Federal Register Vol. 82, No.243,

In final rule FR Doc. 2017-26718, beginning at page 58097 of the issue December 11, 2017, make the following corrections:

On page 58097, in the first column in the heading, correct the RIN to read “0581-AD76”.

The Federal Reserve Banks make primary and secondary credit available to depository institutions as a backup source of funding on a short-term basis, usually overnight. The primary and secondary credit rates are the interest rates that the twelve Federal Reserve Banks charge for extensions of credit under these programs. In accordance with the Federal Reserve Act, the primary and secondary credit rates are established by the boards of directors of the Federal Reserve Banks, subject to the review and determination of the Board.

On December 13, 2017, the Board voted to approve a 1/4 percentage point increase in the primary credit rate in effect at each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, thereby increasing from 1.75 percent to 2.00 percent the rate that each Reserve Bank charges for extensions of primary credit. In addition, the Board had previously approved the renewal of the secondary credit rate formula, the primary credit rate plus 50 basis points. Under the formula, the secondary credit rate in effect at each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks increased by 1/4 percentage point as a result of the Board's primary credit rate action, thereby increasing from 2.25 percent to 2.50 percent the rate that each Reserve Bank charges for extensions of secondary credit. The amendments to Regulation A reflect these rate changes.

The 1/4 percentage point increase in the primary credit rate was associated with an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate (from a target range of 1 to 11/4 percent to a target range of 11/4 to 11/2 percent) announced by the Federal Open Market Committee on December 13, 2017, as described in the Board's amendment of its Regulation D published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.

In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (12 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) (“APA”) imposes three principal requirements when an agency promulgates legislative rules (rules made pursuant to congressionally delegated authority): (1) Publication with adequate notice of a proposed rule; (2) followed by a meaningful opportunity for the public to comment on the rule's content; and (3) publication of the final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date. The APA provides that notice and comment procedures do not apply if the agency for good cause finds them to be “unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest.” 12 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Section 553(d) of the APA also provides that publication at least 30 days prior to a rule's effective date is not required for (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) a rule for which the agency finds of good cause for shortened notice and publishes its reasoning with the rule. 12 U.S.C. 553(d). The APA further provides that the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not apply “to the extent that there is involved . . . a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) (emphasis added).

Regulation A establishes the interest rates that the twelve Reserve Banks charge for extensions of primary credit and secondary credit. The Board has determined that the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date requirements of the APA do not apply to these final amendments to Regulation A for several reasons. The amendments involve a matter relating to loans, and are therefore exempt under the terms of the APA. In addition, the Board has determined that notice, public comment, and delayed effective date would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because delay in implementation of changes to the rates charged on primary credit and secondary credit would permit insured depository institutions to profit improperly from the difference in the current rate and the announced increased rate. Finally, because delay would undermine the Board's action in responding to economic data and conditions, the Board has determined that “good cause” exists within the meaning of the APA to dispense with the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date procedures of the APA with respect to the final amendments to Regulation A.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.1 As noted previously, a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required if the final rule involves a matter relating to loans. Furthermore, the Board has determined that it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The final rule contains no requirements subject to the PRA.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR chapter II to read as follows:

For monetary policy purposes, section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act (“the Act”) imposes reserve requirements on certain types of deposits and other liabilities of depository institutions. Regulation D, which implements section 19 of the Act, requires that a depository institution meet reserve requirements by holding cash in its vault, or if vault cash is insufficient, by maintaining a balance in an account at a Federal Reserve Bank (“Reserve Bank”).1 Section 19 also provides that balances maintained by or on behalf of certain institutions in an account at a Reserve Bank may receive earnings to be paid by the Reserve Bank at least once each quarter, at a rate or rates not to exceed the general level of short-term interest rates. Institutions that are eligible to receive earnings on their balances held at Reserve Banks (“eligible institutions”) include depository institutions and certain other institutions.2 Section 19 also provides that the Board may prescribe regulations concerning the payment of earnings on balances at a Reserve Bank.3 Prior to these amendments, Regulation D specified a rate of 1.25 percent for both IORR and IOER.4

The Board is amending § 204.10(b)(5) of Regulation D to specify that IORR is 1.50 percent and IOER is 1.50 percent. This 0.25 percentage point increase in the IORR and IOER was associated with an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate, from a target range of 1 to 11/4 percent to a target range of 11/4 to 11/2 percent, announced by the FOMC on December 13, 2017, with an effective date of December 14, 2017. The FOMC's press release on the same day as the announcement noted that:

A Federal Reserve Implementation note released simultaneously with the announcement stated that:

As a result, the Board is amending section 204.10(b)(5) of Regulation D to change IORR to 1.50 percent and IOER to 1.50 percent.

In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (12 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) (“APA”) imposes three principal requirements when an agency promulgates legislative rules (rules made pursuant to congressionally delegated authority): (1) Publication with adequate notice of a proposed rule; (2) followed by a meaningful opportunity for the public to comment on the rule's content; and (3) publication of the final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date. The APA provides that notice and comment procedures do not apply if the agency for good cause finds them to be “unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest.” 12 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Section 553(d) of the APA also provides that publication at least 30 days prior to a rule's effective date is not required for (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) a rule for which the agency finds of good cause for shortened notice and publishes its reasoning with the rule. 12 U.S.C. 553(d).

The Board has determined that good cause exists for finding that the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date provisions of the APA are unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest with respect to these final amendments to Regulation D. The rate increases for IORR and IOER that are reflected in the final amendments to Regulation D were made with a view towards accommodating commerce and business and with regard to their bearing upon the general credit situation of the country. Notice and public comment would prevent the Board's action from being effective as promptly as necessary in the public interest, and would not otherwise serve any useful purpose. Notice, public comment, and a delayed effective date would create uncertainty about the finality and effectiveness of the Board's action and undermine the effectiveness of that action. Accordingly, the Board has determined that good cause exists to dispense with the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date procedures of the APA with respect to these final amendments to Regulation D.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.5 As noted previously, the Board has determined that it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The final rule contains no requirements subject to the PRA.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends

12 CFR part 204 as follows:

Credit unions that experience a sharp decline in net worth have a much higher likelihood of failing. From the second quarter of 1996 through the second quarter of 2016, there were 11,734 federally insured credit unions. As shown in the table below, 2,502 of these credit unions fell below the well-capitalized threshold (7 percent net worth ratio) after having a net worth ratio above that threshold for at least one quarter. The net worth ratios of 490 of these 2,502 credit unions eventually declined to below two percent. Importantly, only 15 percent of those credit unions whose net worth dropped below two percent sometime in this period remain currently active.

Credit union failures are costly to the entire credit union system through their effect on the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF). The NCUA, as a prudential safety and soundness regulator, is charged with protecting the safety and soundness of the credit union system and, in turn, the NCUSIF through regulation and supervision.1 One way to mitigate some of the cost to the NCUSIF and minimize disruption to credit union members is to find appropriate merger partners for at-risk credit unions.

Under the emergency merger provision of section 205(h) of the FCU Act, the Board may allow a credit union that is either insolvent or in danger of insolvency to merge with another credit union if the Board finds that: (1) An emergency requiring expeditious action exists; (2) no other reasonable alternatives are available; and (3) the action is in the public interest.2 Under these circumstances, the Board may approve an emergency merger without regard to common bond or other legal constraints, such as obtaining the approval of the members of the merging credit union. The emergency merger provision addresses exigent circumstances and is intended to serve the public interest and credit union members by providing for the continuation of credit union services to members and by preserving credit union assets and the NCUSIF.

To take such action, the NCUA must first determine that a credit union is either insolvent or in danger of insolvency before the agency can make the additional findings that an emergency exists, other alternatives are not reasonably available, and the public interest would be served by the merger. The FCU Act, however, does not define when a credit union is “in danger of insolvency.”

In 2009, the NCUA proposed a definition of in danger of insolvency to establish an objective standard to aid it in making in danger of insolvency determinations.3 In doing so, the NCUA aimed to provide certainty and consistency regarding how it interprets the in danger of insolvency standard. In 2010, the NCUA finalized the 2009 proposed definition, which provided for the above-referenced three net worth categories, and it has remained the definition since.4

Experience gained since 2010, including the analysis of Call Reports and other NCUA internal data, led the Board to conclude that an update to the 2010 definition of in danger of insolvency is needed. For these reasons, the Board published proposed changes to the definition in the Federal Register in July 2017.5

The NCUA received 12 comments on the 2017 proposal to amend the definition of in danger of insolvency for emergency merger purposes (the Proposal). The comments were overwhelmingly supportive of the proposed definition and generally agreed with the NCUA's rationale for amending the definition. No commenters specifically opposed the proposed amendments to the definition. However, the commenters did raise several issues and made several suggestions. Specifically, commenters: Raised concerns about the impact on small credit unions and the impact of mergers on the federal charter generally; asked the NCUA to continue to study section 208 assistance generally and the data the NCUA has on recipient credit unions; requested increased transparency in the emergency merger process; and asked the NCUA to avoid using any definition that is overly rigid and results in the premature merger of a credit union. A number of these issues and suggestions, while relevant to emergency mergers or section 208 assistance generally, fall outside the scope of this rulemaking, which is only concerned with the definition of in danger of insolvency for emergency merger purposes. The Board addresses these concerns, to the extent that they fall within the scope of the rulemaking, below. Based on the rationale previously set forth, the commenters overwhelming support, and for the reasons explained in more detail below, the Board has decided to finalize the Proposal without amendment.

After reviewing and considering the comments, the Board is issuing this final rule to implement the changes as proposed in the Proposal. The 2010 definition of in danger of insolvency required a credit union to fall into at least one of three net worth categories to be found to be in danger of insolvency. Consistent with the Proposal, this final rule amends the 2010 definition in three ways.

First, the final rule lengthens by six months the “forecast horizons,” the time periods in which the NCUA projects a credit union's net worth for determining if it is in danger of insolvency. This change applies to two of the three current categories. It results in forecast horizons of 30 months for the insolvency (zero net worth) category, up from 24 months, and 18 months for the critically undercapitalized (under two percent net worth) category, up from 12 months. The third category of the 2010 definition, in which a credit union is significantly undercapitalized and the NCUA determines there is no reasonable prospect of the credit union becoming adequately capitalized in the succeeding 36 months, remains unchanged.

The second change the final rule makes is the addition of a fourth category to the definition. Specifically, a credit union will be considered in danger of insolvency if it has been granted or received assistance under section 208 of the FCU Act in the 15 months prior to the NCUA regional office's determination that the credit union is in danger of insolvency.

Third, the final rule makes a technical spelling correction to the first category of the definition to replace the word “relay” with the word “rely”.

The Board believes these changes to the 2010 definition provide the NCUA with a more appropriate degree of flexibility and better allow the NCUA to act when the statutory criteria for an emergency merger are met, namely an emergency requiring expeditious action exists, no other reasonable alternatives are available, and the action is in the public interest.6 As detailed in the Proposal and restated below, both the experience the NCUA gained in applying the current definition and quantitative data persuaded the Board that these changes are necessary. Commenters' overwhelming support for the changes further strengthened the Board's position. Under the time frames of the 2010 definition, the NCUA was, on several occasions, prevented from instituting an emergency merger because a struggling credit union had not yet met the regulatory time frames to be considered in danger of insolvency, although it had otherwise met the statutory criteria. The lack of flexibility in the 2010 definition can result in continued decline in the health of a credit union, leading to a reduction in member services as the institution moves towards resolution. As shown in the chart below, credit union loan growth declines in the quarters leading up to an emergency merger.

In July 2017, the Board announced a plan to streamline and consolidate certain of the NCUA's functions and offices in an effort to reduce the NCUA's budget and increase efficiency. The portions of the Board's reorganization plan reflected in this rule will:

• Eliminate the Office of Small Credit Union Initiatives;

• Rename the Office of Consumer Financial Protection and Access the “Office of Consumer Financial Protection;” and

• Create a new office named the “Office of Credit Union Resources and Expansion” to absorb: (1) Most of the current functions of the Office of Small Credit Union Initiatives; (2) the federal credit union chartering and field of membership functions of the Office of Consumer Financial Protection; and (3) the minority depository institution preservation program of the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.

Other aspects of the Board's reorganization plan, such as changes affecting the Office of Examination and Insurance, do not require regulatory changes.

The rule also makes a technical correction to the definition of “Regional Director” in the NCUA's voluntary merger regulation to reflect the fact that the Office of National Examinations and Supervision supervises natural person credit unions with assets of $10 billion or more as well as corporate credit unions.

Additionally, the changes articulated in this rulemaking relate only to changes in the organization of the NCUA's Central Office, which become effective January 6, 2018. The two NCUA Regional Offices that are to be eliminated under the reorganization plan will not be closed until December 31, 2018. The Board will issue another rule in 2018 to reflect the reduction in the number of NCUA Regional Offices beginning in 2019.

Generally, the APA requires a federal agency to provide the public with notice and an opportunity to comment on agency rulemakings.1 This rule is exempt from the APA's notice and comment requirement because it only addresses the NCUA's organization and structure.2

The APA also generally requires publication of a rule in the Federal Register at least 30 days before the effective date of the rule. Agencies can dispense with the 30-day requirement for good cause.3 The NCUA finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day effective date requirement, as this rule is technical rather than substantive. The rule will, therefore, be effective January 6, 2018 to coincide with the implementation of the NCUA's reorganization plan.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 4 (SBREFA) provides generally for congressional review of agency rules. A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where the NCUA issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the APA.5 As required by SBREFA, the NCUA has submitted this rule to the Office of Management and Budget for it to determine if the final rule is a “major rule” for purposes of SBREFA. The NCUA does not believe the rule is major.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the NCUA to prepare an analysis of any significant economic impact a regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities (primarily those under $100 million in assets).6 This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on small credit unions as it addresses only the NCUA's internal organization. Accordingly, the NCUA certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or increases an existing burden.7 For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of a reporting or recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. As the final rule simply conforms the NCUA's regulations to reflect its new organizational structure, the NCUA has determined it does not increase paperwork requirements under the PRA.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. The NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. The final rule does 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. The NCUA has therefore determined that this final rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

The NCUA has determined that this rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of § 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

For the reasons discussed above, the National Credit Union Administration amends 12 CFR parts 701, 705, 708a, 708b, and 790 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2009-25-07 (74 FR 65682, December 11, 2009) (2009-25-07), and add a new AD. AD 2009-25-07 applied to Eurocopter France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model EC120B helicopters. AD 2009-25-07 required amending the limitations section of RFMS to prohibit flight over water if the “float arm” pushbutton does not remain lit, conducting a pilot check to determine whether the “float arm” pushbutton remains lit before any flight over water, and placarding the “float arm” pushbutton as inoperative if the functional check is unsuccessful.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2017 (82 FR 32501). The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2016-0180, dated September 13, 2016 (AD 2016-0180), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Model EC120B helicopters. EASA advises that Airbus Helicopters has designed an improved latching pushbutton, which when installed becomes a terminating action for the repetitive functional checks of the float arm pushbuttons. EASA also states that lighting and ancillary control unit (LACU) part number (P/N) 040101BA is equipped with the same faulty pushbutton and must be included in the applicability.

Accordingly, the NPRM proposed to retain the RFMS amendment and repetitive functional check requirements of AD 2009-25-07, add LACU P/N 040101BA to the applicability paragraph, require replacing the float arm pushbutton P/N 045004A111A with float arm pushbutton P/N 304-2500-00 within 300 hours time-in-service (TIS), and prohibit installing float arm pushbutton P/N 045004A111A on any helicopter. Replacing the float arm pushbutton was also proposed as a terminating action for the repetitive functional checks prior to flight overwater. An owner/operator (pilot) may perform the functional check required by this AD and must enter compliance with that paragraph into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may perform this check because it involves only a functional check to determine whether the emergency flotation gear has been armed and can be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic. This check is an exception to our standard maintenance regulations.

The proposed requirements were intended to prohibit flight over water if a functional test indicates that the emergency flotation gear cannot be armed, which would preclude deployment of the floats in an emergency water ditching, resulting in subsequent damage to the helicopter and injury to occupants.

Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA's Aircraft Certification Service has changed its organization structure. The new structure replaces product directorates with functional divisions. We have revised some of the office titles and nomenclature throughout this Final rule to reflect the new organizational changes. Additional information about the new structure can be found in the Notice published on July 25, 2017 (82 FR 34564).

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

We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

The EASA AD requires installing the LACU float arm pushbutton within 13 months; this AD requires the installation within 300 hours TIS.

We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 04A007, Revision 1, dated June 30, 2016 (EASB), for Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B helicopters. The EASB describes procedures for a pre-flight check of the float arm pushbutton while arming the emergency flotation gear and prohibits operators from flight over water if the float arm pushbutton fails.

We also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. EC120-31A008, Revision 0, dated June 30, 2016 (ASB), for Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B helicopters. The ASB describes procedures for replacing the float arm pushbutton with a new design pushbutton and for re-labeling the modified LACU with a new P/N label.

We estimate this AD will affect 53 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, the cost of revising the limitations section of the RFMS and of the pre-flight functional check is negligible. Replacing the float arm pushbutton will require about 2 work-hours, and required parts cost about $311, for a cost per helicopter of $481 and a total cost of $25,493 to the U.S. fleet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are adopting a new AD for Enstrom Model F-28, F-28A, F-28C, F-28C-2, F-28C-2R, F-28F, F-28F-R, TH-28, 280, 280C, 280F, 280FX, 480, and 480B helicopters with a rod end bearing assembly (bearing assembly) part number (P/N) 01-824-08E-011, 09455-01-824-08E-011, ECD091-1, ASMK8T, M81935/1-08K, MS21242S8K, or MTK8 installed. We received a report of an accident involving an Enstrom Model 480B helicopter in which one of the main rotor (M/R) blades departed in-flight. The preliminary investigation indicated that failure of a rod end bearing assembly of one of the M/R hydraulic damper assemblies may have caused the M/R blade to depart from the helicopter. Based on a partially visible marking, the FAA believes the failed part is assembly P/N ECD091-1, vendor P/N 09455-01-824-08E-011. Analysis of the failed assembly revealed corrosion in the root of the threaded portion of the rod end. Enstrom identified a potential failure mode whereby failure of the rod end bearing assembly may result in the loss of the M/R blade. Because there is no indication of a specific manufacturing or design issue that would limit the potential for this corrosion to have occurred on other similarly-designed rod ends, the FAA determined it necessary to require an inspection of all approved rod end P/Ns.

Accordingly, this AD requires, within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), a one-time inspection of the bearing assemblies for corrosion on the threaded portion of the rod end. If there is any corrosion, this AD requires replacing the bearing assembly before further flight. This AD also requires reporting information about the inspection to the FAA within 10 days.

The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect corrosion in the bearing assembly to prevent failure of the rod end, loss of an M/R blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Additional inspections at longer intervals may also be necessary. We plan to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to give the public an opportunity to comment on those long-term requirements.

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

Enstrom has issued Service Directive Bulletin (SDB) No. 0127, Revision 1, dated October 6, 2017, for Model F-28, F-28A, F-28C, F-28C-2, F-28C-2R, F-28F, F-28F-R, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters and SDB No. T-058, dated August 2, 2017, for Model TH-28, 480, and 480B helicopters. This service information provides procedures for inspecting certain vendor specific bearing assemblies P/N ECD091-1 for corrosion on the threaded portion of the rod end.

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 AD requires, within 5 hours TIS, inspecting each M/R hydraulic damper bearing assembly P/N ECD091-1, and for model F-28, F-28A, F-28C, F-28C-2, F-28C-2R, F-28F, F-28F-R, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters each belt tension shaft bearing assembly P/N 01-824-08E-011, 09455-01-824-08E-011, ASMK8T, ECD091-1, MTK8, M81935/1-08K, and MS21242S8K, for corrosion at the root of the thread on the rod end with a 5X or higher power magnifying glass. If there is any corrosion, this AD requires replacing the bearing assembly before further flight.

This AD also requires, within 10 days after completing each inspection, reporting the findings of the inspection to the FAA's Chicago ACO Branch, including: The owner's contact information, helicopter registration number and model, date of the inspection, total hours of the bearing assembly and helicopter, bearing assembly serial number, the location of any corrosion, and a description of any corrosion.

The service information specifies repeating the visual inspection for corrosion at every 100 hour or annual inspection, while this AD does not, as this time interval would allow for sufficient time for notice and comment.

Also, the service information only applies to bearing assembly P/N ECD091-1 and only specifies performing an inspection if marked with vendor P/N 09455-01-824-08E-011 or if the marking is missing or illegible. This AD applies to all P/N ECD091-1, 09455-01-824-08E-011, MTK8, ASMK8T, 01-824-08E-011, M81935/1-08K, and MS21242S8K bearing assemblies. Because the FAA does not have any data that positively confirms the root cause as a manufacturing batch, the AD requires inspections on all P/Ns of the same type design. The data received about the initial inspections will be used to determine the effectivity of any follow-on actions.

Finally, the service information specifies reporting the inspection findings to Enstrom, while this AD requires reporting the findings to the FAA.

We consider this AD interim action. The inspection reports that are required by this AD will enable us to obtain better insight into the nature of the corrosion and to develop final action to address the unsafe condition. Once final action has been identified, we might consider further rulemaking.

We estimate that this AD affects 513 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, we estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD.

Inspecting the bearing assemblies will require 5 work-hours, for a cost per helicopter of $425 and a total cost of $218,025 to the U.S. fleet.

Reporting the inspection results required by this AD will require about 0.5 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $43, and a total cost of $22,059 to the U.S. fleet.

If required, replacing one bearing assembly will not incur any additional work-hours, and required parts will cost $410, for a cost per helicopter of $410.

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 required by 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.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the bearing assembly inspection required by this AD must be accomplished within 5 hours TIS. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued AD 2011-27-08 (77 FR 3382, January 24, 2012) (2011-27-08), for Agusta Model A109S and AW109SP helicopters with elevator assemblies, part number (P/N) 109-0200-02-601, 109-0200-02-801, 109-0200-02-602, 109-0200-02-802, 109-0200-02-803, or 109-0200-02-804 installed. AD 2011-27-08 required repetitively inspecting the left and right elevator assemblies for a crack and replacing the elevator assembly before further flight if there is a crack. AD 2011-27-08 was prompted by AD No. 2011-0150, dated August 9, 2011 (AD 2011-0150), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Agusta Model A109S and AW109SP helicopters. EASA advised of a fracture of the left elevator assembly along the riveting of the upper skin to the fourth rib due to fatigue.

Since we issued AD 2011-27-08, EASA has issued Emergency AD No. 2017-0085-E, dated May 12, 2017 (EAD 2017-0085-E), which supersedes AD 2011-0150. EASA advises that since AD 2011-0150 was issued, another crack was found in an elevator assembly during a post-flight inspection on an A109S helicopter. EAD 2017-0085-E requires a one-time visual or dye-penetrant inspection of the elevator upper skin in the area of the fourth rib, and also requires drilling an access hole in each elevator and performing repetitive inspections of the internal areas with an endoscope. If there is a crack, EAD 2017-0085-E requires replacing the cracked elevator assembly or contacting Agusta for an approved repair.

Also, the FAA is in the process of updating Agusta's name change to Leonardo Helicopters S.p.A. on its FAA type certificate. Because this name change is not yet effective, this AD specifies Agusta.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Leonardo Helicopters has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 109S-076 for Model A109S helicopters, and EASB No. 109SP-113 for Model AW109SP helicopters, both Revision A and dated May 12, 2017. Each EASB specifies procedures for visually inspecting the elevator assembly skin for a crack, adding an inspection hole to the elevator assembly, and inspecting the interior of the elevator assembly with an endoscope.

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 AD retains the initial visual inspection of AD 2011-27-08, but changes the compliance time to before further flight or before the elevator assembly exceeds 400 hours TIS, whichever occurs later.

The AD also requires, within 10 hours TIS or before the elevator assembly exceeds 400 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, drilling an access hole on the lower face of each elevator assembly and performing a borescope inspection of the internal areas of the elevator assembly leading edge and trailing edge longerons and upper web for a crack. If there is a crack, the AD requires replacing the elevator assembly before further flight. Lastly, this AD requires repeating the borescope inspection every 25 hours TIS.

The EASA AD allows a dye-penetrant inspection of the elevator assembly as an option, while this AD does not.

We estimate that this AD will affect 14 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Inspecting the elevator assemblies with a magnifying glass will require 3 work-hours for a cost of $255 per helicopter and $3,570 for the U.S. fleet.

Drilling an access hole will require 1 work-hour and required parts cost would be minimal, for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $1,190 for the U.S. fleet.

Inspecting with a borescope will require 1 work-hour for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $1,190 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.

If required, replacing a cracked elevator assembly will require 10 work-hours and required parts will cost $23,905 for a cost per helicopter of $24,755.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because some of the corrective actions must be accomplished before further flight. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2017 (82 FR 26617). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that the MCD forward-most cam latch on the forward center cam latch pair broke during flight. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for discrepancies of cam latches, latch pins, and latch pin cross bolts of the MCD; replacement of all alloy steel latch pin cross bolts with CRES latch pin cross bolts of the MCD; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary.

We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of the MCD cam latches, latch pins, and latch pin cross bolts, which, if left undetected, could reduce the structural integrity of the MCD and result in potential loss of the cargo door and rapid decompression of the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comments received. Air Line Pilots Association, International, FedEx Express, and VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering Inc. supported the NPRM.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule 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 VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering Inc. Service Bulletin MAE757SF-SB-52-12/02, Revision 3, dated July 22, 2016. This service information describes procedures for doing inspections for discrepancies of cam latches, latch pins, and latch pin cross bolts of the MCD; replacement of all alloy steel latch pin cross bolts with CRES latch pin cross bolts of the MCD; 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 119 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement of latch pin cross bolts and 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:

Background

In 2010, the FAA issued a final rule mandating equipage requirements and performance standards for Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B) Out avionics on aircraft operating in certain airspace after December 31, 2019. 75 FR 30160, May 28, 2010. Use of ADS-B Out will move air traffic control from a radar-based system to a satellite-derived aircraft location system and enhance aircraft surveillance by FAA and Department of Defense (DOD) air traffic controllers. Equipage with ADS-B avionics also provides aircraft operators with a platform for additional flight applications and services, including TIS-B,1 which improve a pilot's situational awareness in aircraft not equipped with a traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS).

In deploying the ADS-B surveillance infrastructure, the FAA implemented a capability to monitor compliance with § 91.227 requirements for aircraft operating within the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS). Over the past three years, this monitoring has identified some ADS-B Out aircraft with non-performing equipment (NPE) transmitting data used by ATC and ADS-B-In-equipped aircraft that present a potential safety hazard to NAS operations, including but not limited to: Unassigned/invalid 24-bit ICAO addresses; incorrect flight identification codes; erroneous position reports; improper avionics integrity and accuracy levels; and missing data required by applicable regulations.

To reduce the potential hazard presented by NPE aircraft, the FAA is filtering individual 24-bit ICAO address codes (also known as Mode S codes) for certain aircraft from the FAA's operational ADS-B network. The FAA is implementing an ATC filtering capability on January 2, 2018. This filtering prevents processing of data transmitted by uniquely identified NPE aircraft within FAA air traffic control systems and by the FAA TIS-B service. ATC will continue to receive transponder replies to secondary radar interrogations and will be able to provide ATC services within radar coverage to aircraft subject to the filter, using secondary radar information. Also, any aircraft with a filtered ICAO address code will continue to appear as a “target” to nearby aircraft with ADS-B-In equipment.

The FAA will always filter ICAO address codes from aircraft that are transmitting the hexadecimal values “000000” and “FFFFFF.” Per ICAO technical standards which FAA surveillance systems meet, neither of these ICAO address codes should be used by any aircraft ADS-B Out transmitter or Mode S transponder. However, FAA ADS-B monitoring over the last three years indicates that approximately once per day, on average, there is a flight in the NAS using one of these incorrect ICAO address codes and indicating that the aircraft is equipped with an ADS-B-In system. Because these non-compliant codes are not unique to a single aircraft, the potential for multiple aircraft to transmit the same code could create confusion inside ADS-B and TCAS avionics, Mode S interrogators, and ATC automation systems. This confusion could cause an aircraft's position to be incorrectly displayed or not displayed at all, thereby creating an unsafe condition in the NAS. To mitigate this risk and discourage violation of ICAO technical standards, the FAA will filter the ADS-B information from any aircraft transmitting a non-compliant address code from the FAA's operational ATC systems. Therefore, aircraft broadcasting these incorrect ICAO address codes will be unable to receive TIS-B services.

The FAA also intends to utilize the filter for other ICAO codes that are being improperly broadcast or for aircraft whose ADS-B Out equipment has exhibited erroneous position reports that could affect the safe provision of air traffic services. The FAA may also utilize the filter for aircraft that have a known issue that could reasonably result in erroneous ADS-B reports that could affect the safe provision of ATC services.

The FAA has initiated the filtering capability described in this document for aircraft transmitting non-compliant codes. For other aircraft, the FAA intends when possible to provide individual notice to owners/operators prior to utilizing the filter. This notification would describe the reason for applying the filter and steps that must be taken before an aircraft may be removed from the filter. If an aircraft owner/operator does not respond to an FAA notice of finding regarding an ADS-B avionics issue, FAA at its option may subject that aircraft to the filter without further notice.

Owners and operators can identify the ICAO address filtering status of their aircraft by requesting a Public ADS-B Performance Report (PAPR) at the following web address: https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx. Owners and operators whose aircraft are affected by application of the ICAO address filter must contact the FAA Flight Standards Service ADS-B Focus Team at [email protected] for guidance on corrective actions and coordination for removal of aircraft from the ICAO address filter.

Operators should check to insure that the ICAO address code (Mode S code) broadcast by their ADS-B equipment matches the assigned ICAO address code for their aircraft. This ICAO address code (Mode S code) can be found at: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Inquiry.aspx. Operators can verify what ICAO address code is being broadcast by their aircraft by visiting: https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx. 2

Background

The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)) identifies entities and other persons reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The EAR imposes additional license requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to those listed. The “license review policy” for each listed entity or other person is identified in the License Review Policy column on the Entity List and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the Federal Register document adding entities or other persons to the Entity List. BIS places entities and other persons on the Entity List pursuant to sections of part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote. The Departments represented on the ERC have approved these changes to the Entity List.

This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add two entities to the Entity List. These two entities are being added on the basis of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The two entries added to the Entity List consist of two entities located in Russia.

Under § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) of the EAR, persons for whom there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that they have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States and those acting on behalf of such persons may be added to the Entity List. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of § 744.11 provide an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.

BIS, pursuant to Section 744.11(b) of the EAR, and in consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Energy and the Treasury, has designated the two persons, located in the Russian Federation, to be added to the Entity List for actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, these entities produced, for the Russian Federation Ministry of Defense, a ground-launched cruise missile system, and associated transporter-erector-launcher, with a range prohibited by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Both the Russian Federation and the United States are party to the INF Treaty. Therefore, there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that Joint Stock Company Experimental Design Bureau Novator, and Joint Stock Company Federal Scientific and Production Center Titan-Barrikady have been involved in actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.

The prior review of exports, reexports or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR involving these persons, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to the persons, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent use of items subject to the EAR contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests.

For the two persons added to the Entity List, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR, and a license review policy of presumption of denial. The license requirements apply to any transaction in which items are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to either of the persons or in which such persons act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List in this rule. The acronym “a.k.a.” (also known as) is used in entries on the Entity List to identify aliases and help exporters, reexporters and transferors to better identify persons on the Entity List.

This final rule adds the following two entities to the Entity List:

(1) Joint Stock Company Experimental Design Bureau Novator, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

18 Prospekt Kosmonavtov, 620017 Yekaterinburg, Russia; and

(2) Joint Stock Company Federal Scientific and Production Center Titan-Barrikady, a.k.a., the following three aliases:

Prospekt Imeni V.I. Lenina, b/n 400071, Volgograd, Russia.

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

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

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications, and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission.

Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. For the two persons added to the Entity List in this final rule, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation and a 30-day delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). BIS implementation of this rule is necessary to protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests by preventing items from being exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, the entities being added to the Entity List by this action would continue to be able to receive items without a license and to conduct activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, publishing a proposed rule would give these parties notice of the U.S. Government's intention to place them on the Entity List, which could create an incentive for these persons to accelerate receiving items subject to the EAR to conduct activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, including taking steps to set up additional aliases, change addresses, and other measures to try to limit the impact of the listing on the Entity List once a final rule is published. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

I. Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For this device, FDA issued an order on November 13, 2012, finding the Gauss Surgical Pixel 3 Application not substantially equivalent to a predicate not subject to PMA. Thus, the device remained in class III in accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act when we issued the order.

On February 4, 2013, Gauss Surgical, Inc., submitted a request for De Novo classification of the PIXEL 3 SYSTEM. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.

We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Therefore, on May 9, 2014, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 880.2750. We have named the generic type of device image processing device for estimation of external blood loss, and it is identified as a device to be used as an aid in estimation of patient external blood loss. The device may include software and/or hardware that is used to process images capturing externally lost blood to estimate the hemoglobin mass and/or the blood volume present in the images.

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

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

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

This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 880 is amended as follows:

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) administers the pension plan termination insurance program under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) sets forth (in subpart B) the methods for valuing plan benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered under Title IV. Guaranteed benefits and benefit liabilities under a plan that is undergoing a distress termination must be valued in accordance with subpart B of part 4044. In addition, when PBGC terminates an underfunded plan involuntarily pursuant to ERISA section 4042(a), it uses the subpart B valuation rules to determine the amount of the plan's underfunding.

Under § 4044.51(b) of the asset allocation regulation, early retirement benefits are valued based on the annuity starting date, if a retirement date has been selected, or the expected retirement age, if the annuity starting date is not known on the valuation date. Sections 4044.55 through 4044.57 set forth rules for determining the expected retirement ages for plan participants entitled to early retirement benefits. Appendix D of part 4044 contains tables to be used in determining the expected early retirement ages.

Table I in appendix D (Selection of Retirement Rate Category) is used to determine whether a participant has a low, medium, or high probability of retiring early. The determination is based on the year a participant would reach “unreduced retirement age” (i.e., the earlier of the normal retirement age or the age at which an unreduced benefit is first payable) and the participant's monthly benefit at unreduced retirement age. The table applies only to plans with valuation dates in the current year and is updated annually by PBGC to reflect changes in the cost of living, etc.

Tables II-A, II-B, and II-C (Expected Retirement Ages for Individuals in the Low, Medium, and High Categories respectively) are used to determine the expected retirement age after the probability of early retirement has been determined using Table I. These tables establish, by probability category, the expected retirement age based on both the earliest age a participant could retire under the plan and the unreduced retirement age. This expected retirement age is used to compute the value of the early retirement benefit and, thus, the total value of benefits under the plan.

This document amends appendix D to replace Table I-17 with Table I-18 to provide an updated correlation, appropriate for calendar year 2018, between the amount of a participant's benefit and the probability that the participant will elect early retirement. Table I-18 will be used to value benefits in plans with valuation dates during calendar year 2018.

PBGC has determined that notice of, and public comment on, this rule are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Plan administrators need to be able to estimate accurately the value of plan benefits as early as possible before initiating the termination process. For that purpose, if a plan has a valuation date in 2018, the plan administrator needs the updated table being promulgated in this rule. Accordingly, PBGC finds that the public interest is best served by issuing this table expeditiously, without an opportunity for notice and comment, and that good cause exists for making the table set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication to allow as much time as possible to estimate the value of plan benefits with the proper table for plans with valuation dates in early 2018.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13771.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this regulation, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply (5 U.S.C. 601(2)).

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4044 is amended as follows:

I. Background

The Treasury Regulations appearing at 31 CFR part 100, subpart C, are promulgated under 31 U.S.C. 5120, and relate to the exchange of uncurrent, bent, partial, fused, and mixed coins. The last amendment to 31 CFR part 100, subpart C, was on August 23, 1999. Since then, the United States Mint identified portions of the regulations in need of revision to update redemption rates and procedures, and to enhance the integrity of the acceptance and processing of bent and partial United States coins. The United States Mint was also informed that the current structure of part 100 does not meet the orderly codification requirements of 1 CFR 8.2, 21.8, and 21.9.

The first category of revisions updates and improves the redemption process of bent and partial coins to enhance security and ensure the integrity of United States coinage. The revisions establish procedures for certifying participants based on submission amounts and frequency, sampling submissions to authenticate material, conducting site visits for certain participants, and requiring information on how the submission came to be bent or partial. The revisions also inform submitters of required banking information. Lastly, the revisions provide the United States Mint discretion to cease processing submissions that appear to be part of an illegal scheme, or contain material that is not identifiable as bent or partial United States coinage.

The second category of revisions relates to the redemption rates for uncurrent coins and bent and partial coins that have been withdrawn from circulation. For uncurrent coins, the revisions clarify the procedure for redemption by instructing the public to deposit the uncurrent coins with a financial institution that will accept them, or with a depository institution that has a direct relationship with a Federal Reserve Bank. The revisions make clear that a Federal Reserve Bank will redeem uncurrent coins based on the policies described in the Federal Reserve's Operating Circular 2.

For bent or partial coins, the revisions update the redemption rates of certain coins to reflect the current values and compositions of coins being redeemed. For example, in the prior regulation, the redemption rate for one-cent coins was $1.4585 per pound; this redemption rate was derived from the weight of bronze one-cent coins (3.11 grams or 0.1097 ounces each), which the United States Mint has not minted and issued since 1982. In 1983, the United States Mint began minting and issuing only copper-plated zinc one-cent coins, which weigh 2.50 grams or 0.0882 ounces each. Due to the weight difference, a pound (the minimum weight for redemption) of copper-plated zinc one-cent coins contains a higher quantity of coins than a pound of bronze one-cent coins. The revisions make the redemption rate $1.8100 for a pound consisting solely of copper-plated zinc one-cent coins. For bronze one-cent coins, or a mix of both bronze and copper-plated zinc one-cent coins, the lower redemption rate of $1.4585 will apply. A similar update is made to the redemption rate for $1 coins.

The third category of revisions clarifies that the United States Mint will not accept fused coins. The United States Mint will also not accept mixed coins (coins of several alloy categories presented together) for redemption, with the exception of bent or partial one-cent coins and $1 coins that are presented in mixed years.

The fourth category of revisions puts the public on notice that the Director of the United States Mint may provide information pertaining to any bent or partial coin submission to law enforcement officials or other third parties for purposes of investigating related criminal activity or for purposes of seeking civil judgment. The revisions also notify potential participants that they may be held criminally and/or civilly liable, fined, and/or imprisoned for fraudulent submissions.

Finally, the United States Mint clarifies which of the various offices and bureaus within the Department of the Treasury has authorization to update the different subparts within part 100.

In 82 FR 43730, Sep. 19, 2017, the United States Mint issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to revise redemption rates and procedures relating to the exchange of uncurrent, bent, partial, fused, and mixed coins, and requested comments on the proposed revisions. The United States Mint received fourteen comments. The majority of comments were from individuals and businesses who previously participated in the exchange program. One comment was from a trade association representing the private, for-profit recycling industry.

Most comments expressed support for the revisions. Many of the comments raised questions about details of the exchange program that specifically relate to operating procedures. Those instructions and other details relating to the exchange of bent and partial coins will be provided to the public on the United States Mint's website. Instructions and other details related to the exchange of uncurrent coins will be described in the Federal Reserve's Operating Circular 2. If a comment is not addressed in the summary below, it is because the comment was more specific to those operating procedures and details, or the comment was not responsive to the proposed revisions.

The majority of comments supported a participant certification process. A few comments expressed confusion or dissatisfaction with certification occurring prior to submission of coins. One comment said it would be logically inconsistent to require certification prior to submission because the thresholds related to certification are related to the submission. The United States Mint does not believe it is inconsistent to require certification prior to submission. Participants who will exceed or plan to exceed the annual weight threshold will be required to be certified by the United States Mint prior to submission. The annual weight threshold, along with other certification instructions, will be provided on the United States Mint's website.

One comment asked whether a participant would be required to go through the certification process prior to each submission. The answer is no. A recertification will be required every three years for those participants whose recurring submissions exceed the annual submission threshold, unless the United States Mint decides in its discretion that recertification is needed earlier than the three year period. Details and instructions on the certification process will be available on the United States Mint's website.

Two comments expressed concern with the regulations applying equally to domestic and foreign recycling companies. Foreign individuals and businesses will be given the same opportunity to participate in the exchange program. The requirement to provide payment information for a bank or other financial institution in the United States applies equally to domestic and foreign participants.

One comment requested clarity on how to separate bent or partial coins for redemption. Specifically, the comment cited the requirement of the prior regulation to separate bent or partial coins into the following denomination categories of at least one pound: One-cent coins; 5-cent coins; dime, quarter-dollar, and half-dollar coins; and $1 coins. The United States Mint is only revising the redemption rates, not the denomination categories themselves. Paragraph (d) is revised to clarify that lots of at least one pound must still be separated into the denomination categories of one-cent coins; 5-cent coins; dime, quarter-dollar, and half-dollar coins; and $1 coins.

After reviewing and considering all timely comments received in response to the NPRM, the United States Mint decided to move forward with the proposed regulatory text, with a minor editorial change to clarify the denomination categories. The United States Mint has determined that this minor editorial change is consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM and does not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

The Office of Management and Budget determined that this rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13771.

It is hereby certified that the revisions will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., is not required. First, the regulations do not directly regulate any entities. The redemption of uncurrent, bent, or partial coins is a discretionary service offered to the public; participation is voluntary. Second, many of the coins presented for redemption in the past were submitted by individuals transacting with the United States Mint in their own names. The number of entities tendering significant quantities of coins for redemption is small. Even if each such individual or entity qualified as a “small entity” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 604(a), the United States Mint does not believe that the revisions are likely to have a significant economic impact. The revisions do not change or limit the scope of what may be submitted for redemption or who may submit them. The revisions may require additional information from participants to deter potential fraud and abuse, but the added administrative costs for participants are expected to be minimal.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the United States Mint amends 31 CFR part 100 as follows:

Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events. Drawbridge operation regulations authorize changes to drawbridge schedules to accommodate bridge repairs, seasonal vessel traffic, and local public events. Regulated Navigation Areas are water areas within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established by the regional Coast Guard District Commander.

Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however, often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the rule. Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the end of the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the contents of these safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas or drawbridge operation regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to any enforcement action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas and drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not included in this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal Register. Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect or terminated.

The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between May 2013-October 2016 unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and search by the docket number indicated in the list below.

Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events. Drawbridge operation regulations authorize changes to drawbridge schedules to accommodate bridge repairs, seasonal vessel traffic, and local public events. Regulated Navigation Areas are water areas within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established by the regional Coast Guard District Commander.

Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however, often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the rule. Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the end of the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the contents of these safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas or drawbridge operation regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to any enforcement action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas and drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not included in this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal Register. Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect or terminated.

The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between October 2016 and December 2016 unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and search by the docket number indicated in the list below.

The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Highway and Bicycle drawbridges over San Leandro Bay, mile 0.0 and mile 0.1, between Alameda and Bay Farm Island, CA. The highway drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 20 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The bicycle drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 26 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draws operate as required by 33 CFR 117.193. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

The drawspans will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. on January 2, 2018 through 6 p.m. on May 27, 2018 to allow the bridge owner to perform major rehabilitation and maintenance work, including repainting the structural steel of the highway drawbridge. A temporary platform will be installed beneath the drawspan of the highway drawbridge, reducing the vertical clearance by 3 feet. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

Vessels able to pass through the bridges in the closed position may do so at anytime. If necessary, the draws can open on signal if at least 30 days notice is given to the bridge owner. Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal can be used an alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridges in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridges so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge over the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 p.m. through 11 p.m. on December 31, 2017, to allow the community to participate in the New Year's Eve Sky Spectacular fireworks show. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. In the event of an emergency the draw can open on signal if at least one hour notice is given to the bridge operator. There are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

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

On September 13, 2017, we published a temporary deviation entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Beach Lane Bridge, Quantuck Canal, Westhampton Beach, NY” in the Federal Register (see 82 FR 42940). Although we did not request public comments, outreach conducted with mariners utilizing the waterway indicated no objections to the temporary deviation. No complaints were submitted during the temporary deviation.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. Due to unanticipated difficulties and delays impacting the schedule and pace of rehabilitation of the bascule leaves and painting of the bridge additional time is required to finalize and complete the work necessary in order to restore the bridge to full operational capacity. We must modify the operation schedule of the bridge by December 1, 2017 to allow the completion of rehabilitation of the bascule leaves and painting of the bridge. We therefore lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the modification.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the Beach Lane Bridge across Quantuck Canal, mile 1.1, at Westhampton Beach, New York. The Beach Lane Bridge is a double-leaf bascule bridge offering mariners a vertical clearance of 13.9 feet at mean high water and 16.2 feet at mean low water in the closed position.

The existing drawbridge regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(d). The Suffolk County Department of Public Works, the bridge owner, has requested this modification as additional time is required to complete the final rehabilitation of the bascule leaves and painting of the bridge.

The Suffolk County Department of Public Works has also requested that the Beach Lane Bridge be allowed to open on signal only one of two bascule spans for bridge openings with the understanding that dual lift-span operations will occur for vessels requiring such an opening provided a 48 hour advance notice was furnished to the owner of the bridge.

The bridge generally opens for seasonal recreational craft and small scale tug/barge combinations occasionally transit the waterway. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge when in the closed position.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule, which permits a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Beach Lane Bridge across Quantuck Canal, mile 1.1, at Westhampton Beach, New York. The rule is necessary to accommodate the completion of rehabilitation of the bascule leaves and painting of the bridge. This rule allows for single-leaf operations upon signal and dual lift-span operations will be provided for vessels requiring such an opening given 48 hours of advance notice.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This regulatory action determination is based on the ability of the majority of vessels to successfully transit through the draw of the bridge with a single-leaf opening. Vessels requiring dual lift-span operations may continue to transit the draw provided submission of advance notice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. Background Information and Regulatory History

On August 29, 2017, the City of Annapolis, MD, notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting an aerial fireworks display at 11:55 p.m. on December 31, 2017. The fireworks display will be conducted by Pyrotecnico of New Castle, PA and launched from a barge located in Spa Creek, in Anne Arundel County at Annapolis, MD. There is no rain date planned for this fireworks display. In response, on November 21, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Safety Zone; Spa Creek, Annapolis, MD” (82 FR 55336). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended November 28, 2017, we received no comments.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display from a barge on navigable waters.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this December 31, 2017 display will be a safety concern for anyone within 133 yards of the fireworks barge. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published November 21, 2017. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 11 p.m. on December 31, 2017 through 1 a.m. on January 1, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Spa Creek within 133 yards of a fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°58′33.01″ N, longitude 076°28′58.00″ W, located at Annapolis, MD. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 11:55 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the duration, time-of-year, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Although vessel traffic will not be able to safely transit around this safety zone, the impact would be for only 2 hours during the late evening when vessel traffic in Spa Creek is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting less than two hours that would prohibit entry within 133 yards of a fireworks barge. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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

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

I. Background

Guffey Gorge is an 80 acre tract of public land in Park County, Colorado. It is surrounded by private land with Park County Road 102 providing legal public access. Until ten years ago, recreational use of this area was light, and the area was used primarily by local residents for picnicking, hiking, and swimming. Recreational use of the area has increased significantly over the past five years, resulting in resource damage, user conflicts, and safety hazards for visitors and surrounding private landowners. In 2013, the BLM began the public process for developing a management plan for the 80 acre parcel to manage the increasing visitor use and associated issues. This process included presentations and site tours with the Rocky Mountain (formerly Front Range) Resource Advisory Council (RAC) and collaboration with stakeholders and concerned citizens. On August 11, 2014, the BLM initiated a 30-day public scoping period. Based on feedback received during this process, the BLM developed a proposed action and released a preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA) for a 30-day public review on November 20, 2014. The BLM incorporated comments into the Final EA and corresponding Decision Record, signed on June 29, 2015.

The proposed supplementary rules were published in the Federal Register on June 1, 2016 (81 FR 35039). The BLM received three letters with comments during the 60-day comment period. One commenter supported a proposed fee; therefore, the comment was not relevant to the proposed supplementary rules. A second commenter submitted a general statement in support of controlling cars, trash, and people in Guffey Gorge. In response to this comment, the concern for controlling cars supports the rule that prohibits parking a motor vehicle outside of designated parking areas. The trash issue was addressed through the Guffey Gorge Management Plan, approved on June 29, 2015, by creating a standard amenity site with trash collection; therefore, no revision to the rules was needed. The third commenter shared a story about her negative experience at Guffey Gorge. This commenter supports a strict ban on alcohol consumption while visiting Guffey Gorge. The comment was noted as supporting the rule prohibiting the possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages.

These final supplementary rules implement certain decisions from the Guffey Gorge Management Plan on lands administered by the Royal Gorge Field Office. The planning area consists of approximately 80 acres of public lands within Park County, Colorado, in the following described townships:

These final supplementary rules are needed to address significant public safety concerns and resource protection issues resulting from increased and unsafe public use on public lands known as Guffey Gorge. The authority for these supplementary rules is set forth at section 310 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1740, and 43 CFR 8365.1-6. This notice, with a detailed map, will be posted at the Royal Gorge Field Office.

These final supplementary rules will help the BLM achieve management objectives for the area in the following ways:

• Supplementary rule number one prohibits possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages. As visitation at Guffey Gorge has increased, alcohol and drug use has also increased, leading to public health and safety concerns. This supplementary rule will help reduce disruptive behavior associated with alcohol use, improve public safety, and reduce litter in the area.

• Supplementary rule number two prohibits visitors from parking a motor vehicle outside of designated parking areas. Visitor parking is limited at Guffey Gorge and frequently overflows onto the shoulder of Park County Road 102. Park County Road 102 is a narrow, two-lane road with limited visibility near the Guffey Gorge trailhead. Restricting parking to designated parking areas only is essential for public health and safety.

• Supplementary rule number three requires animals brought into the area to be on a leash and under the control of a person, or otherwise physically restricted. This rule will help reduce problems associated with unrestrained dogs observed by staff in recent years. Currently, BLM regulations only require dogs to be restrained in developed recreation sites. Guffey Gorge is not a developed site, so existing BLM regulations do not apply. This supplementary rule will help reduce conflicts between visitors; reduce conflicts between domestic animals and wildlife; and control domestic animal waste.

• Supplementary rule number four prohibits the operation of any device producing amplified sound, such as stereos, speakers, and public address systems. This supplementary rule will help restore opportunities for quiet recreational activities recognized as one of Guffey Gorge's attributes.

These supplementary rules are not significant regulatory actions and not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. These supplementary rules will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. They will not adversely affect in a material way the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; environment; public health or safety; or State, local or tribal governments or communities. These supplementary rules do not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. These supplementary rules do not materially alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients; nor do they raise novel legal or policy issues. These supplementary rules merely establish rules of conduct for public use of a limited area of public lands.

During the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for the Guffey Gorge Management Plan, the BLM fully analyzed the substance of these supplementary rules in an EA, DOI-BLM-CO-200-2013-040 EA. The BLM signed the Decision Record for the EA on June 29, 2015, and found that these supplementary rules would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). These supplementary rules merely establish rules of conduct for public use of a limited area of public lands in order to protect natural resources and public health and safety. Although some activities will be prohibited in the area, the area will still be open to other recreation uses. A detailed statement under NEPA is not required. The BLM has placed the EA and Finding of No Significant Impact on file in the BLM Administrative Record at the address specified in the ADDRESSES section.

Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. These supplementary rules will have no effect on business entities of any size. These supplementary rules merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational activities on certain public lands to protect natural resources and the environment and human health and safety. Therefore, the BLM has determined under the RFA that these supplementary rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

These supplementary rules are not a “major rule” as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). These supplementary rules merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational activities on certain public lands to protect natural resources and the environment and human health and safety. These supplementary rules will not:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;

(2) Cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local agencies; or geographic regions; or

(3) Have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation; or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

These supplementary rules do not impose an unfunded mandate on the private sector; or State, local, or tribal governments of more than $100 million per year, nor will these supplementary rules have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. These supplementary rules merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational activities on certain public lands to protect natural resources and the environment and human health and safety. Therefore, the BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

These supplementary rules do not constitute a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. These supplementary rules will not address property rights in any form, and will not cause the impairment of constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, the BLM has determined that these supplementary rules will not cause a “taking” of private property or require further discussion of takings implications under this Executive Order.

These supplementary rules 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM has determined that these supplementary rules will not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Under Executive Order 12988, the BLM Colorado State Director has determined that these supplementary rules will not unduly burden the judicial system, and that they meet the requirements of Sections 3(a) and 3(b) (2) of the Order.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has found that these supplementary rules do not include policies that have tribal implications, and will have no bearing on trust lands or on lands for which title is held in fee status by Indian Tribes or U.S. Government-owned lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

In developing these supplementary rules, the BLM did not conduct or use a study, experiment or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554).

These supplementary rules do not constitute a significant energy action. These supplementary rules will not have an adverse effect on energy supply, production, or consumption and have no connection with energy policy.

In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined that these supplementary rules will not impede facilitating cooperative conservation; will take appropriate account of and consider the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources; will properly accommodate local participation in the Federal decision-making process; and will provide that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety.

These supplementary rules do not contain information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.

The principal author of these final supplementary rules is Linda Skinner, Outdoor Recreation Planner, BLM, Royal Gorge Field Office.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authorities for supplementary rules found at 43 U.S.C. 1740 and 43 CFR 8365.1-6, the BLM Colorado State Director establishes supplementary rules for approximately 80 acres of public lands in Guffey Gorge, to read as follows:

Unless otherwise authorized, the following acts are prohibited on all public lands, roads, trails, and waterways administered by the BLM within the Guffey Gorge Management Area:

1. You must not possess or consume alcoholic beverages;

2. You must not park a motor vehicle outside of designated parking areas;

3. You must not bring an animal into the area, unless the animal is on a leash not longer than six feet and secured to a fixed object or under control of a person, or is otherwise physically restricted at all times; and

4. You must not operate any device producing amplified sound such as a stereo, speaker, public address system, or other similar device.

The following persons are exempt from these supplementary rules: Any Federal, State, local and/or military persons acting within the scope of their duties; members of any organized rescue or fire-fighting force in performance of an official duty; or individuals expressly authorized by the BLM.

Any person who violates any of these supplementary rules may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, or both. In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may also impose penalties for violations of Colorado law.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, June 9, 1998) provides the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) the authority to grant waivers from any of the FMCSRs issued under Chapter 313 of Title 49 of the United States Code or 49 U.S.C. 31136, to a person(s) seeking regulatory relief. (49 U.S.C. 31136(e), 31315(a)). The Secretary must make a determination that the waiver is in the public interest, and that it is likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained in the absence of the waiver. Individual waivers may be granted only for a specific unique, non-emergency event, for a period up to three months. TEA-21 authorizes the Secretary to grant waivers without requesting public comment, and without providing public notice.

The Administrator of FMCSA has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87(e) to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapters I and III, relating to commercial motor vehicle programs and safety regulation.

The FMCSA received an application for an exemption and waiver from the NPPC on behalf of eight organizations that represent transporters of livestock and other agricultural commodities. Notice of the request for exemption from the requirement that a motor carrier require each of its drivers to use an electronic logging device (ELD) no later than December 18, 2017, to record the driver's hours-of-service (HOS), was published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2017 (82 FR 50358). Comments to that document were due by November 30, 2017 (www.regulations.gov, Docket FMCSA-2017-0297).

The NPPC focused on the impact of the ELD requirement on its members, given unique aspects of its industry, including “exposed incompatibilities between the HOS rules and the . . . industry . . . causing disruption . . . and endangering the health and welfare of . . . animals transported . . .”

FMCSA has also received from the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) an exemption, waiver, and petition document dated October 25, 2017, requesting that transporters of agricultural commodities and farm supplies not be required to use ELDs during an exemption period. That exemption request has not yet been published for comment. While this waiver is issued in response to the application submitted by the NPPC, it also applies to other eligible motor carriers, including ARA members, to the extent they are handling agricultural commodities as defined under 49 CFR 395.2, as discussed in the Terms and Conditions of the Waiver section below.

In addition to NPPC's request, FMCSA received numerous inquiries from parties involved in the transport of agricultural commodities about the correct application of the HOS agricultural exception in 49 CFR 395.1(k)(1), leading to an ongoing review of the exception. FMCSA is considering providing new guidance on the agricultural exception in the near future.

In an October 6, 2010, Federal Register document (75 FR 61626), FMCSA granted a limited 90-day waiver from the HOS requirements for the distribution of an agricultural supply—anhydrous ammonia. At that time, the Agency compared safety performance data for agricultural carriers then operating under the statutory HOS agricultural exception in 49 CFR 395.1(k) to non-agricultural carriers that were not exempt from HOS regulations to determine whether the waiver would be likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained in the absence of the waiver. The data were collected as part of a study, “Agricultural Commodity and Utility Carriers Hours of Service Exemption Analysis.” The final report from the study is available online.1

The study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 compared the safety performance of agricultural and non-agricultural carriers for the period 2005 through 2008, and also examined two additional industries, livestock and utility carriers, whose operations were not exempt from HOS regulations prior to the passage of SAFETEA-LU. The Phase 1 analysis used carrier registration, inspection and crash data from FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). The study used cargo classification information on the FMCSA Motor Carrier Identification Report (Form MCS-150) 2 in MCMIS to identify the carrier's industry group (agricultural, livestock, or utility carrier), and used MCS-150 information to identify carriers operating within and beyond a 100-air-mile radius. The operating radius information was used to create two agricultural carrier subgroups: (1) Agricultural carriers with 100 percent of drivers operating within a 100-air-mile radius; and (2) agricultural carriers with 100 percent of drivers operating beyond a 100-air-mile radius. The analysis used the first subgroup as representative of agricultural carriers exempt from the HOS requirements, and the second subgroup as representative of agricultural carriers not exempt from the HOS requirements.

For the Phase 2 analysis, inspection data of agricultural commodity and utility carriers (which are also exempt from HOS regulations) were collected during an FMCSA special study of a sample of States. These data included only those inspections occurring during the States' planting and harvesting seasons and indicated both the commodity being transported and whether the driver was operating within or beyond the 100-air-mile radius exempt from HOS regulations. The Phase 2 analysis assessed the safety performance of the HOS exempt agricultural commodity and utility service carriers identified in the survey in comparison with non-HOS exempt carriers based on their out of service (OOS) violation rates and crash rates.

For the purposes of considering whether to issue a limited waiver, FMCSA focused on the crash rate data from the study. The Agency placed less emphasis on the out-of-service (OOS) rates because there were no HOS violation data to consider given that the agricultural carriers for which data were available were operating under a statutory exemption from the HOS rule. Differences between the OOS rates for other issues such as driver qualifications and vehicle defects and deficiencies, while important in considering overall safety management controls of the carriers, were not necessarily related to the potential safety impact of the waiver.

The Phase 1 analysis indicated that nationally, agricultural carriers operating within a 100-air-mile radius had lower crash rates per 100 power units than those operating beyond this radius, except in 2008, when there was no difference in the crash rates.

To provide additional validation of the crash analysis, which uses power unit data reported on the Form MCS-150, a separate analysis was performed using data only for carriers domiciled in States participating in the Performance and Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM) program that enforces MCS-150 updating. PRISM links State motor vehicle registration systems with carrier safety data in order to identify unsafe commercial motor carriers. The PRISM State carriers are required to update their MCS-150 annually. By contrast, non-PRISM State carriers are required by FMCSA to update their MCS-150 biennially. As a result, the PRISM State data are considered more current and reliable than non-PRISM State data where there is no direct implication for not updating the data. Data from PRISM States that enforce MCS-150 updating show that agricultural carriers operating within a 100-air-mile radius had more varied results, with crash rates higher than carriers operating beyond a 100-air-mile radius in 2008, lower in 2006 and 2007, and nearly the same in 2005.

The Phase 2 analysis indicated that in the four States participating in the survey (ID, KS, MD, MI), agricultural carriers that were subject to the HOS requirements had higher crash rates per 100 power units than agricultural carriers exempt from the HOS requirements.

Although this study was conducted in 2010 and relied upon data from 2005 through 2008, FMCSA has no reason to believe that the conclusions would be different if updated using more recent data. Although these studies did not focus on benefits achieved by use of ELDS, given the limited population of motor carriers affected by the waiver and the brief period of time a waiver is in effect, FMCSA believes that the level of safety maintained by haulers of agricultural commodities will be equivalent to the safety of operations that would be obtained absent the granting of a waiver. Furthermore, the Agency believes the sense of urgency in this matter requires a decision based on the best available data, albeit dated, rather than delaying a decision until a new study can be conducted.

Considering the above study, the ongoing review of the HOS agricultural commodities exception, and the pending exemption request from NPPC, FMCSA has determined that it is in the public interest to provide a limited waiver from the use of ELDs for interstate motor carriers engaged in the transportation of agricultural commodities as defined in 49 CFR 395.2. This waiver will allow FMCSA time to evaluate the HOS exception applicable to the transport of agricultural commodities and review the concerns unique to the agricultural industry identified by NPPC and others. FMCSA grants the waiver requested by NPPC, but also extends it to all motor carriers transporting an agricultural commodity.

(1) Duration of the waiver. This waiver is applicable December 18, 2017, through March 18, 2018.

(2) Motor carriers transporting agricultural commodities under the provisions of 49 CFR 395.1(k)(1), are exempt from the ELD requirements in 49 CFR 395.8(a) during the period of this waiver, regardless of the distance traveled.

(3) Carriers operating under this waiver must comply with all other applicable requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 390 through 399), including the preparation of records of duty status (RODS) for operations which are currently considered to be subject to the HOS rules and the record retention requirements associated with those RODs and supporting documents.

(4) Motor carriers operating under this waiver must have a “satisfactory” safety rating from FMCSA or be unrated; motor carriers with “conditional” or “unsatisfactory” safety ratings are prohibited from taking advantage of the waiver.

(5) Drivers operating under this waiver must carry a copy of this Federal Register notification and present it to motor carrier safety enforcement officials upon request.

(6) Crash Notification to FMCSA

Carriers operating under this waiver must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's drivers operating under the terms of this waiver. The notification must include the following information:

(a) Identity of Waiver: “AG”

(b) Date of the accident,

(c) City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or closest to the accident scene,

(d) Driver's name and license number,

(e) Co-driver's name and license number (if applicable),

(f) Vehicle number and State license number,

(g) Number of individuals suffering physical injury,

(h) Number of fatalities,

(i) The police-reported cause of the accident,

(j) Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws, motor carrier safety regulations, and

(k) The total driving time and total on-duty time period prior to the accident.

Accident notifications must be emailed to [email protected].

Considering the limited period of this waiver and that it does not alter any of the HOS regulations other than the method of recording HOS, and the Agency's previous review of data concerning the safety performance of motor carriers engaged in the transportation of agricultural commodities, the Agency has determined that the waiver from the ELD requirements for 90 days is likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation.

FMCSA expects that any drivers and their employing motor carrier operating under the terms and conditions of the exemption will maintain their safety record. Should any safety problems be discovered, however, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public interest. Use of this waiver is voluntary, and FMCSA will immediately revoke the waiver for any interstate driver or motor carrier for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the waiver.

Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), this waiver preempts inconsistent State or local requirements applicable to interstate commerce.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2017 Atka mackerel TAC in the BS/EAI assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector is 2,966 metric tons (mt) and 2017 Atka mackerel TAC assigned to the Amendment 80 cooperatives is 27,594 mt as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) and reallocation (82 FR 45740, October 2, 2017.)

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that 6 mt of the Atka mackerel TAC for the BS/EAI assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector will not be harvested. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.91(f), NMFS reallocates 6 mt of Atka mackerel in the BS/EAI from the BSAI trawl limited access sector to the Amendment 80 cooperatives in the BSAI. In accordance with § 679.91(f), NMFS will reissue cooperative quota permits for the reallocated Atka mackerel following the procedures set forth in § 679.91(f)(3).

The harvest specifications for Atka mackerel included in the harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) and reallocation (82 FR 45740, October 2, 2017) are revised as follows: 2,960 mt of Atka mackerel in the BS/EAI for the BSAI trawl limited access sector and 27,600 mt for the Amendment 80 cooperative allocations in the BS/EAI. Table 6 is revised and republished in its entirety as follows:

This will enhance the socioeconomic well-being of harvesters dependent upon Atka mackerel in this area. The Regional Administrator considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of Atka mackerel by the BSAI trawl limited access sector in the BS/EAI, and (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of the Amendment 80 cooperatives that participate in this BS/EAI fishery.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Atka mackerel in the BS/EAI from the BSAI trawl limited access sector to the Amendment 80 cooperatives in the BSAI. Since the fishery is currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of December 11, 2017.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.91 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017) set the 2018 pollock TAC at 163,479 metric tons (mt) and the 2018 Pacific cod TAC at 57,825 mt in the GOA. In December 2017, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) recommended a 2018 pollock TAC of 166,228 mt for the GOA, which is more than the 163,479 mt established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA. The Council also recommended a 2018 Pacific cod TAC of 13,096 mt for the GOA, which is less than the 57,825 mt established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA. The Council's recommended 2018 TACs, and the area and seasonal apportionments, are based on the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report (SAFE), dated November 2017, which NMFS has determined is the best available scientific information for these fisheries.

Steller sea lions occur in the same location as the pollock and Pacific cod fisheries and are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Pollock and Pacific cod are a principal prey species for Steller sea lions in the GOA. The seasonal apportionment of pollock and Pacific cod harvest is necessary to ensure the groundfish fisheries are not likely to cause jeopardy of extinction or adverse modification of critical habitat for Steller sea lions. The regulations at § 679.20(a)(5)(iv) specify how the pollock TAC will be apportioned. The regulations at § 679.20(a)(6)(ii) and § 679.20(a)(12)(i) specify how the Pacific cod TAC will be apportioned.

In accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(i)(B), and (a)(2)(iv) the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that, based on the November 2017 SAFE report for this fishery, the current GOA pollock and Pacific cod TACs are incorrectly specified. Consequently, pursuant to § 679.25(a)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator is adjusting the 2018 GOA pollock TAC to 166,228 mt and the 2018 GOA Pacific cod TAC to 13,096 mt. Therefore, Table 2 of the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017) is revised consistent with this adjustment.

Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iv), Table 4 of the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017) is revised for the 2018 TACs of pollock in the Central and Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.

Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(6)(ii) and § 679.20(a)(12)(i), Table 6 of the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017) is revised for the 2018 seasonal apportionments and allocation of Pacific cod TAC in the GOA consistent with this adjustment.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would allow for harvests that exceed the appropriate allocations for pollock and Pacific cod based on the best scientific information available. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of December 13, 2017, and additional time for prior public comment would result in conservation concerns for the ESA-listed Steller sea lions.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until January 4, 2018.

This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) set the 2018 Bering Sea (BS) pollock TAC at 1,345,000 mt, the 2018 BSAI Atka mackerel TAC at 65,000 mt, the 2018 BS Pacific cod TAC at 223,704 mt, and the 2018 AI Pacific cod TAC at 15,695 mt. In December 2017, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) recommended a 2018 BS pollock TAC of 1,364,341 mt, which is more than the 1,345,000 mt TAC established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI. The Council also recommended a 2018 BSAI Atka mackerel TAC of 71,000 mt, which is more than the 65,000 mt TAC established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI. The Council recommended a 2018 BS Pacific cod TAC of 188,136 mt, and an AI Pacific cod TAC of 15,695 mt, which is less than the BS Pacific cod TAC of 223,704 mt, and the same as the AI Pacific cod TAC of 15,695 mt established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI. The Council's recommended 2018 TACs, and the area and seasonal apportionments, are based on the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report (SAFE), dated November 2017, which NMFS has determined is the best available scientific information for these fisheries.

Amendment 113 to the FMP (81 FR 84434, November 23, 2016) and regulations at § 679.20(a)(7)(viii) require NMFS to announce whether the Aleutian Islands incidental catch allowance, directed fishing allowance, CV Harvest Set-Aside, and Unrestricted Fishery, as well as the Bering Sea Trawl CV A-Season Sector Limitation will be in effect for 2018. NMFS received notification from Adak that a shoreplant will be processing Aleutian Islands Pacific cod in 2018. Therefore, the Pacific cod TACs in Table 9A of this inseason adjustment will be effective for 2018 and the harvest limits will apply in 2018.

Steller sea lions occur in the same location as the pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod fisheries and are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod are a principal prey species for Steller sea lions in the BSAI. The seasonal apportionment of pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod harvest is necessary to ensure the groundfish fisheries are not likely to cause jeopardy of extinction or adverse modification of critical habitat for Steller sea lions. NMFS published regulations and the revised harvest limit amounts for Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock fisheries to implement Steller sea lion protection measures to insure that groundfish fisheries of the BSAI are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the western distinct population segment of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat (79 FR 70286, November 25, 2014). The regulations at § 679.20(a)(5)(i) specify how the BS pollock TAC will be apportioned. The regulations at § 679.20(a)(7) specify how the BSAI Pacific cod TAC will be apportioned. The regulations at § 679.20(a)(8) specify how the BSAI Atka mackerel TAC will be apportioned.

In accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(i)(B), and (a)(2)(iv), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that, based on the November 2017 SAFE report for this fishery, the current BSAI pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod TACs are incorrectly specified. Pursuant to § 679.25(a)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator is adjusting the 2018 BS pollock TAC to 1,364,341 mt, the 2018 BSAI Atka mackerel TAC to 71,000 mt, and the 2018 BS Pacific cod TAC to 188,136 mt. Therefore, Table 2 of the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) is revised consistent with this adjustment.

Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i), Table 5 of the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) is revised for the 2018 BS allocations of pollock TAC to the directed pollock fisheries and to the Community Development Quota (CDQ) directed fishing allowances consistent with this adjustment. The Steller sea lion protection measure final rule (79 FR 70286, November 25, 2014), sets harvest limits for pollock in the A season (January 20 to June 10) in Areas 543, 542, and 541, see § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(6). In Area 541, the 2018 A season pollock harvest limit is no more than 30 percent, or 12,236 mt, of the AI ABC of 40,788 mt. In Area 542, the 2018 A season pollock harvest limit is no more than 15 percent, or 6,118 mt, of the AI ABC of 40,788 mt. In Area 543, the 2018 A season pollock harvest limit is no more than 5 percent, or 2,039 mt, of the AI pollock ABC of 40,788 mt.

Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(8), Table 7 of the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) is revised for the 2018 seasonal and spatial allowances, gear shares, CDQ reserve, incidental catch allowance, and Amendment 80 allocation of the BSAI Atka mackerel TAC consistent with this adjustment.

Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(7), Table 9 of the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) is revised for the 2018 gear shares and seasonal allowances of the BSAI Pacific cod TAC consistent with this adjustment.

Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(7)(viii), the Pacific cod TACs in Table 9A of this inseason adjustment will be effective for 2018 and the harvest limits will apply in 2018.