect historic properties from historic preservation review. Notably, for present purposes, the Commission does not revisit its treatment of the construction of wireless communications structures, including replacement structures, as Commission undertakings.

9. The Commission anticipates that adoption of this exclusion will provide significant efficiencies in the deployment of replacement facilities. The record indicates that pole replacements are often required to support small cell facilities, which increasingly will be needed to support the rollout of next-generation services. Small cell antennas are much smaller and less obtrusive than traditional antennas mounted on macro cell towers, but a far larger number of them will be needed to accomplish the network densification that providers need, both in order to satisfy the exploding consumer demand for wireless data for existing services and in order to implement advanced technologies such as 5G. We find that excluding the pole replacements at issue here from review under section 106 of the NHPA will allow providers to complete these deployments more efficiently. In addition, creating an exclusion for replacement of utility poles will make more consistent the process that carriers and pole constructors must follow to comply with our historic preservation review requirements and those they must follow when building replacement poles that are subject to the requirements of other agencies applying the ACHP's 2017 Federal Lands Program Comment. See Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Notice of Issuance of Program Comment for Communications Projects on Federal Lands and Property, 82 FR 23818 (May 24, 2017) (Federal Lands Program Comment).

10. In implementing large-scale network densification projects that require deployment of large numbers of facilities within a relatively brief period of time, use of existing structures, where feasible, can both promote efficiency and avoid adverse impacts on the human environment. Utility poles may be an appealing option for such deployments, since they often are the appropriate height for small cell antennas and are ubiquitous in many metropolitan areas. When existing utility poles cannot support additional equipment, however, pole replacement is required. Wooden utility poles, in particular, frequently need to be replaced because of their age and condition. For example, over time, wooden poles typically begin to rot from the top, where additional antennas associated with small cell facilities are usually attached, and frequently need to be replaced to have sufficient strength to support additional attachments. A pole also may need to be replaced if it is not sturdy enough or if it lacks sufficient space to mount new small cell antennas above utility infrastructure already installed on the pole, such as electric cables, telephone lines, cable television wires, or other equipment.

11. Replacement poles placed in essentially the same previously disturbed locations as the original structures will be sturdier than the preexisting poles, but will not necessarily be substantially taller or occupy appreciably more space on or in the ground than the original poles. In those circumstances, there is no likelihood that such pole replacements could affect historic properties. Nonetheless, under current rules, only replacements for poles meeting the definition of a “tower” are excluded from Section 106 review while other types of pole replacements continue to require review. See 47 CFR part 1, section III.B. The Commission finds, consistent with some parties' comments, that there is no valid reason to continue distinguishing between poles based on the purpose for which they were originally constructed, because the statutory test is whether a federal undertaking has a potential effect on historic properties, and is not based on the prior uses of a particular structure. The Commission also finds that adopting an exclusion for replacement utility poles will promote greater consistency by providing similar treatment for similar replacement structures. The Commission expects that creating an additional exclusion for pole replacements will encourage providers to replace existing poles in previously disturbed areas rather than undertaking new construction activity that potentially could affect historic properties.

12. The Commission limits the replacement pole exclusion, as discussed below, to ensure that such pole replacements have no potential to affect historic properties. These limitations address the concerns raised by some parties about the potential effect of a broad, unlimited exclusion for replacement poles and ensure that the exclusion established in this rule satisfies the strict standard in the ACHP's rules. In adopting these conditions, we rely on, and incorporate, the Commission's and the ACHP's analyses in support of recent similar exclusions, including the exclusion of utility pole replacements in section VIII.B of the ACHP's 2017 Federal Lands Program Comment.

13. The new exclusion established here focuses only on utility pole replacements. Accordingly, paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of the rule describes the new exclusion using terminology consistent with that in section III.O of the Federal Lands Program Comment by referring to poles that “can hold utility, communications, or related transmission lines.” Notably, section III.O of the Federal Lands Program Comment defines a “pole” as “a non-tower structure that can hold utility, communications, and related transmission lines;” paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of the Commission's new rule is similar, but uses the word “or” instead of the word “and,” in order to clarify that this replacement pole exclusion extends to replacements where the original poles are capable of supporting any of the listed types of facilities, not necessarily all of them.

14. Paragraph (b)(3)(i)(B) makes clear that replacements for structures that section III.B of the 2004 NPA defines as “towers,” since that program alternative already sets forth the conditions under which replacement of towers will be excluded from review. See 47 CFR part 1, section III.B. And paragraph (b)(3)(i)(C) of the new rule makes clear that the construction of new poles to replace existing poles that themselves qualify as historic structures are not excluded from review.

15. The new rule's limitations regarding location, size, quality, and appearance of replacement poles address the concerns raised by some Tribal Nations, State Historic Preservation Officers, and preservation advocates. Consistent with commenters' concerns, the Commission finds that excluding replacement poles that are substantially larger than or that differ in other material ways from the poles being replaced might compromise the integrity of historic properties and districts. The Commission therefore excludes from historic preservation review only those replacement poles that are situated no more than ten feet away from the original hole; are no more than 10 percent or five feet taller than the original pole, whichever is greater; and are consistent with the quality and appearance of the original pole.

16. The provision limiting the exclusion to a new pole located no more than 10 feet from the original structure ensures that the new pole is truly a “replacement” and that the replacement will not substantially alter the setting of any historic properties that may be nearby. The Commission finds that the minimal change in location permitted here, which will make pole replacements easier to construct as a practical matter, creates no risk of effects on historic properties in light of the fact that no new ground disturbance will be permitted. Moreover, the Commission finds that the deployment of a replacement pole no more than 10 feet from the original pole has no potential to cause effects on historic properties that might be present, because of the close proximity to the original pole and the de minimis size increase permissible to fall into this exception. The Commission cannot reach the same conclusion, however, with regard to replacement poles placed a considerable distance (e.g., 30 feet) away from the originals.

17. For purposes of this new exclusion, we use a size definition that differs from the definition of “substantial increase in the size of the tower” in 47 CFR part 1, section 1.E.1 and in 47 CFR part 1, sections III.A and III.B, because that definition allows for increasing the height by either 10 percent or 20 feet plus the height of an antenna array, whichever is greater. Utility poles are typically 25 to 40 feet tall, and we find that an increase in height limited to 10 percent or five feet would be de minimis and thus would have no potential to affect historic properties. The flexibility of the five foot alternative addresses concerns expressed in the record that manufacturers typically offer standard utility poles in five-foot increments, and that a height increase of less than five feet often may be insufficient to accommodate new antennas or other equipment on a pole while maintaining the necessary separation from preexisting infrastructure on the pole.

18. The Commission cannot reach the same conclusion as to a height increase of 20 feet or more, however, because it cannot conclude at this time that a replacement pole that is so much taller than the preexisting structure would have no potential for effects on any historic properties that may be nearby, as is required under 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1) for an agency to act unilaterally. On the other hand, the Commission disagrees with the contention raised by some parties that allowing even small increases in height without historic preservation review ultimately could have effects due to the possibility that multiple incremental replacements over time eventually would result in significantly larger poles. The Commission does not find this speculative concern persuasive: it is aware of no evidence of such repeated “stacked” replacements of utility poles occurring under existing program alternatives, and it believes the likelihood such activities will occur in the future is remote due to the substantial cost of removing and replacing poles.

19. The phrase “consistent with the quality and appearance of the originals” in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(C) is imported from the corresponding exclusion in section VIII.B.3 of the Federal Lands Program Comment, to ensure that there can be no visual effects on any nearby historic properties. The Commission notes that a change in materials, such as replacing a wooden pole with a metal pole, is permissible so long as this standard is met.

20. The Commission adopts an additional limitation as part of paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A) of the rule to ensure that the pole replacement project—including the removal of the original pole as well as construction of the replacement pole—will entail no new ground disturbance. This limitation recognizes that construction-related ground disturbance or excavation may affect properties that are historic due to the presence of archeological resources, including those of cultural or religious significance to a Tribal Nation or Native Hawaiian organization, which are included within the definition of historic property in 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1). The limitation on new ground disturbance outside previously disturbed areas, including disturbance associated with temporary support of lines, as well as the definition of “ground disturbance” as “any activity that moves, compacts, alters, displaces, or penetrates the ground surface of previously undisturbed soils,” are taken directly from section III.I of the Federal Lands Program Comment. The rule also specifies that the limitation on ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas applies to increases in both depth and lateral disturbance.

21. The Commission continues to require that if, after construction commences, the party discovers any human or burial remains or other historic properties (despite the previous ground disturbance), construction must cease immediately, and the party must promptly notify and consult with the Commission, the State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, and any affected Tribal Nation or Native Hawaiian organization to evaluate the discovery and develop any appropriate measures to handle it. See 47 CFR part 1, section IX.A-D. Human or burial remains also must be handled in a manner consistent with any applicable State or Federal laws. Id., section IX.D.

22. All the conditions described above must be satisfied in order for a replacement pole to be excluded from historic preservation review. The Commission concludes that, taken together, these provisions will ensure protection for historic properties and guard against replacements that would be out of scale with preexisting utility poles in a particular area. By adopting this new exclusion subject to these limitations, the Commission continues to fulfill its statutory responsibilities regarding historic preservation, while removing an unnecessary impediment to the rapid deployment of sorely needed small cell facilities and other wireless infrastructure across the country.

23. In this order, the Commission also reorganizes existing historic preservation regulations into a single rule section that will be clearer, more accessible, and easier to understand. Section 1.1307(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1307(a)(4), previously commingled detailed provisions implementing the historic preservation review process under section 106 of the NHPA with the provisions implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, 45 U.S.C. 4321-4355. To provide more clarity, the Commission is moving the historic preservation review provisions into a new rule, 47 CFR 1.1320, that more clearly sets forth the existing requirements governing that historic preservation review process; and within that rule, the Commission adopts a paragraph (b)(3) establishing the replacement utility pole exclusion described above.

24. The Commission finds that notice and comment are unnecessary and that it has good cause to make these clarifying revisions without expressly seeking comment on them. Except for paragraph (b)(3)'s addition of a pole replacement exclusion, new section 1.1320 makes no substantive changes to the existing requirements implementing the historic preservation review process under section 106 of the NHPA and adds no new obligations, but merely simplifies the way the Commission's regulations describe them by collecting existing requirements in one place and organizing them in a more straightforward fashion. Moreover, the delay engendered by a round of comment would be contrary to the public interest. The simpler presentation of our requirements in the new rule should make it easier for licensees and applicants to understand and comply with our historic preservation review requirements, and thus may expedite the completion of such review, thus facilitating more expeditious deployment of wireless infrastructure.

25. Paragraph (a) of the new rule incorporates into the Commission's rules the existing provisions in the ACHP's regulations (see, e.g. , 36 CFR 800.1(a), 800.2(a), and 800.16(b) & (y)) establishing that all federal agencies' undertakings with the potential to cause effects on historic properties are subject to review under Section 106 of the NHPA. There was no corresponding provision in the Commission's preexisting rules. At the same time, the Commission amends 47 CFR 1.1307(a)(4) to clarify that section 1.1320, as well as Section 106 of the NHPA, identify the historic preservation factors relevant to whether applicants must prepare environmental assessments of proposed actions.

26. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the new section 1.1320 clarify the procedures that apply to historic preservation review of categories of undertakings. Paragraph (a)(1) clarifies that the ACHP's regulations (36 CFR 800.3-800.13) establish the default procedures that generally apply to Commission undertakings, unless the undertakings are subject to one of the Commission's program alternatives, such as those listed in paragraph (a)(2), in which case they are reviewed using the procedures described in the applicable program alternative.

27. Paragraph (b) of the new rule lists Commission undertakings that are not subject to any FCC historic preservation review process. Paragraph (b)(1) refers to undertakings for which an agency other than the Commission is the lead Federal agency that is primarily responsible for historic preservation review. Paragraph (b)(2) recognizes that the Commission's program alternatives not only establish streamlined procedures but also exempt some categories of undertakings from review. Paragraph (b)(3) of the new rule sets forth the new utility pole replacement exclusion adopted in this order, and paragraph (b)(4) of the new rule is identical to paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of section 1.1307 of the preexisting rules, setting forth the exclusion for the collocation of antennas and related equipment on buildings other than towers or utility poles. Paragraph (c) of the new rule provides that Commission applicants and licensees are responsible for compliance with the historic preservation review procedures established in 47 CFR part 1, sections III-X. Paragraph (d) adopts definitions of the terms “antenna,” “applicant,” “collocation,” “tower,” and “undertaking” based on the preexisting definitions of these terms set forth, respectively, in 47 CFR part 1, section I.A; 47 CFR part 1, sections II.A.2, II.A.4, and II.A 14; and 36 CFR 800.16(y).

28. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

29. In the Order, the Commission adopts rules that streamline the process of deploying next-generation wireless broadband infrastructure by eliminating the need for historic preservation review pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in certain instances where there is no potential effect on historic properties. Specifically, the Commission finds that the construction of poles that can support antennas or other wireless communications equipment to replace pre-existing utility poles that are substantially identical, under specified conditions, has no potential to affect historic properties, and therefore, the historical preservation review process is unnecessary in this context. This order also reorganizes the rules governing the Commission's historic preservation review procedures by bringing together provisions that previously were scattered across a variety of locations into a single new Rule 1.1320, which clearly sets forth the existing requirements but, with the exception of the new exclusion for replacement utility poles, does not modify them.

30. No parties filed comments that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA. One party—the Smart Cities and Special Districts Coalition—filed comments arguing that some small local governments, special districts, property owners, or small developers might be harmed if the Commission were to adopt certain policy changes discussed in the NPRM relating to (i) batches of zoning applications filed with state or local governments, (ii) the maximum reasonable time for state or local governments to process zoning applications (“shot clock” rules and “deemed granted” remedies), or (iii) limitations on proprietary properties or regulation of their use. The present order does not deal with any of the issues in the NPRM that the Smart Cities and Special Districts Coalition addressed in the cited portions of its comments. The Commission will address these comments when it acts on the relevant issues in a future order.

31. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

32. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Below, the Commission provides a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.

33. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes here, at the outset, three comprehensive small entity size standards that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8 million businesses. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,215 small organizations. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data published in 2012 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, the Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

34. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities.

35. The Commission's own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that, as of October 25, 2016, there are 280 Cellular licensees that will be affected by our actions today. The Commission does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.

36. Personal Radio Services. Personal radio services provide short-range, low-power radio for personal communications, radio signaling, and business communications not provided for in other services. Personal radio services include services operating in spectrum licensed under part 95 of our rules. These services include Citizen Band Radio Service, General Mobile Radio Service, Radio Control Radio Service, Family Radio Service, Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, Medical Implant Communications Service, Low Power Radio Service, and Multi-Use Radio Service. There are a variety of methods used to license the spectrum in these rule parts, from licensing by rule, to conditioning operation on successful completion of a required test, to site-based licensing, to geographic area licensing. All such entities in this category are wireless, therefore the Commission applies the definition of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), pursuant to which the SBA's small entity size standard is defined as those entities employing 1,500 or fewer persons. For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities. The Commission notes that many of the licensees in this category are individuals and not small entities. In addition, due to the mostly unlicensed and shared nature of the spectrum utilized in many of these services, the Commission lacks direct information upon which to base an estimation of the number of small entities that may be affected by our actions in this proceeding.

37. Public Safety Radio Licensees. Public Safety Radio Pool licensees as a general matter, include police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services. Because of the vast array of public safety licensees, the Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to public safety licensees. For this category the Commission applies the SBA's definition for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications and for which the small entity size standard is defined as those entities employing 1,500 or fewer persons. For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities. With respect to local governments, in particular, since many governmental entities comprise the licensees for these services, the Commission includes under public safety services the number of government entities affected. According to Commission records, there are a total of approximately 133,870 licenses within these services. There are 3,121 licenses in the 4.9 GHz band, based on an FCC Universal Licensing System search of March 29, 2017. The Commission estimates that fewer than 2,442 public safety radio licensees hold these licenses because certain entities may have multiple licenses.

38. Private Land Mobile Radio Licensees. Private land mobile radio (PLMR) systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These radios are used by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories. Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to PLMR users. The SBA's definition for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications and for which the small entity size standard is defined as those entities employing 1,500 or fewer persons. For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities. According to the Commission's records, there are a total of 3,374 licenses in the frequencies range 173.225 MHz to 173.375 MHz, which is the range affected by this Notice. The Commission does not require PLMR licensees to disclose information about number of employees, and does not have information that could be used to determine how many PLMR licensees constitute small entities under this definition. The Commission however believes that a substantial number of PLMR licensees may be small entities despite the lack of specific information.

39. Multiple Address Systems. Entities using Multiple Address Systems (MAS) spectrum, in general, fall into two categories: (1) Those using the spectrum for profit-based uses, and (2) those using the spectrum for private internal uses.

40. With respect to the first category, Profit-based Spectrum use, the size standards established by the Commission define “small entity” for MAS licensees as an entity that has average annual gross revenues of less than $15 million over the three previous calendar years. A “Very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues of not more than $3 million over the preceding three calendar years. The SBA has approved these definitions. The majority of MAS operators are licensed in bands where the Commission has implemented a geographic area licensing approach that requires the use of competitive bidding procedures to resolve mutually exclusive applications. The Commission's licensing database indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, there were a total of 11,653 site-based MAS station authorizations. Of these, 58 authorizations were associated with common carrier service. In addition, the Commission's licensing database indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, there were a total of 3,330 Economic Area market area MAS authorizations. The Commission's licensing database also indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, of the 11,653 total MAS station authorizations, 10,773 authorizations were for private radio service. In 2001, an auction for 5,104 MAS licenses in 176 EAs was conducted. Seven winning bidders claimed status as small or very small businesses and won 611 licenses. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction (Auction 59) of 4,226 MAS licenses in the Fixed Microwave Services from the 928/959 and 932/941 MHz bands. Twenty-six winning bidders won a total of 2,323 licenses. Of the 26 winning bidders in this auction, five claimed small business status and won 1,891 licenses.

41. With respect to the second category, Internal Private Spectrum use consists of entities that use, or seek to use, MAS spectrum to accommodate their own internal communications needs, MAS serves an essential role in a range of industrial, safety, business, and land transportation activities. MAS radios are used by companies of all sizes, operating in virtually all U.S. business categories, and by all types of public safety entities. For the majority of private internal users, the definition developed by the SBA would be more appropriate than the Commission's definition. The applicable definition of small entity is the “Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite)” definition under the SBA rules. Under that SBA category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this category, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our action.

42. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).

43. BRS—In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities. After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, the Commission finds that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules.

44. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won 4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.

45. EBS—The SBA's Cable Television Distribution Services small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 2,436 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities. Thus, the Commission estimates that at least 2,336 licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television Distribution Services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are comprised of establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. The SBA's small business size standard for this category is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services, however, the Commission must use the most current census data for the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its associated size standard which was all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to U.S. Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 996 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 948 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 48 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small.

46. Location and Monitoring Service (LMS). LMS systems use non-voice radio techniques to determine the location and status of mobile radio units. For purposes of auctioning LMS licenses, the Commission has defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million. A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million. These definitions have been approved by the SBA. An auction for LMS licenses commenced on February 23, 1999 and closed on March 5, 1999. Of the 528 licenses auctioned, 289 licenses were sold to four small businesses.

47. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” These establishments operate television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated in that year. Of that number, 656 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or less, 25 had annual receipts between $25,000,000 and $49,999,999 and 70 had annual receipts of $50,000,000 or more. Based on this data, the Commission therefore estimates that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities under the applicable SBA size standard.

48. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,384. Of this total, 1,264 stations (or about 91 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on February 24, 2017, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 394. Notwithstanding, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.

49. The Commission notes, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive.

50. Radio Stations. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.” The SBA has established a small business size standard for this category as firms having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. Economic Census data for 2012 shows that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that year. Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year, 17 with annual receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999 million and 26 with annual receipts of $50 million or more. Therefore, based on the SBA's size standard the majority of such entities are small entities.

51. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Radio Analyzer Database as of June 2, 2016, about 11,386 (or about 99.9 percent) of 11,395 commercial radio stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial radio stations to be 11,415. The Commission notes that it has also estimated the number of licensed NCE radio stations to be 4,101. Nevertheless, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.

52. The Commission also notes, that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. The Commission's estimate therefore likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by its action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, to be determined a “small business,” an entity may not be dominant in its field of operation. Tthe Commission further notes, that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the estimate of small businesses to which these rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on these basis, thus our estimate of small businesses may therefore be over-inclusive.

53. FM Translator Stations and Low Power FM Stations. FM translators and Low Power FM Stations are classified in the category of Radio Stations and are assigned the same NAICS Code as licensees of radio stations. This U.S. industry, Radio Stations, comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has established a small business size standard which consists of all radio stations whose annual receipts are $38.5 million dollars or less. U.S. Census data for 2012 indicate that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that year. Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year, 17 with annual receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999 million and 26 with annual receipts of $50 million or more. Based on U.S. Census data, the Commission concludes that the majority of FM Translator Stations and Low Power FM Stations are small.

54. Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS). MVDDS is a terrestrial fixed microwave service operating in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. The Commission adopted criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits. It defined a very small business as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years; a small business as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years; and an entrepreneur as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. These definitions were approved by the SBA. On January 27, 2004, the Commission completed an auction of 214 MVDDS licenses (Auction No. 53). In this auction, ten winning bidders won a total of 192 MVDDS licenses. Eight of the ten winning bidders claimed small business status and won 144 of the licenses. The Commission also held an auction of MVDDS licenses on December 7, 2005 (Auction 63). Of the three winning bidders who won 22 licenses, two winning bidders, winning 21 of the licenses, claimed small business status.

55. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” The category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.

56. All Other Telecommunications. The “All Other Telecommunications” category is comprised of establishments that are primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for “All Other Telecommunications,” which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million. Thus, a majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms potentially affected by our action can be considered small.

57. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier,private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. They also include the Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), the 39 GHz Service (39 GHz), the 24 GHz Service, and the Millimeter Wave Service where licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status. The SBA nor the Commission has defined a small business size standard for microwave services. For purposes of this IRFA, the Commission will use the SBA's definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite)—i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons is considered small. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U. S. Census Bureau data for 2012, show that there were 967 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our proposed action.

58. According to Commission data in the Universal Licensing System (ULS) as of September 22, 2015 there were approximately 61,970 common carrier fixed licensees, 62,909 private and public safety operational-fixed licensees, 20,349 broadcast auxiliary radio licensees, 412 LMDS licenses, 35 DEMS licenses, 870 39 GHz licenses, and five 24 GHz licenses, and 408 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services. The Commission notes that the number of firms does not necessarily track the number of licensees. The Commission estimates that virtually all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

59. Non-Licensee Owners of Towers and Other Infrastructure. Although at one time most communications towers were owned by the licensee using the tower to provide communications service, many towers are now owned by third-party businesses that do not provide communications services themselves but lease space on their towers to other companies that provide communications services. The Commission's rules require that any entity, including a non-licensee, proposing to construct a tower over 200 feet in height or within the glide slope of an airport must register the tower with the Commission's Antenna Structure Registration (“ASR”) system and comply with applicable rules regarding review for impact on the environment and historic properties.

60. As of March 1, 2017, the ASR database includes approximately 122,157 registration records reflecting a “Constructed” status and 13,987 registration records reflecting a “Granted, Not Constructed” status. These figures include both towers registered to licensees and towers registered to non-licensee tower owners. The Commission does not keep information from which it can easily determine how many of these towers are registered to non-licensees or how many non-licensees have registered towers. Regarding towers that do not require ASR registration, the Commission does not collect information as to the number of such towers in use and therefore cannot estimate the number of tower owners that would be subject to the rules on which the Commission seeks comment. Moreover, the SBA has not developed a size standard for small businesses in the category “Tower Owners.” Therefore, the Commission is unable to determine the number of non-licensee tower owners that are small entities. The Commission believes, however, that when all entities owning 10 or fewer towers and leasing space for collocation are included, non-licensee tower owners number in the thousands, and that nearly all of these qualify as small businesses under the SBA's definition for “All Other Telecommunications.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for “All Other Telecommunications,” which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million. Thus, a majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms potentially affected by our action can be considered small. In addition, there may be other non-licensee owners of other wireless infrastructure, including Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and small cells, that might be affected by the measures on which the Commission seeks comment. The Commission does not have any basis for estimating the number of such non-licensee owners that are small entities.

61. The Commission is not imposing any additional reporting or record keeping requirements. Rather, as discussed in the next section, the Commission is reducing National Historic Preservation Act compliance burdens, including those on small entities, by eliminating the historic preservation review requirement for construction of replacement utility poles that are capable of supporting antennas or other wireless communications equipment and are substantially similar to the preexisting poles, subject to certain conditions. The Commission is also reorganizing the rules governing its historic preservation review procedures by consolidating them into a single new Rule 1.1320. This should clarify the rules and make compliance easier for small entities.

62. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”

63. This Order streamlines the process of deploying next-generation wireless broadband by eliminating the need for historic preservation review for construction of replacement utility poles in certain circumstances. The Commission anticipates that adoption of this replacement pole exclusion will provide significant efficiencies in the deployment of such facilities, particularly for small entities that may not have the compliance resources and economies of scale of larger entities, while still avoiding adverse impacts on historic properties. The exclusion will also make more consistent the process that carriers and pole construction companies must follow to comply with our historic preservation review requirements and those they must follow when building replacement poles that are subject to the requirements of other agencies pursuant to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Program Comment for Communications Projects on Federal Lands and Property. By adopting this new exclusion, the Commission continues to fulfill our statutory responsibilities regarding historic preservation, while reducing the burden on small entities by removing unnecessary impediments to the rapid deployment of small cell facilities and other wireless infrastructure across the country.

64. Further, the Order incorporates the new exclusion for replacement poles into our rules in a manner that more clearly articulates licensees' and applicants' obligations not only as to this specific issue, but more generally as to the entire historic preservation review process. Thus, the Commission is reorganizing its existing regulations to clarify the general requirements regarding historic preservation review, as well as to specify the contours of the new exclusion. This simpler presentation of our requirements in the new rule should make it easier for licensees and applicants to understand and comply with our historic preservation review requirements, and thus may expedite the completion of such review and facilitate more expeditious deployment of wireless infrastructure, further reducing the intrinsic cost and delay associated with such deployment.

65. As discussed above, the overall approach the Commission has taken is to remove regulatory requirements associated with NHPA compliance with respect to one specified category of undertakings and to simplify and clarify the existing requirements applicable in other contexts. In crafting this regulatory relief, the Commission has not identified any additional steps that itcould take with respect to small entities that could not also be applied to all entities that construct or deploy wireless infrastructure. While the new exclusion for replacement utility poles is not specifically directed at small entities, the Commission recognizes that our actions in the Order can potentially decrease costs for all those subject to NHPA obligations, including small entities.

66. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. The Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) also will be published in the Federal Register.

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

68. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

69. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 201, 301, 303, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 157, 201, 301, 303, and 332, Section 102(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 54 U.S.C. 306108, that the Report and Order is hereby adopted.

70. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

71. It is further ordered that part 1 of the Commission's rules is amended, and that these changes shall be effective January 16, 2018.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows:

This document announces that, on June 28, 2017, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the access stimulation rules contained in the Commission's Order, FCC 16-181, published at 82 FR 8814, January 31, 2017. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0994. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0298, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected].

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on June 28, 2017, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 25.

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0994.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-0994.

OMB Approval Date: June 28, 2017.

OMB Expiration Date: June 30, 2020.

Title: Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Band.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 126 respondents; 126 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: Between 0.5-50 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time, annual, and on-occasion reporting requirements, third party disclosure and recordkeeping requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 4(i), 7, 302, 303(c), 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157, 302, 303(c), 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r).

Total Annual Burden: 520 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $530,340.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: An assurance of confidentiality is not offered because this information collection does not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII) from individuals.

Privacy Act: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: On December 23, 2016, the Commission released a Report and Order in IB Docket No. 13-213, FCC 16-181, titled “Terrestrial Use of the 2473-2495 MHz Band for Low-Power Mobile Broadband Networks; Amendments to Rules for the Ancillary Terrestrial Component of Mobile Satellite Service Systems.” The revisions to 47 CFR part 25 adopted in the Report and Order remove a portion of the information collection requirements as it relates to a newly proposed low power broadband network, as described in document FCC 16-181. These revisions enable ATC licensees to operate low-power ATC using licensed spectrum in the 2483.5-2495 MHz band. Although the original low-power ATC proposal described the use of the adjacent 2473-2483.5 MHz band, low-power terrestrial operations at 2473-2483.5 MHz were not authorized by the Report and Order. The revisions provide an exception for low-power ATC from the requirements contained in § 25.149(b) of the Commission's rules, which require detailed showings concerning satellite system coverage and replacement satellites. The revisions also provide an exception from a rule requiring integrated service, which generally requires that service handsets be capable of communication with both satellites and terrestrial base stations. Accordingly, the provider of low-power ATC would be relieved from certain burdens that are currently in place in the existing information collection. To qualify for authority to deploy a low-power terrestrial network in the 2483.5-2495 MHz band, an ATC licensee would need to certify that it will utilize a Network Operating System to manage its terrestrial low-power network. Although the Report and Order also created new technical requirements for equipment designed to communicate with a low-power ATC network, satisfaction of these technical requirements relieves ATC licensees from meeting other technical requirements that apply to ATC systems generally. We also had a revision to this information collection to reflect the elimination of the elements of this information collection for 2 GHz MSS. See 78 FR 48621-22.

The purposes of the existing information collection are to obtain information necessary for licensing operators of Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) networks to provide ancillary services in the U.S. via terrestrial base stations (Ancillary Terrestrial Components, or ATCs); obtain the legal and technical information required to facilitate the integration of ATCs into MSS networks in the L-Band and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands; and to ensure that ATC licensees meet the Commission's legal and technical requirements to develop and maintain their MSS networks and operate their ATC systems without causing harmful interference to other radio systems.

Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) governing the harvest of North Atlantic swordfish by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and implemented by the United States into two equal semi-annual directed fishery quotas—an annual incidental catch quota for fishermen targeting other species or catching swordfish recreationally, and a reserve category, according to the allocations established in the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006), as amended, and in accordance with implementing regulations. NMFS is required under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest the ICCAT-recommended quota.

In 2017, ICCAT recommended that the overall North Atlantic swordfish total allowable catch (TAC) be set at 9,925 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) (13,200 mt whole weight (ww)) through 2021. Consistent with scientific advice, this was a reduction of 500 mt ww (375.9 mt dw) from previous ICCAT-recommended TACs. However, of this TAC, the United States' baseline quota remained at 2,937.6 mt dw (3,907 mt ww) per year. The Recommendation also continued to limit underharvest carryover to 15 percent of a contracting party's baseline quota. Thus, the United States could carry over a maximum of 440.6 mt dw (586.0 mt ww) of underharvest. Absent adjustments, the codified baseline quota is 2,937.6 mt dw for 2018. At this time, given the extent of underharvest in 2017, we anticipate carrying over the maximum allowable 15 percent (440.6 mt dw), which would result in a final adjusted North Atlantic swordfish quota for the 2018 fishing year equal to 3,378.2 mt dw (2,937.6 + 440.6 = 3,378.2 mt dw). Also as in past years, we anticipate allocating from the adjusted quota, 50 mt dw to the Reserve category for inseason adjustments and research, and 300 mt dw to the Incidental category, which includes recreational landings and landings by incidental swordfish permit holders, per § 635.27(c)(1)(i). This would result in an allocation of 3,028.2 mt dw for the directed fishery, which would be split equally (1,514.1 mt dw) between the two semi-annual periods in 2018 (January through June, and July through December).

The 2018 North Atlantic swordfish fishing year, which is managed on a calendar-year basis and divided into two equal semi-annual quotas, begins on January 1, 2018. Landings attributable to the SWO General Commercial permit are counted against the applicable semi-annual directed fishery quota. Regional default retention limits for this permit have been established and are automatically effective from January 1 through December 31 each year, unless changed based on the inseason regional retention limit adjustment criteria at § 635.24(b)(4)(iv). The default retention limits established for the SWO General Commercial permit are: (1) Northwest Atlantic region—three swordfish per vessel per trip; (2) Gulf of Mexico region—three swordfish per vessel per trip; (3) U.S. Caribbean region—two swordfish per vessel per trip; and, (4) Florida SWO Management Area—zero swordfish per vessel per trip. The default retention limits apply to SWO General Commercial permitted vessels and to HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels when fishing on non for-hire trips. As a condition of these permits, vessels may not possess, retain, or land any more swordfish than is specified for the region in which the vessel is located.

Under § 635.24(b)(4)(iii), NMFS may increase or decrease the SWO General Commercial permit vessel retention limit in any region within a range from zero to a maximum of six swordfish per vessel per trip. Any adjustments to the retention limits must be based upon a consideration of the relevant criteria provided in § 635.24(b)(4)(iv), which include: The usefulness of information obtained from biological sampling and monitoring of the North Atlantic swordfish stock; the estimated ability of vessels participating in the fishery to land the amount of swordfish quota available before the end of the fishing year; the estimated amounts by which quotas for other categories of the fishery might be exceeded; effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the fishery management plan and its amendments; variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns of swordfish; effects of catch rates in one region precluding vessels in another region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the overall swordfish quota; and, review of dealer reports, landing trends, and the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds.

NMFS has considered these criteria as discussed below and their applicability to the SWO General Commercial permit retention limit in all regions for January through June of the 2018 North Atlantic swordfish fishing year and has determined that the SWO General Commercial permit retention limits in the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions applicable to persons issued a SWO General Commercial permit or HMS Charter/Headboat permit (when on a non for-hire trip) should be increased from the default levels that would otherwise automatically become effective on January 1, 2018, to six swordfish per vessel per trip from January 1 through June 30, 2018, unless otherwise later noticed.

Among the regulatory criteria for inseason adjustments to retention limits, and given the rebuilt status of the stock and availability of quota, is the requirement that NMFS consider the “effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the fishery management plan and its amendments.” One consideration in deciding whether to increase the retention limit, in this case, is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the full North Atlantic directed swordfish quota without exceeding it based upon the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP goal to, consistent with other objectives of this FMP, “manage Atlantic HMS fisheries for continuing optimum yield so as to provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production, providing recreational opportunities, preserving traditional fisheries, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems.” Another consideration, consistent with the FMP and its amendments, is to continue to provide protection to important swordfish juvenile areas and migratory corridors.

The regulatory criteria also require NMFS to consider the estimated ability of vessels participating in the fishery to land the amount of swordfish quota available before the end of the fishing year. In considering these criteria and their application here, NMFS examined electronic dealer reports, which provide accurate and timely monitoring of landings, and considered recent landing trends and information obtained from biological sampling and monitoring of the North Atlantic swordfish stock. A six swordfish per vessel per trip limit for SWO General Commercial permit holders was in effect in the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions for the entire 2016 fishing season as a result of actions adjusting those limits upwards in January and July (80 FR 81770 and 81 FR 38966). Even with these higher retention limits, 2016 total annual directed swordfish landings through December 31, 2016, were approximately 1,079.0 mt dw, or 32.6 percent of the 3,009.4 mt dw annual adjusted directed swordfish quota. Similarly, with higher retention limits during both semi-annual quota periods in 2017, preliminary total directed swordfish landings through October 31, 2017, are approximately 744.2 mt dw, or 24.7 percent of the 3,009.4 mt dw annual adjusted directed swordfish quota established for 2017.

The total available directed swordfish quota has not been harvested for several years and, based upon current landing trends, is not likely to be harvested or exceeded during 2018. This information indicates that sufficient directed swordfish quota should be available from January 1 through June 30, 2018, at the higher retention levels, within the limits of the scientifically-supported TAC and consistent with the goals of the FMP.

The regulatory criteria for inseason adjustments also require NMFS to consider the estimated amounts by which quotas for other categories of the fishery might be exceeded. Based upon recent landings rates from dealer reports, an increase in the vessel retention limit for SWO General Commercial permit holders is not likely to cause quotas for other categories of the fishery to be exceeded as the directed category quota has been significantly underharvested in recent years and landings trends are not expected to vary significantly in 2018. Similarly, regarding the criteria that NMFS consider the effects of catch rates in one region precluding vessels in another region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the overall swordfish quota, NMFS expects there to be sufficient swordfish quota for 2018, and thus increased catch rates in these three regions as a result of this action would not be expected to preclude vessels in the other region (e.g., the buoy gear fishery in the Florida SWO Management Area) from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the overall swordfish quota.

Finally, in making adjustments to the retention limits NMFS must consider variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns of swordfish, and the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds. With regard to swordfish abundance, the 2017 report by ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics indicated that the North Atlantic swordfish stock is not overfished (B2015/Bmsy = 1.04), and overfishing is not occurring (F2015/Fmsy = 0.78). Increasing the retention limits for this U.S. handgear fishery is not expected to affect the swordfish stock status determination because any additional landings would be within the established overall U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota allocation recommended by ICCAT. Increasing opportunity beginning on January 1, 2018, is also important because of the migratory nature and seasonal distribution of swordfish. In a particular geographic region, or waters accessible from a particular port, the amount of fishing opportunity for swordfish may be constrained by the short amount of time the swordfish are present as they migrate.

NMFS also has determined that the retention limit for the SWO General Commercial permit will remain at zero swordfish per vessel per trip in the Florida SWO Management Area at this time. As discussed above, NMFS considered consistency with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, and the importance for NMFS to continue to provide protection to important swordfish juvenile areas and migratory corridors. As described in Amendment 8 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (78 FR 52012), the area off the southeastern coast of Florida, particularly the Florida Straits, contains oceanographic features that make the area biologically unique. It provides important juvenile swordfish habitat, and is essentially a narrow migratory corridor containing high concentrations of swordfish located in close proximity to high concentrations of people who may fish for them. Public comment on Amendment 8, including from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, indicated concern about the resultant high potential for the improper rapid growth of a commercial fishery, increased catches of undersized swordfish, the potential for larger numbers of fishermen in the area, and the potential for crowding of fishermen, which could lead to gear and user conflicts. These concerns remain valid. NMFS will continue to collect information to evaluate the appropriateness of the retention limit in the Florida SWO Management Area and other regional retention limits. This action therefore maintains a zero-fish retention limit in the Florida Swordfish Management Area.

These adjustments are consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP as amended, ATCA, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and are not expected to negatively impact stock health.

NMFS will continue to monitor the swordfish fishery closely during 2018 through mandatory landings and catch reports. Dealers are required to submit landing reports and negative reports (if no swordfish were purchased) on a weekly basis.

Depending upon the level of fishing effort and catch rates of swordfish, NMFS may determine that additional retention limit adjustments or closures are necessary to ensure that available quota is not exceeded or to enhance fishing opportunities. Subsequent actions, if any, will be published in the Federal Register. In addition, fishermen may access http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/species/swordfish/landings/index.html for updates on quota monitoring.

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:

The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, as amended, provide for inseason retention limit adjustments to respond to changes in swordfish landings, the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and regional variations in the fishery. Based on available swordfish quota, stock abundance, fishery performance in recent years, and the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds, among other considerations, adjustment to the SWO General Commercial permit retention limits from the default levels of two or three fish to six SWO per vessel per trip as discussed above is warranted, while maintaining a zero-fish retention limit in the Florida SWO Management Area. Analysis of available data shows that adjustment to the swordfish retention limit from the default levels would result in minimal risk of exceeding the ICCAT-allocated quota. NMFS provides notification of retention limit adjustments by publishing the notification in the Federal Register, emailing individuals who have subscribed to the Atlantic HMS News electronic newsletter, and updating the information posted on the “Atlantic HMS Breaking News” website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/news/breaking_news.html. Delays in temporarily increasing these retention limits caused by the time required to publish a proposed rule and accept public comment would adversely and unnecessarily affect those SWO General Commercial permit holders and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders that would otherwise have an opportunity to harvest more than the otherwise applicable lower default retention limits of three swordfish per vessel per trip in the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions, and two swordfish per vessel per trip in the U.S. Caribbean region. Further, any delay beyond January 1, 2018, the start of the first semi-annual directed fishing period, could result in even lower swordfish landings because of the lower default retention limits. Limited opportunities to harvest the directed swordfish quota may have negative social and economic impacts for U.S. fishermen. Adjustment of the retention limits needs to be effective on January 1, 2018, to allow SWO General Commercial permit holders and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders to benefit from the adjustment during the relevant time period, which could pass by for some fishermen, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Caribbean regions who have access to the fishery during a short time period because of seasonal fish migration, if the action is delayed for notice and public comment. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

This action is being taken under 50 CFR 635.24(b)(4) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.