Federal Register Vol. 82, No.37,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 37 (February 27, 2017)

Page Range11789-12062
FR Document

82_FR_37
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 11910 - Watterra Energy, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
82 FR 11951 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 11826 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Using Trawl Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management AreaPDF
82 FR 11823 - Postponement of Effectiveness of the Consolidated Federal Oil & Gas and Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Reform 2017 Valuation RulePDF
82 FR 11957 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 11942 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 11915 - Information Concerning the Assignment Phase of the Forward Auction (Auction 1002), Including the Schedule for Practice and Mock Auctions; Availability of Assignment Phase User Guide and Online Tutorial; Assignment Phase Bidding Begins March 6, 2017PDF
82 FR 11878 - Fluoride Chemicals in Drinking Water; TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for Agency ResponsePDF
82 FR 11918 - Notice of Proposals To Engage In or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
82 FR 11893 - Increase in Fiscal Year 2017 Specialty Sugar Tariff-Rate QuotaPDF
82 FR 11854 - Organic Research, Promotion, and Information OrderPDF
82 FR 11855 - Organic Research, Promotion, and Information Order; Referendum ProceduresPDF
82 FR 11926 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent License: The Development of an Anti-Mesothelin Recombinant Immunotoxin (RIT) for the Treatment of Human Cancers.PDF
82 FR 11925 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 11932 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 11932 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 11929 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 11933 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 11930 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 11929 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 11929 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 11931 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 12028 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Regulation Agency ProtestsPDF
82 FR 11891 - Notice of Request for a Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection: Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
82 FR 11937 - Notice of Public Meeting, Rocky Mountain Resource Advisory Council, ColoradoPDF
82 FR 11870 - Proposed Waiver and Extension of the Project Period for the National Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood Longitudinal Data SystemsPDF
82 FR 11921 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 11911 - Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change the Community of LicensePDF
82 FR 11949 - AUC, LLC., Reno Creek Uranium In-Situ Recovery ProjectPDF
82 FR 11988 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
82 FR 11960 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Eighth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. and the Fifth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Group, Inc.PDF
82 FR 11973 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Eighth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. and the Fifth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Group, Inc.PDF
82 FR 11986 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc., Formerly National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Eighth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. and the Fifth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Group, Inc.PDF
82 FR 11971 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of FeesPDF
82 FR 11955 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the United States 3x Oil Fund and United States 3x Short Oil Fund Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200PDF
82 FR 11959 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1-4, To Amend the Co-location Services Offered by the Exchange To Add Certain Access and Connectivity FeesPDF
82 FR 11951 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1-4, To Amend the Co-location Services Offered by the Exchange To Add Certain Access and Connectivity FeesPDF
82 FR 11945 - Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health: Subcommittee on the Site Exposure Matrices (SEM)PDF
82 FR 11947 - Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health: Working Group on PresumptionsPDF
82 FR 11943 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-The Open Group, L.L.C.PDF
82 FR 11942 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993- Automotive Cybersecurity Industry ConsortiumPDF
82 FR 11942 - Meeting of The Judicial Conference Advisory; Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy ProcedurePDF
82 FR 11943 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.PDF
82 FR 11943 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Telemanagement ForumPDF
82 FR 11905 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 11905 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 11852 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Vessels Using Pot Gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of AlaskaPDF
82 FR 11825 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2017 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South AtlanticPDF
82 FR 11935 - Announcement of Funding Awards for HUD's Fiscal Year 2016 Community Compass Technical Assistance and Capacity Building ProgramPDF
82 FR 12026 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection RequestsPDF
82 FR 11904 - Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Notice of Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 11903 - Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative ReviewPDF
82 FR 11895 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7-Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Romark Global Pharma, LLC; Subzone 7P; Manatí, Puerto Rico (Pharmaceuticals)PDF
82 FR 11907 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, NevadaPDF
82 FR 11990 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
82 FR 11962 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 11958 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 11935 - Port Access Route Study: In the Chukchi Sea, Bering Strait and Bering SeaPDF
82 FR 11941 - Information Collection: Project Planning for the Use of Outer Continental Shelf Sand, Gravel, and Shell Resources in Construction Projects That Qualify for a Negotiated Noncompetitive Agreement; Proposed Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; MMAA104000PDF
82 FR 11909 - Optimum Power Investments, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 11910 - Bath County Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 11910 - Springdale Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 11908 - Hunlock Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 11909 - Gans Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 11908 - Chambersburg Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 11907 - Iron Horse Battery Storage, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 11909 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 11911 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 11991 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
82 FR 11944 - Bureau of International Labor Affairs; National Advisory Committee for Labor Provisions of U.S. Free Trade AgreementsPDF
82 FR 11946 - Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 11867 - Special Local Regulation; Tred Avon River, Between Bellevue, MD and Oxford, MDPDF
82 FR 11912 - Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, February 23, 2017PDF
82 FR 11913 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
82 FR 11914 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 11915 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 11824 - Marine Radio Equipment and Related MattersPDF
82 FR 11923 - Current State and Further Development of Animal Models of Serious Infections Caused by Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Public WorkshopPDF
82 FR 11893 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 11945 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes Standard for General IndustryPDF
82 FR 11949 - Committee Management; Notice of ReestablishmentPDF
82 FR 12008 - Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) Inviting Applications for Financial Assistance (FA) Awards or Technical Assistance (TA) Grants Under the Native American CDFI Assistance Program (NACA Program) Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Funding RoundPDF
82 FR 11991 - Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) Inviting Applications for Financial Assistance (FA) Awards or Technical Assistance (TA) Grants Under the Community Development Financial Institutions Program (CDFI Program) Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Funding RoundPDF
82 FR 11956 - Morgan Stanley ETF Trust, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
82 FR 11985 - The RBB Fund, Inc. and Altair Advisers LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
82 FR 11801 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan EnginesPDF
82 FR 11919 - Draft Chapter: Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on Filters by Transmission Electron Microscopy; Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 11919 - Personal Protective Equipment Information (PPE-Info) DatabasePDF
82 FR 11939 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
82 FR 11938 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
82 FR 11937 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
82 FR 11950 - Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 11962 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Certain Charges and Rates of Return Applicable to Margin and Guaranty Fund DepositsPDF
82 FR 11975 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Various Rules in Connection With a System Migration to Nasdaq INET TechnologyPDF
82 FR 11967 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Rules 501, 507, 508, 510, and 511 of the ExchangePDF
82 FR 11952 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 925.1NY Regarding Market Maker Quotations, Including To Adopt a Market Maker Light Only QuotationPDF
82 FR 11964 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.37B Regarding Market Maker QuotationsPDF
82 FR 11948 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 11948 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 11871 - Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment ProcessPDF
82 FR 11895 - Calendar of Upcoming Trade MissionsPDF
82 FR 11918 - World War One Centennial Commission; Notification of Change to Upcoming Public Advisory MeetingPDF
82 FR 11931 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 11928 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 11789 - Sweet Onions Grown in the Walla Walla Valley of Southeast Washington and Northeast Oregon; Decreased Assessment RatePDF
82 FR 11991 - Motorcyclist Advisory Council to the Federal Highway AdministrationPDF
82 FR 11892 - Cotton Research and Promotion Program: Request for Comments To Be Used in a Review of 1990 Amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion ActPDF
82 FR 11934 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 11930 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 11925 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 11928 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 11924 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 11933 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 11925 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 11932 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of MeetingsPDF
82 FR 11934 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 11928 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 11826 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; 2017 and 2018 Harvest Specifications for GroundfishPDF
82 FR 12032 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of Alaska; Final 2017 and 2018 Harvest Specifications for GroundfishPDF
82 FR 11906 - Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 11894 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 11854 - Revisions and Clarifications in Requirements for the Processing of Donated Foods; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
82 FR 11809 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Santa Rosa, CAPDF
82 FR 11822 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Wessington Springs, SDPDF
82 FR 11820 - Amendment of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Southwest OklahomaPDF
82 FR 11812 - Amendment Class E Airspace, St. Petersburg, FLPDF
82 FR 11857 - Proposed Modification of VOR Federal Airways V-55, V-63, V-177, V-228, and V-246 in the Vicinity of Stevens Point, WIPDF
82 FR 11814 - Airspace Designations; Incorporation by Reference AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 11866 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Grassrange, MTPDF
82 FR 11806 - Revocation of Class E Airspace; Farmington, MO; and Amendment of Class E Airspace for the following Missouri Towns; Ava, MO; Cameron, MO; Chillicothe, MO; Farmington, MO; and Festus, MOPDF
82 FR 11859 - Proposed Modification and Revocation of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Northcentral United StatesPDF
82 FR 11803 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Milwaukee, WIPDF
82 FR 11813 - Establishment of Class E Airspace, Weed, CAPDF
82 FR 11810 - Amendment of Class E Airspace, Willows, CAPDF
82 FR 11856 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; for Haskell, TXPDF
82 FR 11807 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Iron Mountain, MIPDF
82 FR 11804 - Amendment of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Eastern United StatesPDF
82 FR 11795 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 11791 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 11797 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF

Issue

82 37 Monday, February 27, 2017 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Decreased Assessment Rates: Sweet Onions Grown in the Walla Walla Valley of Southeast WA and Northeast OR, 11789-11791 2017-03714 PROPOSED RULES Organic Research, Promotion, and Information Orders: Certified Products, 11854-11855 2017-03825 Referendum Procedures, 11855-11856 2017-03824 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 11891-11892 2017-03812 Cotton Research and Promotion Program: Review of 1990 Amendments, 11892-11893 2017-03709 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11893-11895 2017-03695 2017-03749 Increase in Fiscal Year 2017 Specialty Sugar Tariff-Rate Quota, 11893 2017-03826
Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Automotive Cybersecurity Industry Consortium, 11942-11943 2017-03792 Cable Television Laboratories, Inc., 11943 2017-03790 TeleManagement Forum, 11943-11944 2017-03789 The Open Group, LLC, 11943 2017-03793 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on Filters by Transmission Electron Microscopy, 11919 2017-03738 Personal Protective Equipment Information Database, 11919-11920 2017-03737 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11921-11923 2017-03809 Coast Guard Coast Guard PROPOSED RULES Special Local Regulations: Tred Avon River, Between Bellevue, MD and Oxford, MD, 11867-11869 2017-03757 NOTICES Port Access Route Study: In the Chukchi Sea, Bering Strait and Bering Sea, 11935 2017-03771 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Community Development Community Development Financial Institutions Fund NOTICES Funding Availability: Community Development Financial Institutions Program FY 2017 Funding Round, 11991-12008 2017-03743 Native American CDFI Assistance Program FY 2017 Funding Round, 12008-12026 2017-03744 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Meetings: Government-Industry Advisory Panel, 11906-11907 2017-03696 Education Department Education Department PROPOSED RULES National Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood Longitudinal Data Systems: Waiver and Extension of the Project Period, 11870-11871 2017-03810 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada, 11907 2017-03775
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Fluoride Chemicals in Drinking Water: TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for Agency Response, 11878-11890 2017-03829 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Air Traffic Service Routes: Eastern United States, 11804-11806 2017-03507 Southwest Oklahoma, 11820-11821 2017-03542 Airspace Designations, 11814-11820 2017-03521 Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 11791-11795 2017-03267 Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines, 11801-11803 2017-03739 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 11795-11800 2017-03265 2017-03362 Class E Airspace; Amendments and Revocations: Missouri Towns; Ava, MO; Cameron, MO; Chillicothe, MO; Farmington, MO; and Festus, MO, 11806-11807 2017-03518 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Milwaukee, WI, 11803-11804 2017-03514 Santa Rosa, CA, 11809-11810 2017-03549 St. Petersburg, FL, 11812-11813 2017-03538 Weed, CA, 11813-11814 2017-03513 Willows, CA, 11810-11811 2017-03512 Class E Airspace; Establishments: Iron Mountain, MI, 11807-11809 2017-03508 Wessington Springs, SD, 11822-11823 2017-03543 PROPOSED RULES Air Traffic Service Routes; Establishments, Modifications, and Revocations: Northcentral United States, 11859-11866 2017-03515 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Haskell, TX, 11856-11857 2017-03511 Class E Airspace; Establishments: Grassrange, MT, 11866-11867 2017-03520 VOR Federal Airways; Modifications: V-55, V-63, V-177, V-228, and V-246; Vicinity of Stevens Point, WI, 11857-11859 2017-03536 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Marine Radio Equipment and Related Matters, 11824-11825 2017-03752 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11913-11915 2017-03753 2017-03754 2017-03755 Information Concerning the Assignment Phase of the Forward Auction (Auction 1002), Including the Schedule for Practice and Mock Auctions, 11915-11918 2017-03830 Meetings, 11912-11913 2017-03756 Radio Broadcasting Services: AM or FM Proposals to Change the Community of License, 11911-11912 2017-03808 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 11909-11911 2017-03761 2017-03762 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Bath County Energy, LLC, 11910-11911 2017-03768 Chambersburg Energy, LLC, 11908-11909 2017-03764 Gans Energy, LLC, 11909 2017-03765 Hunlock Energy, LLC, 11908 2017-03766 Iron Horse Battery Storage, LLC, 11907-11908 2017-03763 Optimum Power Investments, LLC, 11909 2017-03769 Springdale Energy, LLC, 11910 2017-03767 Permit Applications: Watterra Energy, LLC, 11910 C1--2017--03155 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Motorcyclist Advisory Council, 11991 2017-03711 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 11918 2017-03827 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Meetings: Current State and Further Development of Animal Models of Serious Infections Caused by Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Public Workshop, 11923-11924 2017-03751 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service PROPOSED RULES Revisions and Clarifications in Requirements for the Processing of Donated Foods, 11854 2017-03560 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: Romark Global Pharma, LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 7, Mayaguez, PR, 11895 2017-03777 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: World War One Centennial Commission, 11918-11919 2017-03721 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Community Compass Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Program Fiscal Year 2016 Funding Awards, 11935-11937 2017-03781 Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

See

Office of Natural Resources Revenue

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico, 11904-11905 2017-03779 Certain Pasta from Italy, 11903-11904 2017-03778 Calendar of Upcoming Trade Missions, 11895-11903 2017-03722 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 11942 2017-03838 Judicial Conference Judicial Conference of the United States NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, 11942 2017-03791 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

Labor Department Labor Department See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes Standard for General Industry, 11945 2017-03746 Charter Renewals: National Advisory Committee for Labor Provisions of U.S. Free Trade Agreements, 11944-11945 2017-03759
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Rocky Mountain Resource Advisory Council, Colorado, 11937 2017-03811 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11948-11949 2017-03724 2017-03725 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses; Proposed Approvals: Development of an Anti-mesothelin Recombinant Immunotoxin (RIT) for the Treatment of Human Cancers, 11926-11927 2017-03823 Meetings: Advisory Committee to the Director, 11931-11932 2017-03814 Center for Scientific Review, 11930-11931, 11933-11935 2017-03707 2017-03708 2017-03818 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 11933 2017-03703 National Cancer Institute, 11932 2017-03820 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 11924-11926, 11928 2017-03704 2017-03705 2017-03706 National Human Genome Research Institute, 11931 2017-03717 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 11928 2017-03716 National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 11930 2017-03817 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 11929 2017-03815 2017-03816 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 11925, 11929, 11932 2017-03819 2017-03821 2017-03822 National Library of Medicine, 11925, 11928, 11932-11934 2017-03699 2017-03700 2017-03701 2017-03702 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: 2017 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, 11825 2017-03783 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; 2017 and 2018 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish, 11826-11852 2017-03698 Gulf of Alaska; Final 2017 and 2018 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish, 12032-12062 2017-03697 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels using Trawl Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 11826 2017-03875 Pacific Cod by Vessels Using Pot Gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska, 11852-11853 2017-03784 NOTICES Meetings: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 11905-11906 2017-03788 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 11905 2017-03787 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 11937-11941 2017-03726 2017-03734 2017-03735 2017-03736 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Advisory Committee for Polar Programs; Reestablishment, 11949 2017-03745 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Licenses: AUC, LLC, Reno Creek Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project, 11949-11950 2017-03807 Meetings: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes, 11950-11951 2017-03733 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Outer Continental Shelf Sand, Gravel, and Shell Resources in Construction Projects that Qualify for a Negotiated Noncompetitive Agreement, 11941-11942 2017-03770 Natural Resources Office of Natural Resources Revenue RULES Postponement of Effectiveness of the Consolidated Federal Oil and Gas and Federal and Indian Coal Valuation Reform 2017 Valuation Rule, 11823-11824 2017-03861 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 11951 2017-03905 Postal Service Postal Service PROPOSED RULES Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process; Correction, 11871-11878 2017-03723 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11958, 11962 2017-03772 2017-03773 Applications: Morgan Stanley ETF Trust, et al., 11956-11957 2017-03742 The RBB Fund, Inc. and Altair Advisers LLC, 11985-11986 2017-03741 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 11957-11958 2017-03849 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 11988-11990 2017-03805 ICE Clear Europe Ltd., 11962-11964 2017-03731 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 11971-11973, 11975-11985 2017-03730 2017-03799 NASDAQ PHLX LLC, 11967-11971 2017-03729 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 11960-11962 2017-03803 NYSE Arca, Inc., 11951-11952, 11955-11956, 11964-11967, 11973-11975 2017-03727 2017-03796 2017-03798 2017-03802 NYSE MKT LLC, 11952-11955, 11959 2017-03728 2017-03797 NYSE National, Inc., 11986-11988 2017-03800 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11990-11991 2017-03750 2017-03760 2017-03774 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 12026-12029 2017-03780 2017-03813
Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Division of Federal Employees' Compensation, 11946-11947 2017-03758 Meetings: Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health Subcommittee on the Site Exposure Matrices, 11945-11946 2017-03795 Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health Working Group on Presumptions, 11947-11948 2017-03794 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 12032-12062 2017-03697 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.

82 37 Monday, February 27, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 956 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-16-0116; SC17-956-1 IR] Sweet Onions Grown in the Walla Walla Valley of Southeast Washington and Northeast Oregon; Decreased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Interim rule with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the Walla Walla Sweet Onion Marketing Committee (Committee) for a decrease in the assessment rate established for the 2017 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.22 to $0.10 per 50-pound bag or equivalent of sweet onions handled. The Committee locally administers the marketing order and is comprised of producers and handlers of sweet onions operating within the area of production along with one public member. Assessments upon sweet onion handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins January 1 and ends December 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

DATES:

Effective February 28, 2017. Comments received by April 28, 2017, will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. Comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the Internet at the address provided above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Teresa Hutchinson or Gary Olson, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Ave., Suite 305, Portland, OR 97204; Telephone: (503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 956, as amended (7 CFR part 956), regulating the handling of sweet onions grown in the Walla Walla Valley of southeast Washington and northeast Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

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

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

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2017 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.22 to $0.10 per 50-pound bag or equivalent of sweet onions handled.

The Walla Walla sweet onion marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of Walla Walla sweet onions, and one public member. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2008 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

The Committee met on December 6, 2016, and unanimously recommended 2017 expenditures of $93,250 and an assessment rate of $0.10 per 50-pound bag or equivalent of sweet onions. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $95,250. The assessment rate of $0.10 is $0.12 lower than the rate currently in effect. This action will allow the Committee to reduce its financial reserve while still providing adequate funding to meet program expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017 fiscal period include $63,250 for administrative expenses, $24,700 for research and promotion, $4,000 for travel, and $1,300 for miscellaneous/contingency. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2016 were $57,300, $36,200, $1,500, and $250 respectively.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by multiplying anticipated shipments of Walla Walla sweet onions by various assessment rates. Applying the $0.10 per 50-pound bag or equivalent assessment rate to the Committee's 325,000 50-pound bag or equivalent crop estimate should provide $32,500 in assessment income. Thus, income derived from handler assessments and other income ($750), plus $60,000 from the Committee's monetary reserve would be adequate to cover the recommended $93,250 budget for 2017. Funds held in the reserve were $237,354 as of November 30, 2016. The Committee estimates a reserve of $177,354 at the end of 2017 fiscal period (December 31, 2017), which would be within the maximum permitted by the order of approximately two fiscal period's operational expenses (§ 956.44).

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

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

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

There are 9 handlers of Walla Walla sweet onions subject to regulation under the order and approximately 30 producers in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.

During the 2016 marketing year, the Committee reported that approximately 304,500 50-pound bags or equivalents of Walla Walla sweet onions were shipped into the fresh market. Based on information reported by USDA's Market News Service, the average 2016 marketing year f.o.b. shipping point price for the Walla Walla sweet onions was $19.55 per 50-pound equivalent. Multiplying the $19.55 average price by the shipment quantity of 304,500 50-pound equivalents yields an annual crop revenue estimate of $5,952,975. The average annual revenue for each of the 9 handlers is therefore calculated to be $661,442 ($5,952,975 divided by 9), which is considerably less than the Small Business Administration threshold of $7,500,000. Consequently, all of the Walla Walla sweet onion handlers could be classified as small entities.

In addition, based on information provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the average producer price for Walla Walla sweet onions for the 2011 through 2015 marketing years is $16.24 per 50-pound equivalent. NASS has not released data regarding the 2016 marketing year at this time. Multiplying the 2011-2015 marketing year average price of $16.24 by the estimated 2017 marketing year shipments of 325,000 50-pound equivalents yields an annual crop revenue estimate of $5,278,000. The estimated average annual revenue for each of the 30 producers is therefore calculated to be approximately $175,933 ($5,278,000 divided by 30), which is less than the Small Business Administration threshold of $750,000. In view of the foregoing, the majority of Walla Walla sweet onion producers, and all of the Walla Walla sweet onion handlers, may be classified as small entities.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2017 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.22 to $0.10 per 50-pound bag or equivalent of sweet onions. The Committee also unanimously recommended 2017 expenditures of $93,250. The assessment rate of $0.10 is $0.12 lower than the previously established assessment rate. This action will allow the Committee to reduce its financial reserve while still providing adequate funding to meet program expenses.

The quantity of assessable sweet onions for the 2017 fiscal period is estimated at 325,000 50-pound bags or equivalents. Thus, the $0.10 rate should provide $32,500 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest, other income, and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017 fiscal period include $63,250 for administrative expenses, $24,700 for research and promotion, $4,000 for travel, and $1,300 for miscellaneous/contingency. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2016 were $57,300, $36,200, $1,500, and $250 respectively.

The Committee discussed alternatives to this rule, including alternative expenditure levels, but determined that the recommended expenses were reasonable and necessary to adequately cover program operations. Lower assessment rates were also considered, but not recommended, because they would have reduced the financial reserve more than desired.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the producer price for the 2017 fiscal period could range between $12.00 and $27.00 per 50-pound bag or equivalent of sweet onions. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2017 fiscal period as a percentage of total producer revenue is expected to range between 0.37 and 0.83 percent.

This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Walla Walla sweet onion industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the December 6, 2016, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

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

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2017 fiscal period begins on January 1, 2017, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable sweet onions handled during such fiscal period; (2) this action decreases the assessment rate for assessable sweet onions beginning with the 2017 fiscal period; (3) handlers are aware of this action, which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years; and (4) this interim rule provides a 60-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 956

Marketing agreements, Onions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 956 is amended as follows:

PART 956—SWEET ONIONS GROWN IN THE WALLA WALLA VALLEY OF SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON AND NORTHEAST OREGON 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 956 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. Section 956.202 is revised to read as follows:
§ 956.202 Assessment rate.

On and after January 1, 2017, an assessment rate of $0.10 per 50-pound bag or equivalent is established for Walla Walla sweet onions.

Dated: February 21, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-03714 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6896; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-016-AD; Amendment 39-18805; AD 2017-04-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318-111, and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212 and -214 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a production quality deficiency on the inner retainer installed on link assemblies of the aft engine mount, which could result in failure of the retainer. This AD requires an inspection for, and replacement of, all non-conforming aft engine mount retainers. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective April 3, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

For Airbus service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.airbus.com.

For Goodrich service information identified in this final rule, contact Goodrich Corporation, Aerostructures, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91910-2098; telephone: 619-691-2719; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.

You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6896.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6896; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318-111, and -112 airplanes, Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes, Model A320-211, -212 and -214 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 31, 2016 (81 FR 34287) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a production quality deficiency on the inner retainer installed on link assemblies of the aft engine mount, which could result in failure of the retainer. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection for, and replacement of, all non-conforming aft engine mount retainers. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct non-conforming retainers of the aft engine mount. This condition could result in the loss of the locking feature of the nuts of the inner and outer pins; loss of the pins will result in the aft mount engine link no longer being secured to the aft engine mount, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0010R1, dated February 16, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318-111, and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. The MCAI states:

During in-service inspections, several aft engine mount inner retainers, fitted on aeroplanes equipped with CFM56-5A/5B engines, have been found broken. The results of the initial investigations highlighted that two different types of surface finish had been applied (respectively bright and dull material finishes), and that dull finish affects the strength of the retainer with regard to fatigue properties of the part. The pins which attach the engine link to the aft mount are secured by two nuts, which do not have a self-locking feature; this function is provided by the retainer brackets. In case of failure of the retainer bracket, the locking feature of the nuts of the inner and outer pins is lost; as a result, these nuts could subsequently become loose.

In case of full loss of the nuts, there is the potential to also lose the pins, in which case the aft mount link will no longer be secured to the aft engine mount. The same locking feature is used for the three link assemblies of the aft mount.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-flight loss of an aft mount link, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and/or injury to persons on the ground.

To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2013-0050 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-14-06, Amendment 39-17901 (79 FR 42655, July 23, 2014)] to require a detailed inspection (DET) of the aft engine mount inner retainers and the replacement of all retainers with dull finish with retainers having a bright finish. Since that [EASA] AD was issued, inspection results showed that the main cause of crack initiation remains the vibration dynamic effect that affects both retainers, either with “dull” or “bright” surface finishes. The non-conforming “dull” surface's pitting is an aggravating factor. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2015-0021 [which corresponds to FAA NPRM Docket No. FAA-2015-3632; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-023-AD (80 FR 55798, September 7, 2015)], retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0050, which was superseded, and requiring repetitive DET of all aft engine mount inner retainers and, depending on findings, their replacement.

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, a production quality deficiency was identified by Airbus and UTAS (formerly Goodrich Aerostructures, the engine mount retainer manufacturer) on the delivery of the inner retainer, Part Number (P/N) 238-0252-505, installed in the three Link assemblies of the engine mount fitted on CFM56-5A/5B engines. Airbus issued AOT A71N011-15 and SB A320-71-1070 providing a list of affected parts and applicable corrective actions.

Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0010, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2015-0021, which was superseded, and in addition requiring the identification and replacement of all non-conforming aft engine mount inner retainers.

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, AOT A71N011-15 was revised, removing errors and reducing the list of affected parts.

For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD is revised, adding reference to the revised AOT, and removing [EASA] AD appendixes, which content is included in the referenced Airbus documentation.

This [EASA] AD is still considered to be an interim action, pending development and availability of a final solution.

This AD requires an inspection for, and replacement of, all non-conforming aft engine mount retainers. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6896.

Comments

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

Request To Remove Part Identification Requirement

Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we remove the requirement to do an inspection to determine the part number of each engine mount inner retainer specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. DAL stated that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1070, dated November 23, 2015, does not specify identifying the part number. DAL stated that identifying the part number has no value in determining the affected population of non-conforming retainers. DAL also requested that we revise the records review language in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to reference the criteria in paragraphs (g)(1), and (g)(2), and (g)(3) of the proposed AD instead of referring to the part number.

We do not agree with DAL's request to remove the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD. However, we do agree that the inspection language should be clarified. Paragraph (g) of this AD, which corresponds with the MCAI, requires doing actions in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1070, dated November 23, 2015, which specifies to determine if there is a non-compliant engine mount inner retainer. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly.

Request To Clarify Engine Mount Retainer

DAL requested that we clarify in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD which engine mount retainer (forward or aft) is to be inspected.

We agree to clarify. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to specify the aft engine mount inner retainer.

Requests To Use the Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM)

DAL requested that we include an option for using the AMM to accomplish the required actions. DAL stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD specifies that the replacement must be done in accordance with the service information specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of the proposed AD. DAL recommended that operators be allowed to take credit for the replacement through other means such as the AMM.

We do not agree with DAL's request. An AMM is a customized document that varies for each operator and depends on the airplane configuration. In addition, the AMM might not include all required compliance steps to mitigate the risk addressed in this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of alternative methods of compliance if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new methods would provide an acceptable level of safety.

Requests To Revise Part Installation Prohibition

DAL requested that we revise paragraph (j) of the proposed AD to prohibit installation of an engine mount inner retainer in lieu of “any part.” DAL asserted that if not changed, paragraph (j)(l) of the proposed AD will prohibit the installation of all aft mounts identified in table 1 of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A71N011-15, Revision 01, dated February 1, 2016.

We agree with DAL's request. We have revised paragraph (j) of this AD to prohibit installation of certain engine mount inner retainers.

DAL requested that we revise paragraph (j)(3) of the proposed AD, which prohibits installation of parts delivered through an unidentified Purchase Order (PO) to provide more specific information for the identification of non-conforming aft engine mount inner retainers. DAL suggested that the proposed AD specify using the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) new part release certificate as a mean of verifying conformity for each aft engine mount inner retainer. DAL explained that it is suggesting this action because non-conforming field parts could be sold on the surplus market prior to the release of the AD under a non-OEM purchase order number.

We do not agree with DAL's request to revise paragraph (j)(3) of the proposed AD. We have determined that paragraph (j)(3) of this AD clearly prohibits installation of parts delivered through an unidentified PO and corresponds with the MCAI. We are unaware of any non-conforming parts delivered through an unidentified PO that have been sold on the surplus market. However, if those parts exist, then they are prohibited from installation as of the effective date of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed the following service information. This service information describes procedures for replacement of all non-conforming aft engine mount retainers.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1070, dated November 23, 2015. This document also describes procedures for an inspection for non-conforming aft engine mount retainers.

• Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A71N011-15, Revision 01, dated February 1, 2016. This document also contains the affected purchase order numbers used in identifying the affected parts.

• Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-165, dated October 9, 2015. This document also contains the affected part numbers.

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.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 959 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection Up to 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 $0 Up to $340 Up to $326,060.

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

On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Replacement Up to 36 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,060 $10,000 Up to $13,060. Authority for This Rulemaking

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.

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-04-10 Airbus: Amendment 39-18805. Docket No. FAA-2016-6896; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-016-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective April 3, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(1) Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes.

(2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes.

(3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes.

(4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a report of a production quality deficiency on the inner retainer installed on link assemblies of the aft engine mount, which could result in failure of the retainer. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct non-conforming retainers of the aft engine mount. This condition could result in loss of the locking feature of the nuts of the inner and outer pins; loss of the pins will result in the aft mount engine link no longer being secured to the aft engine mount, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

(g) Inspection and Replacement

Within 2 months after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection to determine if any non-compliant aft engine mount inner retainer is installed; and within 2 months after the effective date of this AD, replace each part that meets any of the criteria specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. Do the inspection in accordance with the service information specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. Do the replacement in accordance with the service information specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of the inspection required by this paragraph, if it can be conclusively determined that there are no non-compliant aft engine mount inner retainers installed on the airplane.

(1) An aft engine mount inner retainer from an aft engine mount having a serial number listed in table 1 of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A71N011-15, Rev 01, dated February 1, 2016.

(2) An aft engine mount inner retainer installed on an airplane between the first flight of the airplane or March 1, 2015 (whichever occurs later), and the effective date of this AD, and that can be identified by a purchase order (PO) listed in table 2 of Airbus AOT A71N011-15, Rev 01, dated February 1, 2016.

(3) An aft engine mount inner retainer installed on an airplane between the first flight of the airplane or March 1, 2015 (whichever occurs later), and the effective date of this AD, and that cannot be identified by a PO.

(h) Service Information for Actions Required by Paragraph (g) of This AD

Accomplish the replacement required by paragraph (g) of this AD in accordance with the service information specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD.

(1) The Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1070, dated November 23, 2015.

(2) Paragraph 4.2.2, “Requirements,” of Airbus AOT A71N011-15, Revision 01, dated February 1, 2016.

(3) The Accomplishment Instructions of Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-165, dated October 9, 2015.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for the applicable actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus AOT A71N011-15, Revision 01, dated February 1, 2016.

(j) Parts Installation Prohibition

As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an aft engine mount retainer that meets any of the criteria specified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD on any airplane.

(1) A part from the aft engine mount having a serial number listed in table 1 of Airbus AOT A71N011-15, Rev 01, dated February 1, 2016.

(2) A part delivered through a PO listed in table 2 of Airbus AOT A71N011-15, Rev 01, dated February 1, 2016.

(3) A part delivered through an unidentified PO.

(k) Special Flight Permits

Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(m) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0010R1, dated February 16, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6896.

(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(5) of this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1070, dated November 23, 2015.

(ii) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A71N011-15, Revision 01, dated February 1, 2016.

(iii) Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-165, dated October 9, 2015.

(3) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.airbus.com.

(4) For Goodrich service information identified in this AD, contact Goodrich Corporation, Aerostructures, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91910-2098; telephone: 619-691-2719; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.

(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 7, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-03267 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9053; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-075-AD; Amendment 39-18808; AD 2017-04-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of damaged vapor seals, block seals, and heat shield seals on the outboard pylons between the engine strut and aft fairing. This AD requires repetitive inspections for heat damage of the vapor seals between the engine strut and aft fairing, and replacement of the seals with new seals if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective April 3, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9053.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9053; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6505; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2016 (81 FR 59544). The NPRM was prompted by reports of damaged vapor seals, block seals, and heat shield seals on the outboard pylons between the engine strut and aft fairing. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for heat damage of the vapor seals between the engine strut and aft fairing, and replacement of the seals with new seals if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct heat damage to the vapor seals between the engine strut and aft fairing. Such damage could allow flammable fluid leakage out of the aft fairing, which could result in an uncontrolled fire in the engine strut.

Comments

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

Request To Clarify the Unsafe Condition

Boeing asked that we change the unsafe condition in the SUMMARY and Discussion sections and in paragraph (e) of the proposed AD from “Such damage could allow flammable fluid leakage into the aft fairing . . .” to “Such damage could allow flammable fluid leakage out of the aft fairing . . .” Boeing stated that the aft fairing is a flammable leakage zone, and escaping fluid passing the vapor seal is leaving the aft fairing.

We agree with the commenter for the reason provided. However, the unsafe condition is not carried over into the SUMMARY section of this final rule. We have changed the unsafe condition in the Discussion section and paragraph (e) of this AD accordingly.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2246, dated February 5, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections for heat damage of the vapor seals between the engine strut and aft fairing, and replacement of the seals with new seals. 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.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 10 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Vapor seal inspections 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 per inspection cycle $0 $340 per inspection cycle $3,400 per inspection cycle.

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

On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Seal replacement 132 work-hours × $85 per hour = $11,220 $0 $11,220

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    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.

    Regulatory Findings

    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.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-04-13 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18808; Docket No. FAA-2016-9053; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-075-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 3, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/pylons.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of damaged vapor seals, block seals, and heat shield seals on the outboard pylons between the engine strut and aft fairing. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct heat damage to the vapor seals between the engine strut and aft fairing. Such damage could allow flammable fluid leakage out of the aft fairing, which could result in an uncontrolled fire in the engine strut.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Repetitive Inspections

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for heat damage of the vapor seals on the outboard pylons between the strut and aft fairing of the numbers 1 and 4 engines, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2246, dated February 5, 2016. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,200 flight cycles.

    (1) Before the accumulation of 1,800 total flight cycles, or within 1,800 flight cycles after the most recent vapor seal, block seal, and heat shield seal replacement, whichever is later.

    (2) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (h) Replacement

    If during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD any heat damage of any vapor seal is found: Before further flight, replace the vapor seal, heat shield seal, and block seal with new seals, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2246, dated February 5, 2016. Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD within 1,800 flight cycles after doing the replacement, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,200 flight cycles.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6505; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2246, dated February 5, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 10, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03362 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3984; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-033-AD; Amendment 39-18803; AD 2017-04-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008-13-12 R1 for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2008-13-12 R1 required various repetitive inspections for cracking of a certain splice of the fuselage, and other specified and corrective actions if necessary; and provided for an optional preventive modification, which terminated the repetitive inspections. This new AD adds an inspection to determine if the existing frame repair meets all specified requirements; a modification of a certain splice, which terminates the repetitive inspections; reduces certain inspection thresholds and repetitive intervals; and adds post-repair/post-modification inspections. This AD was prompted by reports of additional fatigue cracking of a certain splice of the fuselage and one report of a severed frame, due to susceptibility to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective April 3, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3984.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3984; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2008-13-12 R1, Amendment 39-15719 (73 FR 67383, November 14, 2008) (“AD 2008-13-12 R1”). AD 2008-13-12 R1 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on November 14, 2016 (81 FR 79395). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on October 9, 2015 (80 FR 61133). The NPRM proposed to continue to require the actions of AD 2008-13-12 R1. The NPRM also proposed to add, for certain airplanes, an inspection to determine if the existing frame repair meets all specified requirements, and for certain other airplanes, a new modification of the upper-frame-to-side-frame splice, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. The NPRM also proposed to reduce certain inspection thresholds and repetitive intervals. The NPRM was prompted by reports of additional fatigue cracking of the upper-frame-to-side-frame splice of the fuselage, and one report of a severed frame. The SNPRM proposed to add post-repair/post-modification inspections that were not included in the NPRM. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper-frame-to-side-frame splice of the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the frame and adjacent lap joint, causing increased loading in the fuselage skin, which will accelerate skin crack growth and could result in decompression of the airplane.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. The commenter, Stephanie Reid, agreed that the airplanes should be inspected.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015. The service information describes procedures for various repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper-frame-to-side-frame splice of the fuselage, a preventive modification to prevent WFD, an inspection to determine if the existing frame repair meets all specified requirements, 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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 391 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Retained inspections from AD 2008-13-12 R1 Between 18 and 38 work-hours × $85 per hour, depending on airplane configuration = between $1,530 and $3,230 per inspection cycle $0 Between $1,530 and $3,230 per inspection cycle Between $598,230 and $1,262,930, per inspection cycle. New inspections 213 work-hours × $85 per hour, $18,105 per inspection cycle $0 $18,105 per inspection cycle Up to $7,079,055, per inspection cycle. New modification 256 work-hours × $85 per hour = $21,760 (1) $21,760 Up to $8,508,160. 1 We currently have no specific cost estimates associated with the parts necessary for the modification.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    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.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008-13-12 R1, Amendment 39-15719 (73 FR 67383, November 14, 2008), and adding the following new AD: 2017-04-08 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18803; Docket No. FAA-2015-3984; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-033-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 3, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2008-13-12 R1, Amendment 39-15719 (73 FR 67383, November 14, 2008) (“AD 2008-13-12 R1”).

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015.

    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/BE866B732F6CF31086257B9700692796?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01219se) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a ”change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of additional fatigue cracking of the upper-frame-to-side-frame splice of the fuselage, and one report of a severed frame due to susceptibility to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper-frame-to-side-frame splice of the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the frame and adjacent lap joint, causing increased loading in the fuselage skin, which will accelerate skin crack growth and could result in decompression of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions for Certain Airplanes

    (1) For Groups 1 through 3, Configurations 1, 3, 4, and 5 airplanes; Group 7, Configurations 1, 3, 4, and 5 airplanes; Groups 4 through 6, Configurations 1, 3, 4, and 6 airplanes; and Groups 8 through 11, Configurations 1, 3, 4, and 6 airplanes; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (i) At the applicable time specified in Tables 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, except as required by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Do medium frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the upper-frame-to-side-frame splice of the fuselage.

    (ii) Repeat the inspections specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD at the applicable time specified in Tables 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, until the preventive modification required by paragraph (k) of this AD, or a terminating action specified in paragraph (l) of this AD, has been accomplished. The inspections are terminated for the repaired or modified areas only.

    (2) For Groups 4 through 6, Configurations 2 and 5 airplanes; and Groups 8 through 11, Configurations 2 and 5 airplanes; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (i) At the applicable time specified in Tables 4 and 7 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, except as required by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection to determine if the existing frame repair meets all requirements specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, and for any frame repair that does meet all requirements, do detailed and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the existing frame repairs.

    (ii) Repeat the inspections for cracking specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD at the applicable time specified in Tables 4 and 7 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015.

    (h) Post-Repair and Post-Modification Actions for Certain Airplanes

    For Group 1, Configurations 2 and 6 airplanes; Group 2, Configurations 2 and 6 airplanes; Group 3, Configurations 2 and 6 airplanes; and Group 7, Configurations 2 and 6 airplanes; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, do post-repair and post-modification actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.

    (i) Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Where the “Condition” column of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, specifies a condition based on whether an airplane has or has not been inspected, this AD bases the condition on whether an airplane has or has not been inspected as of the effective date of this AD.

    (3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.

    (j) Post-Repair and Post-Modification Inspections

    For Groups 4 through 6, Configurations 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 airplanes; and Groups 8 through 11, Configurations 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 airplanes; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015: Except as provided by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in Tables 12 through 17 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015; do the post-repair/post-modification inspections, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (k) Preventive Modification for Certain Airplanes

    For Groups 4 through 6, Configurations 1, 3, 4, and 6 airplanes; and Groups 8 through 11, Configurations 1, 3, 4, and 6 airplanes; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015: Except as provided by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in Tables 3, 5, 6, and 8 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, do the preventive modification, including HFEC inspections for cracking and applicable corrective actions, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Accomplishing the modification required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for the modified area only.

    (l) Terminating Action

    (1) For Groups 4 through 6, Configurations 1, 3, 4, and 6 airplanes; and Groups 8 through 11, Configurations 1, 3, 4, and 6 airplanes; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015: Accomplishing the preventive modification, including HFEC inspections for cracking and applicable corrective actions, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD, terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for the modified area only.

    (2) For Groups 4 through 6, Configurations 3 and 6 airplanes; and Groups 8 through 11, Configurations 3 and 6 airplanes; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015: Accomplishing the repair, including HFEC inspections for cracking and applicable corrective actions, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, and the preventive modification required by paragraph (k) of this AD, for the repaired area only.

    (3) Accomplishment of the repair or the preventive modification specified in Boeing Message M-7200-02-1294, dated August 20, 2002, before the effective date of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD and the preventive modification required by paragraph (k) of this AD for the repaired or modified area only.

    (m) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those inspections were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, dated January 19, 2006, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2008-13-12, Amendment 39-15575 (73 FR 38905, July 8, 2008) (“AD 2008-13-12”).

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the modification specified in paragraphs (k) and (l)(1) of this AD, if the modification was performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, dated January 19, 2006, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2008-13-12.

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for repairs specified in paragraphs (l)(2) of this AD, if those repairs were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, dated January 19, 2006, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2008-13-12.

    (n) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (o)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2008-13-12 and AD 2008-13-12 R1 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (o) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (p)(3) and (p)(4) of this AD.

    (p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, Revision 1, dated January 30, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 1, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03265 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9510; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-28-AD; Amendment 39-18780; AD 2017-02-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, and Trent 1000-H turbofan engines. This AD requires initial and repetitive inspections of affected high-pressure turbine (HPT) blades for cracks. This AD was prompted by high engine vibration due to HPT blade deterioration resulting in operational disruptions. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective March 14, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 14, 2017.

    We must receive comments on this AD by April 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9510.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9510; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9510; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-28-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2016-0215, dated October 27, 2016 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Occurrences were reported involving high engine vibration indication experienced during climb. Subsequent investigation of affected engines identified damage to some high pressure turbine (HPT) blades. These events have been attributed to cracks, which originated at the tip of the leading edge, and at the mid-height pressure surface, of the HPT blades. Investigation also determined that HPT blades Part Number (P/N) FW63853 (corresponding to RR Service Bulletin (SB) SB 72-G275 modification standard) are affected by this phenomenon. Four occurrences have been reported within the last two years.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to high vibration indication and commanded in-flight shut-down, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9510.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    RR has issued Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000 72-J039, Revision 3, dated October 14, 2016. The NMSB describes procedures to conduct a borescope inspection for cracks on the leading edge of the HPT blade. 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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the United Kingdom, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. 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 products of the same type design. This AD requires initial and repetitive inspections of affected HPT blades for cracks.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    No domestic operators use this product. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection of the HPT blades 1.5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $127 per inspection $0 $127 $0 per inspection
    Authority for This Rulemaking

    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.

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska 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.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-02-01 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-18780; Docket No. FAA-2016-9510; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-28-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 14, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, and Trent 1000-H turbofan engines with high-pressure turbine (HPT) blades, part number (P/N) FW63853, installed.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 7250, Turbine/Turboprop Engine/Turbine Section.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by high engine vibration due to HPT blade deterioration resulting in operational disruptions. We are issuing this AD to prevent HPT blade failure, loss of engine thrust control, and reduced control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (1) Perform an initial inspection of each HPT blade before exceeding the following, whichever occurs later:

    (i) 1,750 engine flight cycles (FCs) since new or 11,000 engine flight hours (FHs) since new, whichever occurs first; or

    (ii) 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Thereafter, perform repetitive inspections of the HPT blades at intervals not to exceed 250 engine FCs or 1,125 engine FHs, whichever occurs first.

    (3) Use the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3, of RR Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000 72-J039, Revision 3, dated October 14, 2016, to perform the inspections.

    (4) If any crack is found during any inspection, follow the applicable corrective action and reduced follow-on inspection interval as defined in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(3), of RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J039, Revision 3, dated October 14, 2016.

    (g) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install an HPT blade, P/N FW63853, on any engine.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for inspections and corrective action that are required by paragraph (f) of this AD, if you performed these actions and corrective action before the effective date of this AD, using RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J039, Revision 2, or earlier versions.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2016-0215, dated October 27, 2016, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2016-9510.

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Non-Modification Service Bulletin Trent 1000 72-J039, Revision 3, dated October 14, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For RR service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare.

    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    (5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 11, 2017. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03739 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9491; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-25] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Milwaukee, WI AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends the legal description of Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth at Milwaukee, WI, updating the airport name of Batten International Airport (formerly John H. Batten Airport), Racine, WI. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of General Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee, WI, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, April 27, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Batten International Airport, Racine, WI, and General Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee, WI.

    History

    The FAA was notified that John H. Batten Airport, Racine, WI, has changed its name to Batten International Airport, Racine, WI. This is an administrative change updating the name in the legal description for the airport to match FAA databases. The geographic coordinates for General Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee, WI, also are adjusted.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by updating the name of Batten International Airport (formerly John H. Batten Airport), Racine, WI, in the regulatory text of the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth at Batten International Airport, Racine, WI. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of General Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee, WI, to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (5. U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedure when the agency for “good cause” finds that these procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” This is an administrative change amending the description for Batten International Airport, and adjusts the geographic coordinates for General Mitchell International Airport, to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL WI E5 Milwaukee, WI [Amended] Milwaukee, General Mitchell International Airport, WI (Lat. 42°56′49″ N., long. 87°53′49″ W.) Racine, Batten International Airport, WI (Lat. 42°45′40″ N., long. 87°48′50″ W.) Waukesha, Waukesha County Airport, WI (Lat. 43°02′28″ N., long. 88°14′13″ W.) Milwaukee, Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport, WI (Lat. 43°06′37″ N., long. 88°02′04″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 8.4-mile radius of the General Mitchell International Airport, and within an 8.1-mile radius of the Batten International Airport, and within a 7.5-mile radius of the Waukesha County Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 282° bearing from the Waukesha County Airport extending from the 7.5-mile radius to 10.5 miles west of the Waukesha County Airport, and within an 8.9-mile radius of Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 8, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03514 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-0986; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-7] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Eastern United States AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action modifies area navigation (RNAV) routes Q-39 and Q-67, in the eastern United States. The modifications provide a more efficient airway design within a portion of the airspace assigned to the Indianapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC).

    DATES:

    Effective date 0901 UTC, April 27, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA, Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies air traffic service routes Q-39 and Q-67 in the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.

    History

    On October 7, 2016, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (81 FR 69729), Docket No. FAA-2016-9086, to amend RNAV routes Q-39 and Q-67 to expand the availability of area navigation routes and provide a more efficient airway design within Indianapolis ARTCC's airspace.

    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. One comment was received.

    Discussion of Comment

    The commenter asked how much air traffic is actually using routes Q-39 and Q-67. A review of six months Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS) information for Q-39 and Q-67 revealed a total of 13,524 aircraft filed the RNAV routes.

    Area navigation routes are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016 and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The area navigation routes listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify RNAV routes Q-39 and Q-67 in the eastern United States. The modifications expand the availability of area navigation routes and provide a more efficient airway design within Indianapolis ARTCC's airspace. The route modifications are described below.

    Q-39 RNAV route Q-39 extends between the CLAWD, NC waypoint (WP) and the WISTA, WV, WP. This action shifts the alignment of the route slightly to the east, bypassing the WISTA WP, to cross the TARCI, WV, WP (located at lat. 38°16′36.08″ N., long. 081°18′34.08″ W.); then the route continues northward to a new ASERY, WV, WP (located at lat. 38°28′35.97″ N., long. 081°17′34.14″ W.).

    Q-67 RNAV route Q-67 extends between the SMTTH, TN, WP to the COLTZ, OH, fix. In its current alignment, the route proceeds from the JONEN, KY, WP northward to the COLTZ, OH, fix. The FAA is eliminating the segment between the JONEN WP and the CLOTZ fix and replacing it with a segment from the JONEN WP to the DARYN, WV, WP (located at lat. 38°46′07.80″ N., long. 082°00′57.92″ W.). The DARYN WP is located near the Henderson, WV, VORTAC.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of modifying two RNAV Q-routes qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F. Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). This action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 is amended to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016 and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 2006 United States Area Navigation Routes Q-39 CLAWD, NC to ASERY, WV [Amended] CLAWD, NC WP (Lat. 36°25′08.98″ N., long. 081°08′49.75″ W.) TARCI, WV WP (Lat. 38°16′36.08″ N., long. 081°18′34.08″ W.) ASERY, WV WP (Lat. 38°28′35.97″ N., long. 081°17′34.14″ W.) Q-67 SMTTH, TN to DARYN, WV [Amended] SMTTH, TN WP (Lat. 35°54′41.57″ N., long. 084°00′19.74″ W.) CEMEX, KY WP (Lat. 36°45′44.94″ N., long. 083°23′33.58″ W.) IBATE, KY WP (Lat. 36°59′12.36″ N., long. 083°13′40.36″ W.) TONIO, KY FIX (Lat. 37°15′15.20″ N., long. 083°01′47.53″ W.) JONEN, KY WP (Lat. 37°59′08.91″ N., long. 082°32′46.19″ W.) DARYN, WV WP (Lat. 38°46′07.80″ N., long. 082°00′57.92″ W.) Issued in Washington, DC, on February 6, 2017. Leslie M. Swann, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03507 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6986; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-6] Revocation of Class E Airspace; Farmington, MO; and Amendment of Class E Airspace for the following Missouri Towns; Ava, MO; Cameron, MO; Chillicothe, MO; Farmington, MO; and Festus, MO AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action removes Class E surface area airspace at Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO; and modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ava Bill Martin Memorial Airport, Ava, MO; Cameron Memorial Airport, Cameron, MO; Chillicothe Municipal Airport, Chillicothe, MO; Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO; and Festus Memorial Airport, Festus, MO. Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDB), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at these airports.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, April 27, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes Class E surface area airspace at Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO; and modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ava Bill Martin Memorial Airport, Ava, MO; Cameron Memorial Airport, Cameron, MO; Chillicothe Municipal Airport, Chillicothe, MO; Farmington Regional Airport; and Festus Memorial Airport, Festus, MO.

    History

    On June 28, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), (81 FR 41900) Docket No. FAA-2016-6986, to remove Class E surface area airspace at Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO; and modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ava Bill Martin Memorial Airport, Ava, MO; Cameron Memorial Airport, Cameron, MO; Chillicothe Municipal Airport, Chillicothe, MO; Farmington Regional Airport; and Festus Memorial Airport, Festus, MO. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received from Mr. Wally Roberts stating that the NPRM did not adequately substantiate the reason for removing the Class E surface area airspace at Farmington Regional Airport. The FAA agrees and offers the following in response to Mr. Roberts' comment.

    Federal Aviation Administration Order JO 7400.2K, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, provides the criteria for determining airspace requirements. Chapter 18 of the FAA Order JO 7400.2K outlines the requirements for Class E airspace. For an airport to have Class E surface area airspace designated, it must meet the requirements outlined in paragraph 18-1-3, which states, “If the communication and weather requirements described in paragraphs 17-2-9 and 17-2-10 are met, Class E surface airspace may be designated. . .” The Farmington Regional Airport meets the weather requirements outlined in paragraph 17-2-10; however, it does not meet the communications requirements in 17-2-9, specifically communication capabilities with aircraft to the runway surface of the airport. This was verified with Kansas City Air Route Traffic Control Center, which has jurisdiction over Farmington Regional Airport. As the Farmington Regional Airport does not meet the requirements for Class E surface area airspace contained in paragraph 18-1-3, it is not in compliance with FAA Order JO 7400.2K, and the airspace is being removed. The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Farmington Regional Airport provides for the transition to/from the airport and provides the airspace required by FAA Order JO 7400.2K to protect the current standard instrument approach procedures at the airport and for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 removes Class E surface area airspace at Class E surface area airspace at Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO, as it is not in compliance with FAA Order JO 7400.2K and the airport does not meet the requirements for Class E surface area airspace. This action also modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the following airports:

    Within a 6.8-mile radius (increased from a 6.3-mile radius) of Ava Bill Martin Memorial Airport, Ava, MO, with a segment extending from the 6.8-mile radius to the Dogwood VHF omnidirectional range collocated tactical air navigation (VORTAC) west/northwest of the airport;

    Within a 6.4-mile radius of Cameron Memorial Airport, Cameron, MO, removing the extension south of the airport;

    Within a 6.4-mile radius (decreased from a 6.9-mile radius) of Chillicothe Municipal Airport, Chillicothe, MO;

    Within a 6.4-mile radius of Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO, with a segment extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 11.5 miles southwest of the airport, and a segment extending from the 6.4-mile radius to the Farmington VORTAC; and

    Within a 6.9-mile radius (increased from the 6.2-mile radius) of Festus Memorial Airport, Festus, MO, with a segment extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 8.8 miles south of the airport, and removing the decommissioned Festus NDB from the boundary description.

    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs including the Cameron NDB and Festus NDB: cancellation of NDB approaches; and implementation of RNAV procedures at these airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ACE MO E2 Farmington, MO [Removed] Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE MO E5 Ava, MO [Amended] Ava Bill Martin Memorial Airport, MO (Lat. 36°58′19″ N., long. 92°40′55″ W.) Dogwood VORTAC (Lat. 37°01′24″ N., long. 92°52′37″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Ava Bill Martin Memorial Airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 107° radial of the Dogwood VORTAC extending from the 6.8-mile radius to the VORTAC.

    ACE MO E5 Cameron, MO [Amended] Cameron Memorial Airport, MO (Lat. 39°43′39″ N., long. 94°16′35″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Cameron Memorial Airport.

    ACE MO E5 Chillicothe, MO [Amended] Chillicothe Municipal Airport, MO (Lat. 39°46′55″ N., long. 93°29′47″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Chillicothe Municipal Airport.

    ACE MO E5 Farmington, MO [Amended] Farmington Regional Airport, MO (Lat. 37°45′40″ N., long. 90°25′43″ W.) Farmington VORTAC (Lat. 37°40′24″ N., long. 90°14′03″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Farmington Regional Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 204° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 11.5 miles southwest of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the Farmington VORTAC 299° radial extending from the 6.4-mile radius of the airport to the VORTAC.

    ACE MO E5 Festus, MO [Amended] Festus Memorial Airport, MO (Lat. 38°11′42″ N., long. 90°23′08″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Festus Memorial Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 188° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 8.8 miles south of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 1, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03518 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6271; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-15] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Iron Mountain, MI AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action establishes additional Class E en route domestic airspace around the Iron Mountain VHF omnidirectional range/distance measuring equipment, MI, to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft under control of Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). This action enhances the safety and efficiency of IFR operations within the National Airspace System. This action also removes the Federal airways exclusionary language from the regulatory text. Additionally, the correct navigation aid is noted in Class E 700 foot airspace.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, April 27, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11A and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: (817) 222-5874.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    On July 29, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish additional Class E en route airspace in the Iron Mountain, MI area. (81 FR 49902) Docket No. FAA-2016-6271. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes additional Class E en route airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at the Iron Mountain VOR/DME, Iron Mountain, MI, and adds additional controlled airspace to the southern and northern boundaries of the Iron Mountain en route airspace area, and removes exclusionary information from the regulatory text. This action provides controlled airspace enabling Minneapolis ARTCC greater latitude to use radar vectors and altitude changes within the entire area north and northwest of the Iron Mountain, MI, VOR/DME and removes unnecessary exclusionary language for clarity.

    This action also amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Iron Mountain/Kingford, Ford Airport, MI, to reflect the name change of the navigation aid from Iron Mountain VORTAC to Iron Mountain VOR/DME.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Sections 6005 and 6006, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6006 En Route Domestic Airspace Areas. AGL MI E6 Iron Mountain, MI [Amended] Iron Mountain VOR/DME, MI (Lat. 45°48′58″ N., long. 088°06′44″ W.) Thunder Bay Airport, ON, Canada (Lat. 48°22′19″ N., long. 089°19′26″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded by lat. 47°05′00″ N., long. 086°40′39″ W.; to lat. 47°05′00″ N., long. 088°27′44″ W.; to the Iron Mountain VOR/DME; to lat. 46°16′21″ N., long. 089°47′13″ W.; to lat. 46°52′34″ N., long. 090°13′09″ W. on the eastern boundary of the Wisconsin E5 airspace area; thence northeast along the boundary of the Wisconsin and Minnesota E5 airspace areas to the intersection of the 35 NM radius of the Thunder Bay Airport; thence counterclockwise along the 35 NM radius of the Thunder Bay Airport to the intersection of the southern boundary of the Upper Peninsula E6 airspace area; thence southeast along the boundary of the Upper Peninsula E6 airspace area to the point of beginning.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL MI E5 Iron Mountain, MI [Amended] Iron Mountain/Kingsford, Ford Airport, MI (Lat. 45°49′06″ N., long. 88°06′52″ W.) Iron Mountain VOR/DME (Lat. 45°48′58″ N., long. 88°06′44″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.7-mile radius of Iron Mountain VOR/DME, and within 5.2 miles west and 8.3 miles east of the Iron Mountain ILS localizer south course extending from the 8.7-mile radius to 21 miles south of the Iron Mountain/Kingsford, Ford Airport, and within 4.4 miles each side of the Iron Mountain ILS localizer north course extending from the 8.7-mile radius to 16 miles north of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on February 2, 2016. Christopher L. Southerland, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03508 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6967; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-7] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Santa Rosa, CA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action modifies Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D airspace at Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, Santa Rosa, CA, by reducing the northwest segment and adding a segment southeast of the airport, and adds part-time Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) information. This action also amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to include only that area required for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. Further, the proposed change to the geographic coordinates of the airport for the Class D and E airspace areas is not finalized in this action because those changes were made in a prior rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, April 27, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA, 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies controlled airspace at Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, Santa Rosa, CA.

    History

    On June 24, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (81 FR 41280), Docket No. FAA-2016-6967, to modify Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, Santa Rosa, CA. The FAA also proposed to update the geographical coordinates of the airport for both Class D and E airspace areas. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Subsequent to publication, the FAA found that the geographic coordinates of the airport already had been amended for Class D airspace, and Class E airspace designated as an extension (80 FR 48686, August 14, 2015); and for Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface (80 FR 48426, August 13, 2015). As the only proposed change to the Class D airspace information was the geographic coordinates of the airport, the FAA is withdrawing the Class D change from this final rule.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6004 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D, at Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, Santa Rosa, CA, by reducing the segment extending northwest of the airport to within 7.4 miles of the airport (from 14 miles), and adding a segment extending to 6.3 miles southeast of the airport. Additionally, part-time NOTAM language is added to the regulatory text consistent with the effective times of the Class D airspace area. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is reduced to a polygon extending approximately 11 miles northwest, 11 miles southeast, and 12 miles south-southwest of the airport. This action removes reference to amending the geographic coordinates of the airport as the coordinates are correct. Therefore, an amendment to Class D airspace is not necessary as it only was correcting the airport coordinates.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6004. Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area. AWP CA E4 Santa Rosa, CA [Modified] Santa Rosa, Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, CA (Lat. 38°30′35″ N., long. 122°48′46″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.8 miles east and 2.8 miles west of the 342° bearing from the Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, CA, extending from the 4.3 mile radius of the airport to 7.4 miles northwest of the airport, and that airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.2 miles each side of the 156° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.3 mile radius to 6.3 miles southeast of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6005. Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AWP CA E5 Santa Rosa, CA [Modified] Santa Rosa, Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, CA (Lat. 38°30′35″ N., long. 122°48′46″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 38°42′14″ N., long. 122°46′18″ W.; to lat. 38°38′58″ N., long. 122°59′10″ W.; to lat. 38°21′20″ N., long. 122°58′26″ W.; to lat. 38°19′23″ N., long. 122°54′00″ W.; to lat. 38°24′00″ N., long. 122°39'26″ W.; thence to the point of origin.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February 14, 2017. Tracey Johnson, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03549 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9138; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-13] Amendment of Class E Airspace, Willows, CA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action to modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Willows-Glenn County Airport, Willows, CA, for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. Decommissioning of the Maxwell VHF Omni-directional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid and cancellation of associated approaches has made this action necessary. Also, the airport's geographic coordinates are adjusted to match the current FAA aeronautical database.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, April 27, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies controlled airspace at Willows-Glenn County Airport, Willows, CA, due to the decommissioning of the Maxwell VHF Omni-directional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid and cancellation of associated approaches.

    History

    On November 25, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register (81 FR 85171), Docket FAA-2016-9138, a notice of proposed rulemaking to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Willows-Glenn County Airport, Willows, CA, by removing a segment extending 3 miles north of the Maxwell VHF Omni-directional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC), which has been decommissioned. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile radius of Willows-Glenn County Airport, Willows, CA by removing a segment extending 3 miles north of the decommissioned Maxwell VORTAC. Additionally, the airport's geographic coordinates are updated to match the current FAA aeronautical database. These modifications are necessary to ensure the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport, with a minimum degree of airspace restriction.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AWP CA E5 Willows, CA [Modified] Willows-Glenn County Airport, CA (Lat. 39°30′57″ N., long. 122°13′02″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Willows-Glenn County Airport. Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February 14, 2017. Tracey Johnson, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03512 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0015; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-1] Amendment Class E Airspace, St. Petersburg, FL AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Class E surface airspace area at St. Petersburg, FL, by updating the geographic coordinates of St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport. The boundaries and operating requirements of the airspace area remain the same.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, April 27, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E surface area airspace at St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, St. Petersburg, FL.

    History

    In a final rule published December 16, 2016 (81 FR 90976), amending the ceiling of Class D airspace for St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, FL, the FAA noted that the geographic coordinates of the airport were not updated for the Class E surface area airspace and makes the correction in this rulemaking.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by updating the geographic coordinates of St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, St. Petersburg, FL, in Class E surface area airspace to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1  [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. ASO FL E2 St. Petersburg, FL [Amended] St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, FL (Lat. 27°54′31″ N., long. 82°41′11″ W.)

    Within a 4.2-mile radius of St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport; excluding that portion within the Tampa International Airport, FL, Class B airspace area. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement (previously called Airport/Facility Directory).

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 31, 2017. Ryan Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03538 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9320; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-2] Establishment of Class E Airspace, Weed, CA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Weed Airport, Weed, CA, to support the development of Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport, and for the safety and management of controlled airspace within the National Airspace System.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, June 22, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    On December 6, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register (81 FR 87856), Docket FAA-2016-9320, a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Weed Airport, Weed, CA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Weed Airport, with a segment extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 6 miles north of the airport. This airspace is established to accommodate new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach and departure procedures developed for IFR operations the airport.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AWP CA E5 Weed, CA [New] Weed Airport, CA (Lat. 41°28′51″ N., long. 122°27′16″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Weed Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 348° bearing from the airport 4.3-mile radius to 6 miles north of the airport.
    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February 14, 2017. Tracey Johnson, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03513 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. 2016-8926; Amendment No. 71-48] RIN 2120-AA66 Airspace Designations; Incorporation by Reference Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule, technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    This action incorporates certain amendments into FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, for incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.

    DATES:

    Effective date 0901 UTC February 27, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah A. Combs, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    Federal Aviation Administration Airspace Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1, is published yearly. Amendments referred to as “effective date straddling amendments” were published under Order 7400.9Z (dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015), but became effective under Order 7400.11A (dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016). This action incorporates these rules into the current FAA Order 7400.11A.

    Accordingly, as this is an administrative correction to update final rule amendments into FAA Order 7400.11A, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. Also, to bring these rules and legal descriptions current, I find that good cause exists, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This action amends title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 to incorporate certain final rules into the current FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which are depicted on aeronautical charts.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. Section 71.1 is revised to read as follows:

    For Docket No. FAA-2015-5800; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-21 (81 FR 34267, May 31, 2016). On page 34267, column 1, line 32, under DATES; and on page 34267, column 1, line 53, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 34267, column 1, line 35, under ADDRESSES; and on page 34267, column 2, line 49 and line 52, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 34267, column 2, line 36, under History; and on page 34267, column 2, line 46, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 34267, column 3, line 4, under The Rule; and on page 34268, column 1, line 3, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . .FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-0526; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-3 (81 FR 34879, June 1, 2016). On page 34879, column 3, line 18, under DATES; and on page 34879, column 3, line 39, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 34879, column 3, line 21 and line 34, under ADDRESSES; and on page 34880, column 1, line 58 and line 61, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “ . . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 34880, column 1, line 45, under History; and on page 34880, column 1, line 55, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 34880, column 3, line 14, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-0525; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-1 (81 FR 34880, June 1, 2016). On page 34881, column 1, line 14, under DATES; and on page 34881, column 1, line 35, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 34881, column 1, line 17 and line 30, under ADDRESSES; and on page 34881, column 2, line 33 and line 36, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 34881, column 2, line 20, under History; and on page 34881, column 2, line 30, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 34881, column 3, line 49, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-0449; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-2 (81 FR 36140, June 6, 2016). On page 36140, column 3, line 33, under DATES; and on page 36140, column 3, line 54, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 36140, column 3, line 36 and line 49, under ADDRESSES; and on page 36141, column 1, line 48 and line 51, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 36141, column 1, line 35, under History; and on page 36141, column 1, line 45, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 36141, column 3, line 3, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2015-7857; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-22 (81 FR 36141, June 6, 2016). On page 36142, column 1, line 29, under DATES; and on page 36142, column 1, line 50, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 36142, column 1, line 32 and line 45, under ADDRESSES; and on page 36142, column 3, line 12 and line 15, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 36142, column 2, line 67, under History; and on page 36142, column 3, line 9, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 36143, column 2, line 6, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-0149; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWA-8 (81 FR 37126, June 9, 2016). On page 37126, column 3, line 14, under DATES; and on page 37126, column 3, line 34, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 37126, column 3, line 16 and line 29, under ADDRESSES; and on page 37127, column 1, line 25 and line 28, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 37127, column 1, line 11, under History; and on page 37127, column 1, line 22, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 37127, column 2, line 34, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2015-4452; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWA-7 (81 FR 37127, June 9, 2016). On page 37127, column 3, line 33, under DATES; and on page 37127, column 3, line 53, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 37127, column 3, line 35 and line 48, under ADDRESSES; and on page 37128, column 1, line 40 and line 43, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 37128, column 1, line 37, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 37128, column 2, line 20, under The Rule; and on page 37128, column 3, line 19, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-5573; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-7 (81 FR 38580, June 14, 2016). On page 38580, column 2, line 52, under DATES; and on page 38580, column 3, line 9, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 38580, column 2, line 54 and column 3, line 5, under ADDRESSES; and on page 38581, column 1, line 7 and line 10, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 38580, column 3, line 59, under History; and on page 38581, column 1, line 4, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 38581, column 2, line 19, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2015-3085; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-2 (81 FR 39182, June 16, 2016). On page 39182, column 2, line 53, under DATES; and on page 39182, column 3, line 14, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 39182, column 2, line 56 and column 3, line 9, under ADDRESSES; and on page 39183, column 1, line 14 and line 17, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 39182, column 3, line 66, under History; and on page 39183, column 1, line 11, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 39183, column 2, line 34, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-0021; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-1 (81 FR 39556, June 17, 2016). On page 39556, column 2, line 12, under DATES; and on page 39556, column 2, line 34, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 39556, column 2, line 15 and line 28, under ADDRESSES; and on page 39556, column 3, line 31 and line 34, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 39556, column 3, line 18, under History; and on page 39556, column 3, line 28, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 39556, column 3, line 52, under The Rule; and on page 39557, column 1, line 46, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-0071; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-1 (81 FR 40164, June 21, 2016). On page 40164, column 2, line 17, under DATES; and on page 40164, column 2, line 38, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 40164, column 2, line 20 and line 33, under ADDRESSES; and on page 40164, column 3, line 32 and line 35, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 40164, column 3, line 18, under History; and on page 40164, column 3, line 29, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 40165, column 1, line 54, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2015-8304; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-15 (81 FR 41211, June 24, 2016). On page 41211, column 1, line 45, under DATES; and on page 41211, column 2, line 5, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 41211, column 1, line 48 and line 61, under ADDRESSES; and on page 41211, column 3, line 20 and line 23, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 41211, column 3, line 6, under History; and on page 41211, column 3, line 17, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 41212, column 1, line 41, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2015-5800; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-21 (81 FR 41212, June 24, 2016). On page 41212, column 3, line 9, under DATES; and on page 41212, column 3, line 30, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 41212, column 3, line 12, under ADDRESSES; and on page 41213, column 1, line 22 and line 25, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 41213, column 1, line 8, under History; and on page 41213, column 1, line 19, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 41213, column 1, line 42, under The Rule; and on page 41213, column 2, line 38, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2015-3994; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-23 (81 FR 41798, June 28, 2016). On page 41798, column 1, line 61, under DATES; and on page 41798, column 2, line 20, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 41798, column 2, line 1 and line 15, under ADDRESSES; and on page 41798, column 3, line 13 and line 16, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 41798, column 2, line 66, under History; and on page 41798, column 3, line 10, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 41799, column 1, line 32, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-4234; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-3 (81 FR 43038, July 1, 2016). On page 43038, column 3, line 27, under DATES; and on page 43038, column 3, line 48, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 43038, column 3, line 30 and line 43, under ADDRESSES; and on page 43039, column 1, line 56 and line 59, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 43039, column 1, line 43, under History; and on page 43039, column 1, line 53, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 43039, column 3, line 19, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-4429; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-8 (81 FR 45407, July 14, 2016). On page 45407, column 3, line 53, under DATES; and on page 45408, column 1, line 12, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 45407, column 3, line 56 and on page 45408 column 1, line 7, under ADDRESSES; and on page 45408, column 2, line 13 and line 16, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 45408, column 1, line 76, under History; and on page 45408, column 2, line 10, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 45408, column 3, line 48, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2015-7203; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-14 (81 FR 47287, July 21, 2016). On page 47287, column 2, line 41, under DATES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 47287, column 3, line 19 and, line 22, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 47287, column 3, line 5, under History; and on page 47287, column 3, line 16, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-4291; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-7 (81 FR 50613, August 2, 2016). On page 50613, column 3, line 11, under DATES; and on page 450613, column 3, line 32, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 50613, column 3, line 14 and line 27, under ADDRESSES; and on page 50614, column 1, line 46 and line 49, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 50614, column 1, line 33, under History; and on page 50614, column 1, line 43, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 50614, column 3, line 26, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-4271; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-6 (81 FR 52761, August 10, 2016). On page 52761, column 1, line 49, under DATES; and on page 52761, column 2, line 7, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 52761, column 1, line 52 and column 2, line 3, under ADDRESSES; and on page 52761, column 3, line 9 and line 12, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 52761, column 2, line 62, under History; and on page 52761, column 3, line 6, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 52762, column 1, line 40, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-4236; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-5 (81 FR 52762, August 10, 2016). On page 52762, column 1, line 55, under DATES; and on page 52762, column 3, line 19, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 52762, column 3, line 1 and line 14, under ADDRESSES; and on page 52763, column 1, line 11 and line 14, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 52762, column 3, line 64, under History; and on page 52763, column 1, line 8, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 52763, column 2, line 19, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-5856; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-9 (81 FR 52991, August 11, 2016). On page 52991, column 3, line 34, under DATES; and on page 52991, column 3, line 55, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 52991, column 3, line 37, under ADDRESSES; and on page 52992, column 1, line 51 and line 54, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 52992, column 1, line 37, under History; and on page 52992, column 1, line 48, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 52992, column 2, line 11, under The Rule; and on page 52992, column 3, line 12, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-4629; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-8 (81 FR 52992, August 11, 2016). On page 52993, column 1, line 19, under DATES; and on page 52993, column 1, line 40, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 52993, column 1, line 22 and line 35, under ADDRESSES; and on page 52993, column 2, line 45 and line 48, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 52993, column 2, line 32, under History; and on page 52993, column 2, line 42, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 52994, column 1, line 18, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-5456; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-11 (81 FR 53262, August 12, 2016). On page 53262, column 1, line 27, under DATES; and on page 53262, column 1, line 48, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 53262, column 1, line 30, under ADDRESSES; and on page 53262, column 2, line 47 and line 50, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 53262, column 2, line 33, under History; and on page 53262, column 2, line 44, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 53262, column 3, line 2, under The Rule; and on page 53263 column 1, line 3, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-5386; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-12 (81 FR 53263, August 12, 2016). On page 53263, column 1, line 48, under DATES; and on page 53263, column 2, line 11, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 53263, column 1, line 51, under ADDRESSES; and on page 53263, column 3, line 7 and line 10, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 53263, column 2, line 57, under History; and on page 53263, column 3, line 4, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 53263, column 3, line 27, under The Rule; and on page 53264, column 1, line 23, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-1074; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-3 (81 FR 53264, August 12, 2016). On page 553264, column 2, line 8, under DATES; and on page 53264, column 2, line 29, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 53264, column 2, line 11 and line 29, under ADDRESSES; and on page 53264, column 3, line 18 and line 21, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 53264, column 3, line 4, under History; and on page 53264, column 3, line 15, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 53265, column 1, line 21, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-5387; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-13 (81 FR 53265, August 12, 2016). On page 53265, column 2, line 6, under DATES; and on page 53265, column 2, line 27, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 53265, column 2, line 9, under ADDRESSES; and on page 53265, column 3, line 12 and line 15, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 53265, column 3, line 9, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 53265, column 3, line 33, under The Rule; and on page 53266, column 1, line 32, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-3937; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWA-1 (81 FR 53912, August 15, 2016). On page 53912, column 2, line 26, under DATES; and on page 53912, column 2, line 46, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 53912, column 2, line 28 and line 41, under ADDRESSES; and on page 53912, column 3, line 34 and line 37, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 53912, column 3, line 31, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 53913, column 1, line 2, under The Rule; and on page 53913, column 2, line 23, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-7467; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWA-2 (81 FR 53913, August 15, 2016). On page 53913, column 3, line 27, under DATES; and on page 53913, column 3, line 48, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 53913, column 3, line 30 and line 43, under ADDRESSES; and on page 53914, column 1, line 55 and line 58, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 53914, column 1, line 41, under History; and on page 53914, column 1, line 52, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 53914, column 3, line 28, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-7416; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWA-5 (81 FR 53915, August 15, 2016). On page 53915, column 1, line 27, under DATES; and on page 53915, column 1, line 48, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 53915, column 1, line 30 and line 43, under ADDRESSES; and on page 53915, column 2, line 55 and line 58, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 53915, column 2, line 41, under History; and on page 53915, column 2, line 52, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 53916, column 1, line 30, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2015-3599; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-14 (81 FR 58382, August 25, 2016). On page 58382, column 3, line 16, under DATES; and on page 58382, column 3, line 37, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 58382, column 3, line 19, under ADDRESSES; and on page 58383, column 1, line 24 and line 27, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 58383, column 1, line 21, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 58383, column 1, line 46, under The Rule; and on page 58383, column 2, line 43, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-3785; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-9 (81 FR 58383, August 25, 2016). On page 58383, column 3, line 33, under DATES; and on page 58383, column 3, line 54, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 58383, column 3, line 36, under ADDRESSES; and on page 58384, column 1, line 51 and line 54, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 58384, column 1, line 37, under History; and on page 58384, column 1, line 48, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 58384, column 2, line 6, under The Rule; and on page 58384, column 3, line 6, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-7002; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-5 (81 FR 62002, September 8, 2016). On page 62002, column 1, line 24, under DATES; and on page 62002, column 1, line 45, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 62002, column 1, line 27, under ADDRESSES; and on page 62002, column 2, line 43 and line 46, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 62002, column 2, line 29, under History; and on page 62002, column 2, line 40, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 62002, column 2, line 63, under The Rule; and on page 62002, column 3, line 59, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-6115; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-14 (81 FR 62003, September 8, 2016). On page 62003, column 1, line 40, under DATES; and on page 62003, column 2, line 1, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 62003, column 1, line 43, under ADDRESSES; and on page 62003, column 2, line 60 and line 63, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 62003, column 2, line 46, under History; and on page 62003, column 2, line 57, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 62003, column 3, line 14, under The Rule; and on page 62004, column 1, line 12, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2015-4133; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-27 (81 FR 62807, September 12, 2016). On page 62807, column 1, line 27, under DATES; and on page 62807, column 1, line 47, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 62807, column 1, line 30 and line 43, under ADDRESSES; and on page 62807, column 2, line 62 and line 65, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 62807, column 2, line 49, under History; and on page 62807, column 2, line 65, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 62808, column 2, line 3, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    For Docket No. FAA-2016-6006; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-3 (81 FR 62810, September 13, 2016). On page 62810, column 1, line 38, under DATES; and on page 62810, column 1, line 59, under ADDRESSES remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9 . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11 . . .”. On page 62810, column 1, line 41, under ADDRESSES; and on page 62810, column 2, line 57 and line 60, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, . . .”. On page 62810, column 2, line 44, under History; and on page 62810, column 2, line 54, under Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference; and on page 62810, column 3, line 17, under The Rule; and on page 62811, column 1, line 16, under Amendatory Instruction 2 remove “. . . FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, . . .” and add in its place “. . . FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, . . .”.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 13, 2017. Leslie M. Swann, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03521 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3835; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-13] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Southwest Oklahoma AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action modifies 3 VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways (V-140, V-272, and V-440) in the vicinity of Sayre, OK. The FAA is taking this action due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Sayre, OK, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) facility that provides navigation guidance for a portion of the airways listed. This action enhances the enroute structure within the National Airspace System.

    DATES:

    Effective date 0901 UTC, April 27, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA, Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the route structure as required to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic in the vicinity of Sayre, OK.

    History

    On October 20, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (80 FR 63473), Docket No. FAA-2015-3835, to amend VOR Federal airways V-140, V-272, and V-440 due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Sayre VORTAC. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. One comment was received.

    Discussion of Comments

    The comment received was in regard to navigation aid signal reception coverage along the proposed realigned airway segments being sufficient enough for navigation. The commenter noted that low altitude VORs, like the Sayre and Burns Flat, OK, VORTAC facilities were only certified to 40 nautical miles (NM). He also stated that the distance of V-440 between the Sayre and Panhandle, TX, VORTACs was 102 NM and had already stretched the approved reception of the two VORs from 80 NM to 102 NM. The commenter offered that moving airway operations from the Sayre VORTAC to the Burns Flat VORTAC would only increase the reception distance further and possibly cause loss of navigation reception while on the airway. He recommended the FAA test the reception along the new proposed airway and confirm the airway amendment would have sufficient navigation reception.

    In response to the comment received, the FAA accomplished an extended service volume (ESV) analysis of the VORTACs supporting all the proposed amendments and determined that the navigation aid signal reception along the proposed VOR Federal airway route segments fell within historical signal reception coverages for the area. FAA flight check evaluation of the amended route segments confirmed there is satisfactory navigation aid signal coverage along the new routes.

    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010 of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify three VOR Federal airways (V-140, V-272, and V-440) in the vicinity of Sayre, OK, due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Sayre VORTAC. The route modifications are outlined below.

    V-140: V-140 extends from the Panhandle VORTAC to the Casanova, VA, VORTAC. The route segment between the Panhandle and Kingfisher, OK, VORTACs is amended to proceed over the Burns Flat VORTAC.

    V-272: V-272 extends from the Dalhart, TX, VORTAC to the Fort Smith, AR, VORTAC. The route segment between the Borger and Will Rogers VORTACs is amended to proceed over the Burns Flat VORTAC.

    V-440: V-440 extends from the Panhandle VORTAC to the Will Rogers VORTAC. The route segment between the BRISC and CARFF fixes is amended to proceed over the Burns Flat VORTAC. Additionally, the intersecting NAVAID radial information used to describe the BRISC fix is updated using the Panhandle VORTAC 070°(T) and Burns Flat VORTAC 288°(T) radials and the intersecting NAVAID radial information used to describe the CARFF fix is updated using the Burns Flat VORTAC 103°(T) and Will Rogers VORTAC 248°(T) radials.

    All radials in the regulatory text route descriptions below are stated in True degrees.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of modifying three VOR Federal airways near Sayre, OK qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR part 1500) and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a which categorically excludes from further environmental review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). Therefore, this action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts. Also in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways V-140 [Amended] From Panhandle, TX; Burns Flat, OK; Kingfisher, OK; INT Kingfisher 072° and Tulsa, OK, 261° radials; Tulsa; Razorback, AR; Harrison, AR; Walnut Ridge, AR; Dyersburg, TN; Nashville, TN; Livingston, TN; London, KY; Hazard, KY; Bluefield, WV; INT Bluefield 071° and Montebello, VA, 250° radials; Montebello; to Casanova, VA. V-272 [Amended] From Dalhart, TX; Borger, TX; Burns Flat, OK; Will Rogers, OK; INT Will Rogers 113° and McAlester, OK, 286° radials; McAlester; to Fort Smith, AR. V-440 [Amended] From Panhandle, TX; INT Panhandle 070° and Burns Flat, OK, 288° radials; Burns Flat; INT Burns Flat 103° and Will Rogers, OK, 248° radials; to Will Rogers. Issued in Washington, DC, on February 16, 2017. Leslie M. Swann, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03542 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9193; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-26] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Wessington Springs, SD AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wessington Springs Airport, Wessington Springs, SD. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Wessington Springs Airport, for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, April 27, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    On November 16, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E Airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wessington Springs Airport, Wessington Springs, SD (81FR 80618) FAA-2016-9193. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Wessington Springs Airport, Wessington Springs, SD, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class E airspace areas are published in Section 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL SD E5 Wessington Springs, SD [New] Wessington Springs Airport, SD (Lat. 44°03′43″ N., long. 098°31′56″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Wessington Springs Airport

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 9, 2017. Vonnie L. Royal, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03543 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Natural Resources Revenue 30 CFR Parts 1202 and 1206 [Docket No. ONRR-2012-0004; DS63644000 DR2000000.CH7000 178D0102R2] RIN 1012-AA13 Postponement of Effectiveness of the Consolidated Federal Oil & Gas and Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Reform 2017 Valuation Rule AGENCY:

    Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notification; postponement of effectiveness.

    SUMMARY:

    On July 1, 2016, the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) published the Consolidated Federal Oil & Gas and Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Final Rule (2017 Valuation Rule or Rule) in the Federal Register. On December 29, 2016, three separate petitions challenging the 2017 Valuation Rule were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. In light of the existence and potential consequences of the pending litigation, ONRR has concluded that justice requires it to postpone the effectiveness of the 2017 Valuation Rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act, pending judicial review.

    DATES:

    February 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peter Christnacht, Royalty Valuation team B, at 303-231-3651 or email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On July 1, 2016, ONRR published the 2017 Valuation Rule in the Federal Register. See 81 FR 43338. The 2017 Valuation Rule changes how lessees value their production for royalty purposes and revises revenue-reporting requirements. Although the 2017 Valuation Rule took effect on January 1, 2017, Federal and Indian Lessees are not required to report and pay royalties under the Rule until February 28, 2017. Under this notification, Lessees will not be required to report and pay royalties under the Rule as of that date.

    On December 29, 2016, three separate petitions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming.1 The petitions allege that certain provisions of the 2017 Valuation Rule are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the law. On February 17, 2017, the petitioners sent the ONRR Director a letter requesting that ONRR postpone the implementation of the 2017 Valuation Rule. The petitioners claim that lessees affected by the Rule face significant hardship and uncertainty in the face of reporting under the rule for the first time on February 28, 2017. The petitioners also claim that the new reporting and payment requirements in the Rule are difficult, and in some cases impossible, to comply with by the royalty reporting deadline; a difficulty exacerbated by the fact that non-compliant lessees may be exposed to significant civil penalties.

    1Cloud Peak Energy, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, Case No. 16CV315-F (D. Wyo.);

    American Petroleum Inst. V. United States Dep't of the Interior, Case No. 16CV316-F (D. Wyo.); Tri-State Generation and transmission Ass'n, Inc., Basin Electric Power Cooperative, and Western Fuels-Wyoming, Inc., v. United States Dep't of the Interior, Case No. 16CV319-F (D. Wyo.)

    Under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act “[w]hen an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review.” 5 U.S.C. 705. In light of the pending litigation, and for the following reasons, ONRR has concluded that justice requires it to postpone the effectiveness of the 2017 Valuation Rule until the judicial challenges to the Rule are resolved.

    First, the postponement will preserve the regulatory status quo while the litigation is pending and the Court decides whether to uphold the regulation. While ONRR believes the 2017 Valuation Rule was properly promulgated, the petitioners have raised serious questions concerning the validity of certain provisions of the Rule, including the expansion of the “default provision” and the use of the sales price of electricity for certain coal-royalty valuations. Given this legal uncertainty, maintaining the status quo is critical for a number of reasons. First, a postponement will avoid the substantial cost of retroactively correcting and verifying all revenue reports if the 2017 Valuation Rule is invalidated, in whole or in part, as a result of the pending litigation. Federal and Indian lessees affected by the 2017 Valuation Rule submit approximately 450,000 reporting lines every production month. If the Court invalidates the 2017 Valuation Rule, affected lessees would be forced to correct and resubmit reporting lines for each production month that the Rule is in effect. ONRR would be required to review and verify the same. Thus, postponing the 2017 Valuation Rule will avoid forcing both the regulated community and ONRR to perform the complicated, time-consuming, and costly task of correcting and verifying revenue reports and payments if the 2017 Valuation Rule is invalidated as a result of the pending litigation.2

    2 Some lessees have likely converted their accounting systems to report and pay royalties under the new rule. While these lessees will incur a cost to revert back to the pre-existing system, the cost of doing so now, before the first reporting period, will be much less than if the reversion is required later upon judicial order, and the lessee is required to correct its reporting for each month it reported under the Rule.

    In addition, the postponement will enhance the lessees' ability to timely and accurately report and pay royalties because they will be using a well-known system that has been in place for the last 25 years. ONRR has received numerous legitimate questions from lessees on how to apply the 2017 Valuation Rule, some of which will require additional consideration and time before ONRR can definitively answer them; thus increasing the likelihood that lessees will initially report incorrectly and later need to adjust their reports. In addition, the Court may resolve some of these issues differently than ONRR, again increasing the likelihood that lessees will need to submit corrected reports. Given these judicial and administrative uncertainties, relying on the previous regulatory system while the litigation is pending will reduce uncertainty and enhance ONRR's ability to collect and verify natural resource revenues, which is in the best interest of all those who benefit from royalty payments, including States, Tribes, individual Indian lessors, and the general public.

    The United States will suffer no significant harm from postponing the effectiveness of the 2017 Valuation Rule while the litigation is pending. As noted in the preamble to the final rule, the implementation of the Rule is not expected to have a significant impact on the economy. 81 FR 43338, 43368. Thus, postponing the effectiveness of the Rule will not cause any appreciable economic harm to the general public. In fact, the interests of all royalty beneficiaries will be enhanced by the regulatory certainty provided by the postponement, as discussed above. In contrast, the regulated community will suffer harm without the postponement, especially if the Rule is later invalidated by the Court. If the Rule is invalidated, the regulated community would not only incur the unreimbursable costs of reverting back to the old system, but would also incur the substantial costs of correcting its reports and royalty payments for each production month.

    In sum, in light of the existence and consequences of the pending litigation, and given the potentially irreparable harm that could result if the 2017 Valuation Rule is immediately implemented, ONRR has determined that the public interest and justice requires postponing the effectiveness of the 2017 Valuation Rule until the litigation is resolved.

    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 705, ONRR has postponed the effectiveness of the Consolidated Federal Oil & Gas and Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Final Rule pending judicial review.

    Dated: February 22, 2017. Gregory J. Gould, Director, Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03861 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 80 and 95 [WT Docket No. 14-36; FCC 16-119] Marine Radio Equipment and Related Matters AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, information collection requirements adopted in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 16-119. This document is consistent with the Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of the rules.

    DATES:

    The rule amendments to 47 CFR 80.233, 80.1061, 95.1402 and 95.1403, published at 81 FR 90739, December 15, 2016, are effective on February 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cathy Williams by email at [email protected] and telephone at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on February 13, 2017, OMB approved information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 16-119, published at 81 FR 90739. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1227. The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of the effective date of those information collection requirements.

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on February 13, 2017, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 80.233, 80.1061, 95.1402, 95.1403, as amended in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 16-119. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1227.

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

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

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1227.

    OMB Approval Date: February 13, 2017.

    OMB Expiration Date: February 29, 2020.

    Title: Sections 80.233, Technical Requirements for Automatic Identification System Search and Rescue Transmitter (AIS-SART) Equipment, 80.1061, Special requirements for 406.0-406.1 MHz EPIRB Stations, 95.1402, Special Requirements for 406 MHz PLBs and 95.1403, Special Requirements for Maritime Survivor Locating Devices.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 80 respondents; 80 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement and on-occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 303 unless otherwise noted.

    Total Annual Burden: 80 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The information collections contained in these rule sections require manufacturers of certain emergency radio beacons to include supplemental information with their equipment certification application which are due to the information collection requirements which were adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in FCC 16-119 on August 30, 2016. Manufacturers of Automatic Identification System Search and Rescue Transmitters (AIS-SARTS), 406 MHz Emergency Position Indicating RadioBeacons (EPIRBs), and Maritime Survivor Locating Device (MSLDs) must provide a copy of letter from the U.S. Coast Guard stating their device satisfies technical requirements specified in the IEC 61097-17 technical standard for AIS-SARTs, or Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM) Standard 11000 for 406 MHz EPIRBs, or RTCM Standard 11901 for MSLDs. They must also provide a copy or the technical test data, and the instruction manual(s). For 406 MHz PLBs manufacturers must include documentation from COSPAS/SARSAT recognized test facility that the PLB satisfies the technical requirements specified in COSPAS-SARSAT Standard C/S T.001 and COSPAS-SARSAT Standard C/S T.007 standards and documentation from an independent test facility stating that the PLB complies RTCM Standard 11010.2. The information is used by Telecommunications Certification Bodies (TCBs) to determine if the devices meets the necessary international technical standards and insure compliance with applicable rules. If this information were not available, operation of marine safety equipment could be hindered threatening the ability of rescue personnel to locate vessels in distress.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03752 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 001005281-0369-02] RIN 0648-XF218 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2017 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) to close the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector for king mackerel in the Florida west coast southern subzone. This closure is necessary to protect the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) king mackerel resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, February 25, 2017, through June 30, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelli O'Donnell, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    The Gulf migratory group king mackerel is divided into western and eastern zones. The Gulf's eastern zone for king mackerel is further divided into the Florida west coast northern and southern subzones which have separate commercial quotas. The commercial quota for the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector in the Florida west coast southern subzone is 551,448 lb (250,133 kg) (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(i)(B)(1)).

    From November 1 through March 31, the southern subzone encompasses an area of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) south of a line extending due west from the boundary of Lee and Collier Counties, Florida, on the Florida west coast, and south of a line extending due east from the Monroe and Miami-Dade County, Florida, boundary on the Florida east coast, which includes the EEZ off Collier and Monroe Counties, Florida. From April 1 through October 31, the southern subzone is reduced to the EEZ off Collier County, and the EEZ off Monroe County becomes part of the Atlantic migratory group area.

    Under 50 CFR 622.8(b) and 622.388(a)(1), NMFS is required to close any component of the king mackerel commercial sector when its quota has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification at the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined the commercial quota for the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the Florida west coast southern subzone will be reached by February 25, 2017. Accordingly, the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the Florida west coast southern subzone is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, February 25, 2017, through the end of the fishing year on June 30, 2017.

    On February 10, 2017, NMFS closed the Florida west coast southern subzone to commercial harvest of king mackerel caught by run around gillnet gear, because the commercial quota for that sector had been reached (82 FR 10553, February 14, 2017). Therefore, during these closures, no person aboard a vessel for which a valid commercial permit for king mackerel has been issued may harvest or possess Gulf migratory group king mackerel in or from Federal waters of the closed subzone, as specified in 50 CFR 622.384(e). However, there is one exception. A person aboard a vessel that has a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit and also has a commercial king mackerel permit for coastal migratory pelagic fish may continue to retain king mackerel in or from the closed subzone under the 2-fish daily recreational bag limit, provided the vessel is operating as a charter vessel or headboat. Charter vessels or headboats that have a valid commercial king mackerel permit are considered to be operating as a charter vessel or headboat when they carry a passenger who pays a fee or when more than three persons are aboard, including operator and crew.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, NMFS Southeast Region, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf migratory group king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.8(b) and 622.388(a)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the regulations at 50 CFR 622.8(b) and 622.388(a)(1) have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest, because there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the king mackerel resource since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.

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

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 22, 2017. Karen H. Abrams, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03783 Filed 2-22-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 150916863-6211-02] RIN 0648-XF248 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Using Trawl Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season apportionment of the 2017 Pacific cod total allowable catch allocated to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI.

    DATES:

    Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 23, 2017, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., April 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    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 A season apportionment of the 2017 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI is 34,962 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016) and inseason adjustment (82 FR 2916, January 10, 2017).

    In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the A season apportionment of the 2017 Pacific cod TAC allocated to trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 34,000 mt and is setting aside the remaining 962 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI.

    After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting 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 closure of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 22, 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 § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 23, 2017. Karen H. Abrams, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03875 Filed 2-23-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 161020985-7181-02] RIN 0648-XE989 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; 2017 and 2018 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; closures.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications and prohibited species catch allowances for the groundfish fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to establish harvest limits for groundfish during the 2017 and 2018 fishing years, and to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP). The intended effect of this action is to conserve and manage the groundfish resources in the BSAI in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

    DATES:

    Effective from 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 27, 2017, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of the Alaska Groundfish Harvest Specifications Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Record of Decision (ROD), Supplementary Information Report (SIR) to the EIS, and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared for this action are available from http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. The final 2016 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report for the groundfish resources of the BSAI, dated November 2016, as well as the SAFE reports for previous years, are available from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) at 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99510-2252, phone 907-271-2809, or from the Council's Web site at http://www.npfmc.org/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 679 implement the FMP and govern the groundfish fisheries in the BSAI. The Council prepared the FMP, and NMFS approved it under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.

    The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS, after consultation with the Council, to specify the total allowable catch (TAC) for each target species category. The sum TAC for all groundfish species must be within the optimum yield (OY) range of 1.4 million to 2.0 million metric tons (mt) (see § 679.20(a)(1)(i)(A)). This final rule specifies the TAC at 2.0 million mt for both 2017 and 2018. NMFS also must specify apportionments of TAC, as well as prohibited species catch (PSC) allowances and prohibited species quota (PSQ) reserves established by § 679.21; seasonal allowances of pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel TAC; Amendment 80 allocations; and Community Development Quota (CDQ) reserve amounts established by § 679.20(b)(1)(ii). The final harvest specifications set forth in Tables 1 through 26 of this action satisfy these requirements.

    Section 679.20(c)(3)(i) further requires NMFS to consider public comment on the proposed annual TACs (and apportionments thereof) and PSC allowances, and to publish final harvest specifications in the Federal Register. The proposed 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications and PSC allowances for the groundfish fishery of the BSAI were published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2016 (81 FR 87863). Comments were invited and accepted through January 5, 2017. NMFS received one letter of comment on the proposed harvest specifications; this comment is summarized and responded to in the “Response to Comments” section of this rule. NMFS consulted with the Council on the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications during the December 2016 Council meeting in Anchorage, AK. After considering public comments, as well as biological and economic data that were available at the Council's December meeting, NMFS implements the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications as recommended by the Council.

    Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) and TAC Harvest Specifications

    The final ABC levels for Alaska groundfish are based on the best available biological and socioeconomic information, including projected biomass trends, information on assumed distribution of stock biomass, and revised technical methods used to calculate stock biomass. In general, the development of ABCs and overfishing levels (OFLs) involves sophisticated statistical analyses of fish populations. The FMP specifies a series of six tiers to define OFL and ABC amounts based on the level of reliable information available to fishery scientists. Tier 1 represents the highest level of information quality available, while Tier 6 represents the lowest.

    In December 2016, the Council, its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and its Advisory Panel (AP) reviewed current biological and harvest information about the condition of the BSAI groundfish stocks. The Council's BSAI Groundfish Plan Team (Plan Team) compiled and presented this information in the final 2016 SAFE report for the BSAI groundfish fisheries, dated November 2016 (see ADDRESSES). The SAFE report contains a review of the latest scientific analyses and estimates of each species' biomass and other biological parameters, as well as summaries of the available information on the BSAI ecosystem and the economic condition of groundfish fisheries off Alaska. NMFS notified the public of the comment period for these harvest specifications—and of the publication of the 2016 SAFE report—in the notice of proposed harvest specifications. From the data and analyses in the SAFE report, the Plan Team recommended an OFL and ABC for each species or species group at the November 2016 Plan Team meeting.

    In December 2016, the SSC, AP, and Council reviewed the Plan Team's recommendations. The final TAC recommendations were based on the ABCs as adjusted for other biological and socioeconomic considerations, including maintaining the sum of all the TACs within the required OY range of 1.4 million to 2.0 million mt. As required by annual catch limit rules for all fisheries (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009), none of the Council's recommended TACs for 2017 or 2018 exceed the final 2017 or 2018 ABCs for any species or species group. The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) approves the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications as recommended by the Council. NMFS finds that the Council's recommended OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are consistent with the preferred harvest strategy and the biological condition of groundfish stocks as described in the 2016 SAFE report that was approved by the Council.

    The 2017 harvest specifications set in this final action will supersede the 2017 harvest specifications previously set in the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016). The 2018 harvest specifications herein will be superseded in early 2018 when the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications are published. Pursuant to this final action, the 2017 harvest specifications therefore will apply for the remainder of the current year (2017), while the 2018 harvest specifications are projected only for the following year (2018) and will be superseded in early 2018 by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications. Because this final action (published in early 2017) will be superseded in early 2018 by the publication of the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications, it is projected that this final action will implement the harvest specifications for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands for approximately one year.

    Other Actions Potentially Affecting the 2017 and 2018 Harvest Specifications

    The State of Alaska (State) manages separate Pacific cod fisheries in the Bering Sea subarea and the Aleutian Islands subarea. The State's guideline harvest level (GHL) fisheries are conducted independently of the Federal groundfish fisheries under direct regulation of the State. GHLs are derived from the Pacific cod ABC for the Bering Sea subarea and the Aleutian Islands subarea, and the TAC for each subarea is set at an amount less than or equal to the amount available after the annual GHL percentage has been deducted from the ABC. The State's GHLs for 2017 and 2018 are set equal to 6.4 percent of the Pacific cod ABC for the Bering Sea subarea and 27 percent of the Pacific cod ABC for the Aleutian Islands subarea. The Council and its Plan Team, Scientific and Statistical Committee, and Advisory Panel recommended that the sum of all State and Federal water Pacific cod removals from the Bering Sea subarea and the Aleutian Islands subarea not exceed the proposed ABC recommendations. Accordingly, the Council recommends setting the final 2017 and 2018 Pacific cod TACs in the Bering Sea subarea and the Aleutian Islands subarea to account for State GHLs.

    NMFS has published the final rule to implement Amendment 113 (81 FR 84434, November 23, 2016). This rule sets aside a portion of the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TAC for catcher vessels that directed fish for Aleutian Islands Pacific cod and then deliver the catch to Aleutian Islands shoreplants for processing. The set-aside applies only if specific notification and performance requirements are met. For 2017, NMFS has been notified that no shoreplants in the Aleutian Islands will be processing Pacific cod, and the set-aside is not in effect for 2017. For 2018, NMFS must be notified by October 31, 2017, that Aleutian Islands shoreplants intend to process Pacific cod for the 2018 set-aside to apply for catcher vessels that directed fish for Aleutian Islands Pacific cod and then deliver the catch to Aleutian Islands shoreplants for processing. If NMFS receives such notification from either the city of Adak or the city of Atka, then NMFS will set aside a portion of the TAC for Aleutian Islands subarea Pacific cod in 2018 for catcher vessels that directed fish for Aleutian Islands Pacific cod and deliver to Aleutian Islands shoreplants for processing.

    Changes From the Proposed 2017 and 2018 Harvest Specifications for the BSAI

    The Council's recommendations for the proposed 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications (81 FR 87863, December 6, 2016) were based largely on information contained in the 2015 SAFE report for the BSAI groundfish fisheries. Through the proposed harvest specifications, NMFS notified the public that these harvest specifications could change, as the Council would consider information contained in the final 2016 SAFE report; recommendations from the Plan Team, SSC, and AP committees; and public testimony when making its recommendations for final harvest specifications at the December 2016 Council meeting. NMFS further notified the public that, as required by the FMP and its implementing regulations, the sum of the TACs must be within the OY range of 1.4 million and 2.0 million mt.

    Information contained in the 2016 SAFE report indicates biomass changes from the 2015 SAFE report for several groundfish species. The 2016 report was made available for public review during the public comment period for the proposed harvest specifications. At the December 2016 Council meeting, the SSC recommended the 2017 and 2018 ABCs for many species based on the best and most recent information contained in the 2016 SAFE reports. This recommendation resulted in an ABC sum total for all BSAI groundfish species in excess of 2 million mt for both 2017 and 2018.

    Based on increased fishing effort in 2016, the Council recommends increasing Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands yellowfin sole TAC by 10,000 mt in 2017 and 2018. In terms of percentage, the largest increases in final TACs relative to the proposed TACs were for Bering Sea subarea Pacific Ocean perch and Bering Sea subarea Greenland turbot. These increases were to account for a higher interest in directed fishing than in 2016. Other increases in the final TACs relative to the proposed TACs included increases in Aleutian Islands subarea Pacific cod, sablefish, and Atka mackerel in all subareas. These increases were to account for higher interest in directed fishing or higher anticipated incidental catch needs.

    Decreases in final TACs compared to the proposed TACs were for rock sole, flathead sole, rougheye rockfish, and shortraker rockfish. The decreases were to account for the requirement not to exceed the 2.0 million mt OY limit on overall TAC in the BSAI.

    The changes to TACs between the proposed and final harvest specifications are based on the most recent scientific and economic information and are consistent with the FMP, regulatory obligations, and harvest strategy as described in the proposed harvest specifications, including the upper limit for OY of 2.0 million mt. These changes are compared in Table 1A.

    Table 1 lists the Council's recommended final 2017 OFL, ABC, TAC, initial TAC (ITAC), and CDQ reserve amounts of the BSAI groundfish species or species groups; and Table 2 lists the Council's recommended final 2018 OFL, ABC, TAC, ITAC, and CDQ reserve amounts of the BSAI groundfish species or species groups. NMFS concurs in these recommendations. The final 2017 and 2018 TAC recommendations for the BSAI are within the OY range established for the BSAI and do not exceed the ABC for any species or species group. The apportionment of TAC amounts among fisheries and seasons is discussed below.

    Table 1—Final 2017 Overfishing Level (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), Total Allowable Catch (TAC), Initial TAC (ITAC), and CDQ Reserve Allocation of Groundfish in the BSAI 1 [Amounts are in metric tons] Species Area 2017 OFL ABC TAC ITAC 2 CDQ 3 Pollock 4 BS 3,640,000 2,800,000 1,345,000 1,210,500 134,500 AI 43,650 36,061 19,000 17,100 1,900 Bogoslof 130,428 60,800 500 500 0 Pacific cod 5 BS 284,000 239,000 223,704 199,768 23,936 AI 28,700 21,500 15,695 14,016 1,679 Sablefish BS 1,499 1,274 1,274 1,051 175 AI 2,044 1,735 1,735 1,410 293 Yellowfin sole BSAI 287,000 260,800 154,000 137,522 16,478 Greenland turbot BSAI 11,615 6,644 4,500 3,825 n/a BS n/a 5,800 4,375 3,719 468 AI n/a 844 125 106 0 Arrowtooth flounder BSAI 76,100 65,371 14,000 11,900 1,498 Kamchatka flounder BSAI 10,360 8,880 5,000 4,250 0 Rock sole BSAI 159,700 155,100 47,100 42,060 5,040 Flathead sole 6 BSAI 81,654 68,278 14,500 12,949 1,552 Alaska plaice BSAI 42,800 36,000 13,000 11,050 0 Other flatfish 7 BSAI 17,591 13,193 2,500 2,125 0 Pacific ocean perch BSAI 53,152 43,723 34,900 30,693 n/a BS n/a 12,199 11,000 9,350 0 EAI n/a 10,307 7,900 7,055 845 CAI n/a 8,009 7,000 6,251 749 WAI n/a 13,208 9,000 8,037 963 Northern rockfish BSAI 16,242 13,264 5,000 4,250 0 Blackspotted and Rougheye rockfish 8 BSAI 612 501 225 191 0 BS/EAI n/a 306 100 85 0 CAI/WAI n/a 195 125 106 0 Shortraker rockfish BSAI 666 499 125 106 0 Other rockfish 9 BSAI 1,816 1,362 875 744 0 BS n/a 791 325 276 0 AI n/a 571 550 468 0 Atka mackerel BSAI 102,700 87,200 65,000 58,045 6,955 BS/EAI n/a 34,890 34,500 30,809 3,692 CAI n/a 30,330 18,000 16,074 1,926 WAI n/a 21,980 12,500 11,163 1,338 Skates BSAI 49,063 41,144 26,000 22,100 0 Sculpins BSAI 56,582 42,387 4,500 3,825 0 Sharks BSAI 689 517 125 106 0 Squids BSAI 6,912 5,184 1,342 1,141 0 Octopuses BSAI 4,769 3,576 400 340 0 Total 5,110,344 4,013,993 2,000,000 1,791,566 197,031 1 These amounts apply to the entire BSAI management area unless otherwise specified. With the exception of pollock, and for the purpose of these harvest specifications, the Bering Sea (BS) subarea includes the Bogoslof District. 2 Except for pollock, the portion of the sablefish TAC allocated to hook-and-line or pot gear, and Amendment 80 species, 15 percent of each TAC is put into a reserve. The ITAC for these species is the remainder of the TAC after the subtraction of these reserves. For pollock and Amendment 80 species, ITAC is the non-CDQ allocation of TAC (see footnotes 3 and 5). 3 For the Amendment 80 species (Atka mackerel, flathead sole, rock sole, yellowfin sole, Pacific cod, and Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch), 10.7 percent of the TAC is reserved for use by CDQ participants (see §§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) and 679.31). Twenty percent of the sablefish TAC allocated to hook-and-line gear or pot gear, 7.5 percent of the sablefish TAC allocated to trawl gear, and 10.7 percent of the TACs for Bering Sea Greenland turbot and arrowtooth flounder are reserved for use by CDQ participants (see § 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (D)). Aleutian Islands Greenland turbot, “other flatfish,” Alaska plaice, Bering Sea Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, shortraker rockfish, rougheye rockfish, “other rockfish,” skates, sculpins, sharks, squids, and octopuses are not allocated to the CDQ program. 4 Under § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A), the annual BS subarea pollock TAC, after subtracting first for the CDQ directed fishing allowance (10 percent) and second for the incidental catch allowance (3.9 percent), is further allocated by sector for a pollock directed fishery as follows: inshore—50 percent; catcher/processor—40 percent; and motherships—10 percent. Under § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2), the annual Aleutian Islands subarea pollock TAC, after subtracting first for the CDQ directed fishing allowance (10 percent) and second for the incidental catch allowance (2,400 mt), is allocated to the Aleut Corporation for a pollock directed fishery. 5 The BS Pacific cod TAC is set less than 6.4 percent of the Bering Sea subarea ABC to account for the State of Alaska's (State) guideline harvest level in State waters of the Bering Sea subarea. The AI Pacific cod TAC is set less than 27 percent of the Aleutian Islands subarea ABC to account for the State guideline harvest level in State waters of the Aleutian Islands subarea. 6 “Flathead sole” includes Hippoglossoides elassodon (flathead sole) and Hippoglossoides robustus (Bering flounder). 7 “Other flatfish” includes all flatfish species, except for halibut (a prohibited species), flathead sole, Greenland turbot, rock sole, yellowfin sole, arrowtooth flounder, Kamchatka flounder, and Alaska plaice. 8 “Rougheye rockfish” includes Sebastes aleutianus (rougheye) and Sebastes melanostictus (blackspotted). 9 “Other rockfish” includes all Sebastes and Sebastolobus species except for Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, shortraker rockfish, and rougheye rockfish. Note: Regulatory areas and districts are defined at § 679.2 (BSAI = Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, BS = Bering Sea subarea, AI = Aleutian Islands subarea, EAI = Eastern Aleutian district, CAI = Central Aleutian district, WAI = Western Aleutian district.) Table 1A—Comparison of Final 2017 and 2018 With Proposed 2017 and 2018 Total Allowable Catch in the BSAI [Amounts are in metric tons] Species Area 1 2017 final
  • TAC
  • 2017
  • proposed
  • TAC
  • 2017
  • difference
  • from
  • proposed
  • 2017
  • percentage
  • difference
  • from
  • proposed
  • 2018 final
  • TAC
  • 2018
  • proposed
  • TAC
  • 2018
  • difference
  • from
  • proposed
  • 2018
  • percentage
  • difference
  • from
  • proposed
  • Pollock BS 1,345,000 1,340,643 4,357 0.3 1,345,000 1,340,643 4,357 0.3 AI 19,000 19,000 0 0.0 19,000 19,000 0 0.0 Bogoslof 500 500 0 0.0 500 500 0 0.0 Pacific cod BS 223,704 238,680 −14,976 −6.3 223,704 238,680 −14,976 −6.3 AI 15,695 12,839 2,856 22.2 15,695 12,839 2,856 22.2 Sablefish BS 1,274 1,052 222 21.1 1,274 1,052 222 21.1 AI 1,735 1,423 312 21.9 1,735 1,423 312 21.9 Yellowfin sole BSAI 154,000 144,000 10,000 6.9 154,000 144,000 10,000 6.9 Greenland turbot BS 4,375 2,673 1,702 63.7 4,375 2,673 1,702 63.7 AI 125 200 −75 −37.5 125 200 −75 −37.5 Arrowtooth flounder BSAI 14,000 14,000 0 0.0 14,000 14,000 0 0.0 Kamchatka flounder BSAI 5,000 5,000 0 0.0 5,000 5,000 0 0.0 Rock sole BSAI 47,100 57,100 −10,000 −17.5 47,100 57,100 −10,000 −17.5 Flathead sole BSAI 14,500 21,000 −6,500 −31.0 14,500 21,000 −6,500 −31.0 Alaska plaice BSAI 13,000 14,500 −1,500 −10.3 13,000 14,500 −1,500 −10.3 Other flatfish BSAI 2,500 2,500 0 0.0 2,500 2,500 0 0.0 Pacific ocean perch BS 11,000 7,953 3,047 38.3 11,000 7,953 3,047 38.3 EAI 7,900 7,537 363 4.8 7,900 7,537 363 4.8 CAI 7,000 7,000 0 0.0 7,000 7,000 0 0.0 WAI 9,000 9,000 0 0.0 9,000 9,000 0 0.0 Northern rockfish BSAI 5,000 4,500 500 11.1 5,000 4,500 500 11.1 Blackspotted and Rougheye rockfish BS/EAI 100 100 0 0.0 100 100 0 0.0 CAI/WAI 125 200 −75 −37.5 125 200 −75 −37.5 Shortraker rockfish BSAI 125 200 −75 −37.5 125 200 −75 −37.5 Other rockfish BS 325 325 0 0.0 325 325 0 0.0 AI 550 550 0 0.0 550 550 0 0.0 Atka mackerel EAI/BS 34,500 28,500 6,000 21.1 34,000 28,500 5,500 19.3 CAI 18,000 16,000 2,000 12.5 18,500 16,000 2,500 15.6 WAI 12,500 10,500 2,000 19.0 12,500 10,500 2,000 19.0 Skates BSAI 26,000 26,000 0 0.0 26,000 26,000 0 0.0 Sculpins BSAI 4,500 4,500 0 0.0 4,500 4,500 0 0.0 Sharks BSAI 125 125 0 0.0 125 125 0 0.0 Squid BSAI 1,342 1,500 −158 −10.5 1,342 1,500 −158 −10.5 Octopuses BSAI 400 400 0 0.0 400 400 0 0.0 Total BSAI 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0.0 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0.0 1 Bering Sea subarea (BS), Aleutian Islands subarea (AI), Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI), Eastern Aleutian District (EAI), Central Aleutian District (CAI), and Western Aleutian District (WAI).
    Table 2—Final 2018 Overfishing Level (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), Total Allowable Catch (TAC), Initial TAC (ITAC), and CDQ Reserve Allocation of Groundfish in the BSAI 1 [Amounts are in metric tons] Species Area 2018 OFL ABC TAC ITAC 2 CDQ 3 Pollock 4 BS 4,360,000 2,979,000 1,345,000 1,210,500 134,500 AI 49,291 40,788 19,000 17,100 1,900 Bogoslof 130,428 97,428 500 500 0 Pacific cod 5 BS 302,000 255,000 223,704 199,768 23,936 AI 28,700 21,500 15,695 14,016 1,679 Sablefish BS 1,519 1,291 1,274 541 48 AI 2,072 1,758 1,735 369 33 Yellowfin sole BSAI 276,000 250,800 154,000 137,522 16,478 Greenland turbot BSAI 12,831 10,864 4,500 3,825 n/a BS n/a 9,484 4,375 3,719 468 AI n/a 1,380 125 106 0 Arrowtooth flounder BSAI 67,023 58,633 14,000 11,900 1,498 Kamchatka flounder BSAI 10,700 9,200 5,000 4,250 0 Rock sole BSAI 147,300 143,100 47,100 42,060 5,040 Flathead sole 6 BSAI 79,136 66,164 14,500 12,949 1,552 Alaska plaice BSAI 36,900 32,100 13,000 11,050 0 Other flatfish 7 BSAI 17,591 13,193 2,500 2,125 0 Pacific ocean perch BSAI 51,950 42,735 34,900 30,693 n/a BS n/a 11,924 11,000 9,350 0 EAI n/a 10,074 7,900 7,055 845 CAI n/a 7,828 7,000 6,251 749 WAI n/a 12,909 9,000 8,037 963 Northern rockfish BSAI 15,854 12,947 5,000 4,250 0 Blackspotted and Rougheye rockfish 8 BSAI 750 614 225 191 0 EBS/EAI n/a 374 100 85 0 CAI/WAI n/a 240 125 106 0 Shortraker rockfish BSAI 666 499 125 106 0 Other rockfish 9 BSAI 1,816 1,362 875 744 0 BS n/a 791 325 276 0 AI n/a 571 550 468 0 Atka mackerel BSAI 99,900 85,000 65,000 58,045 6,955 EAI/BS n/a 34,000 34,000 30,362 3,638 CAI n/a 29,600 18,500 16,521 1,980 WAI n/a 21,400 12,500 11,163 1,338 Skates BSAI 46,583 39,008 26,000 22,100 0 Sculpins BSAI 56,582 42,387 4,500 3,825 0 Sharks BSAI 689 517 125 106 0 Squids BSAI 6,912 5,184 1,342 1,141 0 Octopuses BSAI 4,769 3,576 400 340 0 Total 5,807,962 4,214,648 2,000,000 1,790,015 196,644 1 These amounts apply to the entire BSAI management area unless otherwise specified. With the exception of pollock, and for the purpose of these harvest specifications, the Bering Sea (BS) subarea includes the Bogoslof District. 2 Except for pollock, the portion of the sablefish TAC allocated to hook-and-line or pot gear, and Amendment 80 species, 15 percent of each TAC is put into a reserve. The ITAC for these species is the remainder of the TAC after the subtraction of these reserves. For pollock and Amendment 80 species, ITAC is the non-CDQ allocation of TAC (see footnotes 3 and 5). 3 For the Amendment 80 species (Atka mackerel, flathead sole, rock sole, yellowfin sole, Pacific cod, and Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch), 10.7 percent of the TAC is reserved for use by CDQ participants (see §§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) and 679.31). Twenty percent of the sablefish TAC allocated to hook-and-line gear or pot gear, 7.5 percent of the sablefish TAC allocated to trawl gear, and 10.7 percent of the TACs for Bering Sea Greenland turbot and arrowtooth flounder are reserved for use by CDQ participants (see § 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (D)). Aleutian Islands Greenland turbot, “other flatfish,” Alaska plaice, Bering Sea Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, shortraker rockfish, rougheye rockfish, “other rockfish,” skates, sculpins, sharks, squids, and octopuses are not allocated to the CDQ program. 4 Under § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A), the annual BS subarea pollock TAC, after subtracting first for the CDQ directed fishing allowance (10 percent) and second for the incidental catch allowance (3.9 percent), is further allocated by sector for a pollock directed fishery as follows: Inshore—50 percent; catcher/processor—40 percent; and motherships—10 percent. Under § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2), the annual Aleutian Islands subarea pollock TAC, after subtracting first for the CDQ directed fishing allowance (10 percent) and second for the incidental catch allowance (2,400 mt), is allocated to the Aleut Corporation for a pollock directed fishery. 5 The BS Pacific cod TAC is set less than 6.4 percent of the Bering Sea subarea ABC to account for the State of Alaska's (State) guideline harvest level in State waters of the Bering Sea subarea. The AI Pacific cod TAC is set less than 27 percent of the Aleutian Island subarea ABC to account for the State guideline harvest level in State waters of the Aleutian Islands subarea. 6 “Flathead sole” includes Hippoglossoides elassodon (flathead sole) and Hippoglossoides robustus (Bering flounder). 7 “Other flatfish” includes all flatfish species, except for halibut (a prohibited species), flathead sole, Greenland turbot, rock sole, yellowfin sole, arrowtooth flounder, Kamchatka flounder, and Alaska plaice. 8 “Rougheye rockfish” includes Sebastes aleutianus (rougheye) and Sebastes melanostictus (blackspotted). 9 “Other rockfish” includes all Sebastes and Sebastolobus species except for Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, shortraker rockfish, and rougheye rockfish. Note: Regulatory areas and districts are defined at § 679.2 (BSAI = Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area, BS = Bering Sea subarea, AI = Aleutian Islands subarea, EAI = Eastern Aleutian district, CAI = Central Aleutian district, WAI = Western Aleutian district.) Groundfish Reserves and the Incidental Catch Allowance (ICA) for Pollock, Atka Mackerel, Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, Yellowfin Sole, and Aleutian Islands Pacific Ocean Perch

    Section 679.20(b)(1)(i) requires NMFS to reserve 15 percent of the TAC for each target species, except for pollock, hook-and-line or pot gear allocation of sablefish, and Amendment 80 species, in a non-specified reserve. Section 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(B) requires that NMFS allocate 20 percent of the hook-and-line or pot gear allocation of sablefish for the fixed-gear sablefish CDQ reserve. Section 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(D) requires that NMFS allocate 7.5 percent of the trawl gear allocations of sablefish and 10.7 percent of the Bering Sea Greenland turbot and arrowtooth flounder TACs to the respective CDQ reserves. Section 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) requires that NMFS allocate 10.7 percent of the TAC for Atka mackerel, Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch, yellowfin sole, rock sole, flathead sole, and Pacific cod to the CDQ reserves. Sections 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A) and 679.31(a) also require that 10 percent of the Bering Sea pollock TACs be allocated to the pollock CDQ directed fishing allowance (DFA). The entire Bogoslof District pollock TAC is allocated as an ICA pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(ii) because the Bogoslof District is closed to directed fishing for pollock by regulation. With the exception of the hook-and-line or pot gear sablefish CDQ reserve, the regulations do not further apportion the CDQ allocations by gear.

    Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(1), NMFS allocates a pollock ICA of 3.9 percent of the Bering Sea subarea pollock TAC after subtracting the 10 percent CDQ reserve. This allowance is based on NMFS' examination of the pollock incidental catch, including the incidental catch by CDQ vessels, in target fisheries other than pollock from 2000 through 2016. During this 17-year period, the pollock incidental catch ranged from a low of 2.4 percent in 2006 to a high of 4.8 percent in 2014, with a 17-year average of 3.2 percent. Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(i) and (ii), NMFS establishes a pollock ICA of 2,400 mt of the Aleutian Islands subarea TAC after subtracting the 10-percent CDQ DFA. This allowance is based on NMFS' examination of the pollock incidental catch, including the incidental catch by CDQ vessels, in target fisheries other than pollock from 2003 through 2016. During this 14-year period, the incidental catch of pollock ranged from a low of 5 percent in 2006 to a high of 17 percent in 2014, with a 14-year average of 8 percent.

    Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(8) and (10), NMFS allocates ICAs of 4,000 mt of flathead sole, 5,000 mt of rock sole, 4,500 mt of yellowfin sole, 10 mt of Western Aleutian Islands (WAI) Pacific ocean perch, 60 mt of Central Aleutian Islands (CAI) Pacific ocean perch, 100 mt of Eastern Aleutian Islands (EAI) Pacific ocean perch, 20 mt of WAI Atka mackerel, 75 mt of CAI Atka mackerel, and 1,000 mt of EAI and Bering Sea subarea Atka mackerel TAC after subtracting the 10.7 percent CDQ reserve. These ICA allowances are based on NMFS' examination of the incidental catch in other target fisheries from 2003 through 2016.

    The regulations do not designate the remainder of the non-specified reserve by species or species group. Any amount of the reserve may be apportioned to a target species category that contributed to the non-specified reserves during the year, provided that such apportionments are consistent with § 679.20(a)(3) and do not result in overfishing (see § 679.20(b)(1)(i)). The Regional Administrator has determined that the ITACs specified for the species listed in Table 1 need to be supplemented from the non-specified reserve because U.S. fishing vessels have demonstrated the capacity to catch the full TAC allocations. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(b)(3), NMFS is apportioning the amounts shown in Table 3 from the non-specified reserve to increase the ITAC for shortraker rockfish, rougheye rockfish, “other rockfish,” sharks, and octopuses by 15 percent of the TAC in 2017 and 2018.

    Table 3—Final 2017 and 2018 Apportionment of Reserves To ITAC Categories [Amounts are in metric tons] Species-area or subarea 2017
  • ITAC
  • 2017 reserve
  • amount
  • 2017 final
  • ITAC
  • 2018
  • ITAC
  • 2018 reserve
  • amount
  • 2018 final
  • ITAC
  • Shortraker rockfish—BSAI 106 19 125 106 19 125 Rougheye rockfish—BS/EAI 85 15 100 85 15 100 Rougheye rockfish—CAI/WAI 106 19 125 106 19 125 Other rockfish—Bering Sea subarea 276 49 325 276 49 325 Other rockfish—Aleutian Islands subarea 468 82 550 468 82 550 Sharks 106 19 125 106 19 125 Octopuses 340 60 400 340 60 400 Total 1,487 263 1,750 1,487 263 1,750
    Allocation of Pollock TAC Under the American Fisheries Act (AFA)

    Section 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A) requires that the Bering Sea subarea pollock TAC be apportioned, after subtracting 10 percent for the CDQ program and 3.9 percent for the ICA, as a DFA as follows: 50 Percent to the inshore sector, 40 percent to the catcher/processor (C/P) sector, and 10 percent to the mothership sector. In the Bering Sea subarea, 45 percent of the DFA is allocated to the A season (January 20-June 10), and 55 percent of the DFA is allocated to the B season (June 10-November 1) (§§ 679.20(a)(5)(i)(B)(1) and 679.23(e)(2)). The Aleutian Islands directed pollock fishery allocation to the Aleut Corporation is the amount of pollock remaining in the Aleutian Islands subarea after subtracting 1,900 mt for the CDQ DFA (10 percent) and 2,400 mt for the ICA (§ 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)). In the Aleutian Islands subarea, the total A season apportionment of the TAC is less than or equal to 40 percent of the ABC and the remainder of the TAC is allocated to the B season (§ 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(3)). Tables 4 and 5 list these 2017 and 2018 amounts.

    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 543, the A season pollock harvest limit is no more than 5 percent of the Aleutian Islands pollock ABC. In Area 542, the A season pollock harvest limit is no more than 15 percent of the Aleutian Islands ABC. In Area 541, the A season pollock harvest limit is no more than 30 percent of the Aleutian Islands ABC.

    Section 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(4) also includes several specific requirements regarding Bering Sea subarea pollock allocations. First, it requires that 8.5 percent of the pollock allocated to the C/P sector be available for harvest by AFA catcher vessels (CVs) with C/P sector endorsements, unless the Regional Administrator receives a cooperative contract that allows the distribution of harvest among AFA C/Ps and AFA CVs in a manner agreed to by all members. Second, AFA C/Ps not listed in the AFA are limited to harvesting not more than 0.5 percent of the pollock allocated to the C/P sector. Tables 4 and 5 list the 2017 and 2018 allocations of pollock TAC. Tables 21 through 26 list the AFA C/P and CV harvesting sideboard limits. The tables for the pollock allocations to the Bering Sea subarea inshore pollock cooperatives and open access sector will be posted on the Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

    Tables 4 and 5 also list seasonal apportionments of pollock and harvest limits within the Steller Sea Lion Conservation Area (SCA). The harvest within the SCA, as defined at § 679.22(a)(7)(vii), is limited to no more than 28 percent of the annual DFA before 12:00 noon, April 1, as provided in § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(C). The A season pollock SCA harvest limit will be apportioned to each sector in proportion to each sector's allocated percentage of the DFA. Tables 4 and 5 list these 2017 and 2018 amounts by sector.

    Table 4—Final 2017 Allocations of Pollock TACS to the Directed Pollock Fisheries and to the CDQ Directed Fishing Allowances (DFA) 1 [Amounts are in metric tons] Area and sector 2017
  • allocations
  • 2017 A season 1 A season DFA SCA harvest limit  2 2017
  • B season 1
  • B season DFA
    Bering Sea subarea TAC 1 1,345,000 n/a n/a n/a CDQ DFA 134,500 60,525 37,660 73,975 ICA 1 47,210 n/a n/a n/a Total Bering Sea non-CDQ DFA 1,163,291 523,481 325,721 639,810 AFA Inshore 581,645 261,740 162,861 319,905 AFA Catcher/Processors 3 465,316 209,392 130,289 255,924 Catch by C/Ps 425,764 191,594 n/a 234,170 Catch by CVs 3 39,552 17,798 n/a 21,754 Unlisted C/P Limit 4 2,327 1,047 n/a 1,280 AFA Motherships 116,329 52,348 32,572 63,981 Excessive Harvesting Limit 5 203,576 n/a n/a n/a Excessive Processing Limit 6 348,987 n/a n/a n/a Aleutian Islands subarea ABC 36,061 n/a n/a n/a Aleutian Islands subarea TAC 1 19,000 n/a n/a n/a CDQ DFA 1,900 760 n/a 1,140 ICA 2,400 1,200 n/a 1,200 Aleut Corporation 14,700 12,464 n/a 2,236 Area harvest limit 7 541 10,818 n/a n/a n/a 542 5,409 n/a n/a n/a 543 1,803 n/a n/a n/a Bogoslof District ICA 8 500 n/a n/a n/a 1 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A), the Bering Sea subarea pollock, after subtracting the CDQ DFA (10 percent) and the ICA (3.9 percent), is allocated as a DFA as follows: Inshore sector—50 percent, catcher/processor sector (C/P)—40 percent, and mothership sector—10 percent. In the Bering Sea subarea, 45 percent of the DFA is allocated to the A season (January 20-June 10) and 55 percent of the DFA is allocated to the B season (June 10-November 1). Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2), the annual Aleutian Islands pollock TAC, after subtracting first for the CDQ directed fishing allowance (10 percent) and second the ICA (2,400 mt), is allocated to the Aleut Corporation for a pollock directed fishery. In the Aleutian Islands subarea, the A season is allocated less than or equal to 40 percent of the ABC and the B season is allocated the remainder of the pollock directed fishery. 2 In the Bering Sea subarea, pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(C), no more than 28 percent of each sector's annual DFA may be taken from the SCA before April 1. 3 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(4), not less than 8.5 percent of the DFA allocated to listed catcher/processors shall be available for harvest only by eligible catcher vessels delivering to listed catcher/processors. 4 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(4)(iii), the AFA unlisted catcher/processors are limited to harvesting not more than 0.5 percent of the catcher/processors sector's allocation of pollock. 5 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(6), NMFS establishes an excessive harvesting share limit equal to 17.5 percent of the sum of the non-CDQ pollock DFAs. 6 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(7), NMFS establishes an excessive processing share limit equal to 30.0 percent of the sum of the non-CDQ pollock DFAs. 7 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(6), NMFS establishes harvest limits for pollock in the A season in Area 541 of no more than 30 percent, in Area 542 of no more than 15 percent, and in Area 543 of no more than 5 percent of the Aleutian Islands pollock ABC. 8 The Bogoslof District is closed by the final harvest specifications to directed fishing for pollock. The amounts specified are for ICA only and are not apportioned by season or sector. Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
    Table 5—Final 2018 Allocations of Pollock TACS to the Directed Pollock Fisheries and to the CDQ Directed Fishing Allowances (DFA) 1 [Amounts are in metric tons] Area and sector 2018
  • allocations
  • 2018 A season 1 A season DFA SCA harvest limit 2 2018
  • B season 1
  • B season DFA
    Bering Sea subarea TAC 1 1,345,000 n/a n/a n/a CDQ DFA 134,500 60,525 37,660 73,975 ICA 1 47,210 n/a n/a n/a Total Bering Sea non-CDQ DFA 1,163,291 523,481 325,721 639,810 AFA Inshore 581,645 261,740 162,861 319,905 AFA Catcher/Processors 3 465,316 209,392 130,289 255,924 Catch by C/Ps 425,764 191,594 n/a 234,170 Catch by CVs 3 39,552 17,798 n/a 21,754 Unlisted C/P Limit 4 2,327 1,047 n/a 1,280 AFA Motherships 116,329 52,348 32,572 63,981 Excessive Harvesting Limit 5 203,576 n/a n/a n/a Excessive Processing Limit 6 348,987 n/a n/a n/a Aleutian Islands subarea ABC 40,788 n/a n/a n/a Aleutian Islands subarea TAC 1 19,000 n/a n/a n/a CDQ DFA 1,900 760 n/a 1,140 ICA 2,400 1,200 n/a 1,200 Aleut Corporation 14,700 14,355 n/a 345 Area harvest limit 7 541 12,236 n/a n/a n/a 542 6,118 n/a n/a n/a 543 2,039 n/a n/a n/a Bogoslof District ICA 8 500 n/a n/a n/a 1 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A), the Bering Sea subarea pollock, after subtracting the CDQ DFA (10 percent) and the ICA (3.9 percent), is allocated as a DFA as follows: Inshore sector—50 percent, catcher/processor sector (C/P)—40 percent, and mothership sector—10 percent. In the Bering Sea subarea, 45 percent of the DFA is allocated to the A season (January 20-June 10) and 55 percent of the DFA is allocated to the B season (June 10-November 1). Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2), the annual Aleutian Islands pollock TAC, after subtracting first for the CDQ directed fishing allowance (10 percent) and second the ICA (2,400 mt), is allocated to the Aleut Corporation for a pollock directed fishery. In the Aleutian Islands subarea, the A season is allocated less than or equal to 40 percent of the ABC and the B season is allocated the remainder of the pollock directed fishery. 2 In the Bering Sea subarea, pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(C), no more than 28 percent of each sector's annual DFA may be taken from the SCA before April 1. 3 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(4), not less than 8.5 percent of the DFA allocated to listed catcher/processors shall be available for harvest only by eligible catcher vessels delivering to listed catcher/processors. 4 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(4)(iii), the AFA unlisted catcher/processors are limited to harvesting not more than 0.5 percent of the catcher/processors sector's allocation of pollock. 5 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(6), NMFS establishes an excessive harvesting share limit equal to 17.5 percent of the sum of the non-CDQ pollock DFAs. 6 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(7), NMFS establishes an excessive processing share limit equal to 30.0 percent of the sum of the non-CDQ pollock DFAs. 7 Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(6), NMFS establishes harvest limits for pollock in the A season in Area 541 of no more than 30 percent, in Area 542 of no more than 15 percent, and in Area 543 of no more than 5 percent of the Aleutian Islands pollock ABC. 8 The Bogoslof District is closed by the final harvest specifications to directed fishing for pollock. The amounts specified are for ICA only and are not apportioned by season or sector. Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
    Allocation of the Atka Mackerel TACs

    Section 679.20(a)(8) allocates the Atka mackerel TACs to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors, after subtracting the CDQ reserves, jig gear allocation, and ICAs for the BSAI trawl limited access sector and non-trawl gear sector (Tables 6 and 7). The percentage of the ITAC for Atka mackerel allocated to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors is listed in Table 33 to 50 CFR part 679 and in § 679.91. Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(8)(i), up to 2 percent of the EAI and the Bering Sea subarea Atka mackerel ITAC may be allocated to vessels using jig gear. The percent of this allocation is recommended annually by the Council based on several criteria, including, among other criteria, the anticipated harvest capacity of the jig gear fleet. The Council recommended, and NMFS approves, a 0.5 percent allocation of the Atka mackerel ITAC in the EAI and Bering Sea subarea to the jig gear sector in 2017 and 2018. This percentage is applied to the Atka mackerel TAC after subtracting the CDQ reserve and the ICA.

    Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(A) apportions the Atka mackerel TAC into two equal seasonal allowances. Section 679.23(e)(3) sets the first seasonal allowance for directed fishing with trawl gear from January 20 through June 10 (A season), and the second seasonal allowance from June 10 through December 31 (B season). Section 679.23(e)(4)(iii) applies Atka mackerel seasons to CDQ Atka mackerel trawl fishing. The ICA and jig gear allocations are not apportioned by season.

    Sections 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C)(1)(i) and (ii) limit Atka mackerel catch within waters 0 nm to 20 nm of Steller sea lion sites listed in Table 6 to 50 CFR part 679 and located west of 178° W longitude to no more than 60 percent of the annual TACs in Areas 542 and 543, and equally divide the annual TAC between the A and B seasons as defined at § 679.23(e)(3). Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C)(2) requires that the annual TAC in Area 543 will be no more than 65 percent of the ABC in Area 543. Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(D) requires that any unharvested Atka mackerel A season allowance that is added to the B season be prohibited from being harvested within waters 0 nm to 20 nm of Steller sea lion sites listed in Table 6 to 50 CFR part 679 and located in Areas 541, 542, and 543.

    Tables 6 and 7 list these 2017 and 2018 Atka mackerel seasons, area allowances, and the sector allocations. The 2018 allocations for Atka mackerel between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access sector will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the program by November 1, 2017.

    Table 6—Final 2017 Seasonal and Spatial Allowances, Gear Shares, CDQ Reserve, Incidental Catch Allowance, and Amendment 80 Allocations of the BSAI ATKA Mackerel TAC [Amounts are in metric tons] Sector 1 Season 234 2017 allocation by area Eastern Aleutian District/Bering Sea Central
  • Aleutian
  • District 5
  • Western
  • Aleutian
  • District
  • TAC n/a 34,500 18,000 12,500 CDQ reserve Total 3,692 1,926 1,338 A 1,846 963 669 Critical Habitat n/a 578 401 B 1,846 963 669 Critical Habitat n/a 578 401 Non-CDQ TAC n/a 30,809 16,074 11,163 ICA Total 1,000 75 20 Jig 6 Total 149 0 0 BSAI trawl limited access Total 2,966 1,600 0 A 1,483 800 0 Critical Habitat n/a 480 0 B 1,483 800 0 Critical Habitat n/a 480 0 Amendment 80 sectors Total 26,694 14,399 11,143 A 13,347 7,200 5,571 B 13,347 7,200 5,571 Alaska Groundfish Cooperative Total 6 15,096 8,552 6,853 A 7,548 4,276 3,427 Critical Habitat n/a 2,566 2,056 B 7,548 4,276 3,427 Critical Habitat n/a 2,566 2,056 Alaska Seafood Cooperative Total 6 11,598 5,847 4,290 A 5,799 2,924 2,145 Critical Habitat n/a 1,754 1,287 B 5,799 2,924 2,145 Critical Habitat n/a 1,754 1,287 1 Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii) allocates the Atka mackerel TACs, after subtracting the CDQ reserves, jig gear allocation, and ICAs, to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors. The allocation of the ITAC for Atka mackerel to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors is established in Table 33 to 50 CFR part 679 and § 679.91. The CDQ reserve is 10.7 percent of the TAC for use by CDQ participants (see §§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) and 679.31). 2 Sections 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(A) and 679.22(a) establish temporal and spatial limitations for the Atka mackerel fishery. 3 The seasonal allowances of Atka mackerel are 50 percent in the A season and 50 percent in the B season. 4 Section 679.23(e)(3) authorizes directed fishing for Atka mackerel with trawl gear during the A season from January 20 to June 10 and the B season from June 10 to December 31. 5 Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C)(1)(i) limits no more than 60 percent of the annual TACs in Areas 542 and 543 to be caught inside of critical habitat; section 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C)(1)(ii) equally divides the annual TACs between the A and B seasons as defined at § 679.23(e)(3); and section 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C)(2) requires the TAC in Area 543 shall be no more than 65 percent of ABC. 6 Section 679.20(a)(8)(i) requires that up to 2 percent of the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea TAC be allocated to jig gear after subtracting the CDQ reserve and ICA. The amount of this allocation is 0.5 percent. The jig gear allocation is not apportioned by season. Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
    Table 7—Final 2018 Seasonal and Spatial Allowances, Gear Shares, CDQ Reserve, Incidental Catch Allowance, and Amendment 80 Allocation of the BSAI ATKA Mackerel TAC [Amounts are in metric tons] Sector 1 Season 234 2018 allocation by area Eastern Aleutian District/Bering Sea 5 Central
  • Aleutian
  • District 5
  • Western
  • Aleutian
  • District 5
  • TAC n/a 34,000 18,500 12,500 CDQ reserve Total 3,638 1,980 1,338 A 1,819 990 669 Critical Habitat n/a 594 401 B 1,819 990 669 Critical Habitat n/a 594 401 non-CDQ TAC n/a 30,362 16,521 11,163 ICA Total 1,000 75 20 Jig 6 Total 147 0 0 BSAI trawl limited access Total 2,922 1,645 0 A 1,461 822 0 Critical Habitat n/a 493 0 B 1,461 822 0 Critical Habitat n/a 493 0 Amendment 80 sectors 7 Total 26,294 14,801 11,143 A 13,147 7,400 5,571 B 13,147 7,400 5,571 1 Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii) allocates the Atka mackerel TACs, after subtracting the CDQ reserves, jig gear allocation, and ICAs, to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors. The allocation of the ITAC for Atka mackerel to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors is established in Table 33 to 50 CFR part 679 and § 679.91. The CDQ reserve is 10.7 percent of the TAC for use by CDQ participants (see §§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) and 679.31). 2 Sections 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(A) and 679.22(a) establish temporal and spatial limitations for the Atka mackerel fishery. 3 The seasonal allowances of Atka mackerel are 50 percent in the A season and 50 percent in the B season. 4 Section 679.23(e)(3) authorizes directed fishing for Atka mackerel with trawl gear during the A season from January 20 to June 10 and the B season from June 10 to December 31. 5 Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C)(1 )(i ) limits no more than 60 percent of the annual TACs in Areas 542 and 543 to be caught inside of critical habitat; section 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C)(1 )(ii ) equally divides the annual TACs between the A and B seasons as defined at § 679.23(e)(3); and section 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C)(2) requires the TAC in Area 543 shall be no more than 65 percent of ABC. 6 Section 679.20(a)(8)(i) requires that up to 2 percent of the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea TAC be allocated to jig gear after subtracting the CDQ reserve and ICA. The amount of this allocation is 0.5 percent. The jig gear allocation is not apportioned by season. 7 The 2018 allocations for Atka mackerel between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access sector will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the program by November 1, 2017. NMFS will post 2018 Amendment 80 allocations when they become available in December 2017. Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
    Allocation of the Pacific Cod TAC

    The Council separated Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands subarea OFLs, ABCs, and TACs for Pacific cod in 2014 (79 FR 12108, March 4, 2014). Section 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) allocates 10.7 percent of the Bering Sea TAC and Aleutian Islands TAC to the CDQ program. After CDQ allocations have been deducted from the respective Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TACs, the remaining Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TACs are combined for calculating further BSAI Pacific cod sector allocations. However, if the non-CDQ Pacific cod TAC is or will be reached in either the Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands subareas, NMFS will prohibit non-CDQ directed fishing for Pacific cod in that subarea as provided in § 679.20(d)(1)(iii).

    Sections 679.20(a)(7)(i) and (ii) allocate to the non-CDQ sectors the Pacific cod TAC in the combined BSAI TAC, after subtracting 10.7 percent for the CDQ program, as follows: 1.4 Percent to vessels using jig gear; 2.0 percent to hook-and-line or pot CVs less than 60 ft (18.3 m) length overall (LOA); 0.2 percent to hook-and-line CVs greater than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA; 48.7 percent to hook-and-line C/P; 8.4 percent to pot CVs greater than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA; 1.5 percent to pot C/Ps; 2.3 percent to AFA trawl C/Ps; 13.4 percent to Amendment 80 trawlC/Ps; and 22.1 percent to trawl CVs. The ICA for the hook-and-line and pot sectors will be deducted from the aggregate portion of Pacific cod TAC allocated to the hook-and-line and pot sectors. For 2017 and 2018, the Regional Administrator establishes an ICA of 500 mt based on anticipated incidental catch by these sectors in other fisheries.

    The ITAC allocation of Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 sector is established in Table 33 to 50 CFR part 679 and § 679.91. The 2018 allocations for Amendment 80 species between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access sector will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the program by November 1, 2017.

    The Pacific cod ITAC is apportioned into seasonal allowances to disperse the Pacific cod fisheries over the fishing year (see §§ 679.20(a)(7)(i)(B), (a)(7)(iv)(A), and 679.23(e)(5)). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iv)(B) and (C), any unused portion of a seasonal Pacific cod allowance for any sector, except the jig sector, will become available at the beginning of the next seasonal allowance.

    Section 679.20(a)(7)(vii) requires the Regional Administrator to establish an Area 543 Pacific cod harvest limit based on Pacific cod abundance in Area 543. Based on the 2016 stock assessment, the Regional Administrator determined the Area 543 Pacific cod harvest limit to be 25.6 percent of the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TAC for 2017 and 2018. NMFS will first subtract the State GHL Pacific cod amount from the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod ABC. Then NMFS will determine the harvest limit in Area 543 by multiplying the percentage of Pacific cod estimated in Area 543 by the remaining ABC for Aleutian Islands Pacific cod. Based on these calculations, the Area 543 harvest limit is 4,018 mt.

    Section 679.20(a)(7)(viii) requires specification of the 2018 Pacific cod allocations for the Aleutian Islands ICA, DFA, CV Harvest Set-Aside, and Unrestricted Fishery, as well as the Bering Sea Trawl CV A-Season Sector Limitation. If NMFS receives notification of intent to process Aleutian Islands subarea Pacific Cod from either the city of Adak or the city of Atka, the harvest limits in Table 9a will be in effect in 2018. Notification of intent to process Aleutian Islands subarea Pacific cod must be postmarked by October 31, 2017, and submitted electronically to NMFS by October 31, 2017. In addition to the notification requirement, § 679.20(a)(7)(viii) also contains specific performance requirements that (1) if less than 1,000 mt of the Aleutian Islands CV Harvest Set-Aside is delivered to Aleutian Islands shoreplants by February 28, 2018, the Aleutian Islands CV Harvest Set-Aside is lifted and the Bering Sea Trawl CV A-Season Sector Limitation is suspended and (2) if the entire Aleutian Islands CV Harvest Set-Aside is fully harvested and delivered to Aleutian Islands shoreplants before March 15, 2018, the Bering Sea Trawl CV A-Season Sector Limitation is suspended.

    The CDQ and non-CDQ seasonal allowances by gear based on the 2017 and 2018 Pacific cod TACs are listed in Tables 8 and 9, and are based on the sector allocation percentages and seasonal allowances for Pacific cod set forth at §§ 679.20(a)(7)(i)(B) and 679.20(a)(7)(iv)(A) and the seasons for Pacific cod set forth at § 679.23(e)(5).

    Table 8—Final 2017 Gear Shares and Seasonal Allowances of the BSAI Pacific COD TAC [Amounts are in metric tons] Gear sector Percent 2017 share of gear sector total 2017 share of sector total 2017 seasonal apportionment Seasons Amount BS TAC n/a 223,704 n/a n/a n/a BS CDQ n/a 23,936 n/a see § 679.20(a)(7)(i)(B) n/a BS non-CDQ TAC n/a 199,768 n/a n/a n/a AI TAC n/a 15,695 n/a n/a n/a AI CDQ n/a 1,679 n/a see § 679.20(a)(7)(i)(B) n/a AI non-CDQ TAC n/a 14,016 n/a n/a n/a Western Aleutian Island Limit n/a 4,018 n/a n/a n/a Total BSAI non-CDQ TAC1 100 213,783 n/a n/a n/a Total hook-and-line/pot gear 60.8 129,980 n/a n/a n/a Hook-and-line/pot ICA 2 n/a 500 n/a see § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(B) n/a Hook-and-line/pot sub-total n/a 129,480 n/a n/a n/a Hook-and-line catcher/processor 48.7 n/a 103,712 Jan 1-Jun 10 52,893 Jun 10-Dec 31 50,819 Hook-and-line catcher vessel > 60 ft LOA 0.2 n/a 426 Jan 1-Jun 10 217 Jun 10-Dec 31 209 Pot catcher/processor 1.5 n/a 3,194 Jan 1-Jun 10 1,629 Sept 1-Dec 31 1,565 Pot catcher vessel ≥ 60 ft LOA 8.4 n/a 17,889 Jan 1-Jun 10 9,123 Sept 1-Dec 31 8,765 Catcher vessel < 60 ft LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear 2 n/a 4,259 n/a n/a Trawl catcher vessel 22.1 47,246 n/a Jan 20-Apr 1 34,962 Apr 1-Jun 10 5,197 Jun 10-Nov 1 7,087 AFA trawl catcher/processor 2.3 4,917 n/a Jan 20-Apr 1 3,688 Apr 1-Jun 10 1,229 Jun 10-Nov 1 0 Amendment 80 13.4 28,647 n/a Jan 20-Apr 1 21,485 Apr 1-Jun 10 7,162 Jun 10-Nov 1 0 Alaska Groundfish Cooperative n/a n/a 4,522 Jan 20-Apr 1 3,392 Apr 1-Jun 10 1,131 Jun 10-Dec 31 0 Alaska Seafood Cooperative n/a n/a 24,125 Jan 20-Apr 1 18,094 Apr 1-Jun 10 6,031 Jun 10-Dec 31 0 Jig 1.4 2,993 n/a Jan 1-Apr 30 1,796 Apr 30-Aug 31 599 Aug 31-Dec 31 599 1 The gear shares and seasonal allowances for BSAI Pacific cod TAC are based on the sum of the BS and AI Pacific cod TACs, after the subtraction of CDQ. If the TAC for Pacific cod in either the AI or BS is reached, then directed fishing for Pacific cod in that subarea may be prohibited, even if a BSAI allowance remains. 2 The ICA for the hook-and-line and pot sectors will be deducted from the aggregate portion of Pacific cod TAC allocated to the hook-and-line and pot sectors. The Regional Administrator approves an ICA of 500 mt for 2017 based on anticipated incidental catch in these fisheries. Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding. Table 9—Final 2018 Gear Shares and Seasonal Allowances of the BSAI Pacific COD TAC [Amounts are in metric tons] Gear sector Percent 2018 share of gear sector total 2018 share of sector total 2018 seasonal apportionment Seasons Amount BS TAC n/a 223,704 n/a n/a n/a BS CDQ n/a 23,936 n/a see § 679.20(a)(7)(i)(B) n/a BS non-CDQ TAC n/a 199,768 n/a n/a n/a AI TAC n/a 15,695 n/a n/a n/a AI CDQ n/a 1,679 n/a see § 679.20(a)(7)(i)(B) n/a AI non-CDQ TAC n/a 14,016 n/a n/a n/a Western Aleutian Island Limit n/a 4,018 n/a n/a n/a Total BSAI non-CDQ TAC 1 n/a 213,783 n/a n/a n/a Total hook-and-line/pot gear 60.8 129,980 n/a n/a n/a Hook-and-line/pot ICA 2 n/a 500 n/a see § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(B) n/a Hook-and-line/pot sub-total n/a 129,480 n/a n/a n/a Hook-and-line catcher/processor 48.7 n/a 103,712 Jan 1-Jun 10 52,893 Jun 10-Dec 31 50,819 Hook-and-line catcher vessel ≥ 60 ft LOA 0.2 n/a 426 Jan 1-Jun 10 217 Jun 10-Dec 31 209 Pot catcher/processor 1.5 n/a 3,194 Jan 1-Jun 10 1,629 Sept 1-Dec 31 1,565 Pot catcher vessel > 60 ft LOA 8.4 n/a 17,889 Jan 1-Jun 10 9,123 Sept 1-Dec 31 8,765 Catcher vessel < 60 ft LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear 2 n/a 4,259 n/a n/a Trawl catcher vessel 22.1 47,246 n/a Jan 20-Apr 1 34,962 Jun 10-Nov 1 7,087 AFA trawl catcher/processor 2.3 4,917 n/a Jan 20-Apr 1 3,688 Apr 1-Jun 10 1,229 Jun 10-Nov 1 0 Amendment 80 13.4 28,647 n/a Jan 20-Apr 1 21,485 Apr 1-Jun 10 7,162 Jun 10-Dec 31 0 Jig 1.4 2,993 n/a Jan 1-Apr 30 1,796 Apr 30-Aug 31 599 Aug 31-Dec 31 599 1 The gear shares and seasonal allowances for BSAI Pacific cod TAC are based on the sum of the BS and AI Pacific cod TACs, after the subtraction of CDQ. If the TAC for Pacific cod in either the AI or BS is reached, then directed fishing for Pacific cod in that subarea may be prohibited, even if a BSAI allowance remains. 2 The ICA for the hook-and-line and pot sectors will be deducted from the aggregate portion of Pacific cod TAC allocated to the hook-and-line and pot sectors. The Regional Administrator approves an ICA of 500 mt for 2018 based on anticipated incidental catch in these fisheries. Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding. Table 9a—2018 BSAI A—Season Pacific Cod Limits if Aleutian Islands Shoreplants Intend To Process Pacific Cod 1 2018 Allocations
  • under Aleutian Islands
  • CV Harvest Set-Aside
  • Amount
  • (mt)
  • AI non-CDQ TAC 14,016 AI ICA 2,500 AI DFA 11,516 BS non-CDQ TAC 199,768 BSAI Trawl CV A-Season Allocation 34,962 BSAI Trawl CV A-Season Allocation minus Sector Limitation 2 29,962 BS Trawl CV A-Season Sector Limitation 5,000 AI CV Harvest Set-Aside 5,000 AI Unrestricted Fishery 6,516 1 These allocations will apply in 2018 only if NMFS receives notice of intent to process Aleutian Islands subarea Pacific cod by October 31, 2017, pursuant to § 679.20(a)(7)(viii) and if the performance requirements set forth in § 679.20(a)(7)(viii) are likewise met. 2 This is the amount of the BSAI trawl CV A-season allocation that may be harvested in the Bering Sea prior to March 21, 2018, unless modified because the performance requirements were not met.
    Sablefish Gear Allocation

    Sections 679.20(a)(4)(iii) and (iv) require allocation of the sablefish TAC for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands subareas between trawl and hook-and-line or pot gear sectors. Gear allocations of the TAC for the Bering Sea subarea are 50 percent for trawl gear and 50 percent for hook-and-line or pot gear. Gear allocations of the TAC for the Aleutian Islands subarea are 25 percent for trawl gear and 75 percent for hook-and-line or pot gear. Section 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(B) requires NMFS to apportion 20 percent of the hook-and-line or pot gear allocation of sablefish to the CDQ reserve. Additionally, § 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(D)(1) requires that 7.5 percent of the trawl gear allocation of sablefish from the non-specified reserves, established under § 679.20(b)(1)(i), be assigned to the CDQ reserve. The Council recommended that only trawl sablefish TAC be established biennially. The harvest specifications for the hook-and-line gear and pot gear sablefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) fisheries are limited to the 2017 fishing year to ensure those fisheries are conducted concurrently with the halibut IFQ fishery. Concurrent sablefish and halibut IFQ fisheries reduce the potential for discards of halibut and sablefish in those fisheries. The sablefish IFQ fisheries remain closed at the beginning of each fishing year until the final harvest specifications for the sablefish IFQ fisheries are in effect. Table 10 lists the 2017 and 2018 gear allocations of the sablefish TAC and CDQ reserve amounts.

    Table 10—Final 2017 and 2018 Gear Shares and CDQ Reserve of BSAI Sablefish TACS [Amounts are in metric tons] Subarea and gear Percent
  • of TAC
  • 2017 Share
  • of TAC
  • 2017 ITAC 2017 CDQ
  • reserve
  • 2018 Share
  • of TAC
  • 2018 ITAC 2018 CDQ
  • reserve
  • Bering Sea: Trawl 1 50 637 541 48 637 541 48 Hook-and-line/pot gear 2 50 637 510 127 n/a n/a n/a Total 100 1,274 1,051 175 637 541 48 Aleutian Islands: Trawl 1 25 434 369 33 434 369 33 Hook-and-line/pot gear 2 75 1,301 1,041 260 n/a n/a n/a Total 100 1,735 1,410 293 434 369 33 1 Except for the sablefish hook-and-line or pot gear allocation, 15 percent of TAC is apportioned to the nonspecified reserve (§ 679.20(b)(1)(i)). The ITAC is the remainder of the TAC after the subtracting these reserves. 2 For the portion of the sablefish TAC allocated to vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear, 20 percent of the allocated TAC is reserved for use by CDQ participants (§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(B)). The Council recommended that specifications for the hook-and-line gear sablefish IFQ fisheries be limited to one year. Note: Sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
    Allocation of the Aleutian Islands Pacific Ocean Perch, and BSAI Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, and Yellowfin Sole TACs

    Sections 679.20(a)(10)(i) and (ii) require that NMFS allocate Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch, and BSAI flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole TAC between the Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl limited access sector, after subtracting 10.7 percent for the CDQ reserve and an ICA for the BSAI trawl limited access sector and vessels using non-trawl gear. The allocation of the ITAC for Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch, and BSAI flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole to the Amendment 80 sector is established in accordance with Tables 33 and 34 to 50 CFR part 679 and § 679.91.

    The 2018 allocations for Amendment 80 species between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access sector will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the program by November 1, 2017. Tables 11 and 12 list the 2017 and 2018 allocations of the Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch, and BSAI flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole TACs.

    Table 11—Final 2017 Community Development Quota (CDQ) Reserves, Incidental Catch Amounts (ICAS), and Amendment 80 Allocations of the Aleutian Islands Pacific Ocean Perch, and BSAI Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, and Yellowfin Sole TACS [Amounts are in metric tons] Sector Pacific ocean perch Eastern
  • Aleutian
  • District
  • Central
  • Aleutian
  • District
  • Western
  • Aleutian
  • District
  • Flathead sole BSAI Rock sole BSAI Yellowfin sole BSAI
    TAC 7,900 7,000 9,000 14,500 47,100 154,000 CDQ 845 749 963 1,552 5,040 16,478 ICA 100 60 10 4,000 5,000 4,500 BSAI trawl limited access 695 619 161 0 0 18,151 Amendment 80 6,259 5,572 7,866 8,949 37,060 114,871 Alaska Groundfish Cooperative 3,319 2,954 4,171 918 9,168 45,638 Alaska Seafood Cooperative 2,940 2,617 3,695 8,031 27,893 69,233 Note: Sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
    Table 12—Final 2018 Community Development Quota (CDQ) Reserves, Incidental Catch Amounts (ICAS), and Amendment 80 Allocations of the Aleutian Islands Pacific Ocean Perch, and BSAI Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, and Yellowfin Sole TACS [Amounts are in metric tons] Sector Pacific ocean perch Eastern
  • Aleutian
  • District
  • Central
  • Aleutian
  • District
  • Western
  • Aleutian
  • District
  • Flathead sole BSAI Rock sole BSAI Yellowfin sole BSAI
    TAC 7,900 7,000 9,000 14,500 47,100 154,000 CDQ 845 749 963 1,552 5,040 16,478 ICA 100 60 10 4,000 5,000 4,500 BSAI trawl limited access 695 619 161 0 0 18,151 Amendment 80 1 6,259 5,572 7,866 8,949 37,060 114,871 1 The 2018 allocations for Amendment 80 species between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access sector will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the program by November 1, 2017. NMFS will publish 2018 Amendment 80 allocations when they become available in December 2017. Note: Sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.

    Section 679.2 defines the ABC surplus for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole as the difference between the annual ABC and TAC for each species. Section 679.20(b)(1)(iii) establishes ABC reserves for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. The ABC surpluses and the ABC reserves are necessary to mitigate the operational variability, environmental conditions, and economic factors that may constrain the CDQ groups and the Amendment 80 cooperatives from achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield in the BSAI groundfish fisheries. NMFS, after consultation with the Council, may set the ABC reserve at or below the ABC surplus for each species thus maintaining the TAC below ABC limits. An amount equal to 10.7 percent of the ABC reserves will be allocated as CDQ reserves for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. The Amendment 80 ABC reserves shall be the ABC reserves minus the CDQ ABC reserves. Section 679.91(i)(2) establishes each Amendment 80 cooperative ABC reserve to be the ratio of each cooperatives' quota share units and the total Amendment 80 quota share units, multiplied by the Amendment 80 ABC reserve for each respective species. Table 13 lists the 2017 and 2018 ABC surplus and ABC reserves for BSAI flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole.

    Table 13—Final 2017 and 2018 ABC Surplus, Community Development Quota (CDQ) ABC Reserves, and Amendment 80 ABC Reserves in the BSAI for Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, and Yellowfin Sole [Amounts are in metric tons] Sector 2017
  • Flathead sole
  • 2017
  • Rock sole
  • 2017
  • Yellowfin sole
  • 2018
  • Flathead sole
  • 2018
  • Rock sole
  • 2018
  • Yellowfin sole
  • ABC 68,278 155,100 260,800 66,164 143,100 250,800 TAC 14,500 47,100 154,000 14,500 47,100 154,000 ABC surplus 53,778 108,000 106,800 51,664 96,000 96,800 ABC reserve 53,778 108,000 106,800 51,664 96,000 96,800 CDQ ABC reserve 5,754 11,556 11,428 5,528 10,272 10,358 Amendment 80 ABC reserve 48,024 96,444 95,372 46,136 85,728 86,442 Alaska Groundfish Cooperative for 20171 4,926 23,857 37,891 n/a n/a n/a Alaska Seafood Cooperative for 20171 43,098 72,587 57,481 n/a n/a n/a 1 The 2018 allocations for Amendment 80 species between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access sector will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the program by November 1, 2017.
    PSC Limits for Halibut, Salmon, Crab, and Herring

    Section 679.21(b), (e), (f), and (g) sets forth the BSAI PSC limits. Pursuant to § 679.21(b)(1), the 2017 and 2018 BSAI halibut PSC limits total 3,515 mt. Section 679.21(b)(1) allocates 315 mt of the halibut PSC limit as the PSQ reserve for use by the groundfish CDQ program, 1,745 mt of halibut PSC limit for the Amendment 80 sector, 745 mt of halibut PSC limit for the BSAI trawl limited access sector, and 710 mt of halibut PSC limit for the BSAI non-trawl sector.

    Section 679.21(b)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) authorizes apportionment of the non-trawl halibut PSC limit into PSC allowances among six fishery categories, and §§ 679.21(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B), 679.21(e)(3)(i)(B), and 679.21(e)(3)(iv) require apportionment of the BSAI trawl limited access halibut and crab PSC limits into PSC allowances among seven fishery categories. Tables 15 and 16 list the fishery PSC allowances for the trawl fisheries, and Table 17 lists the fishery PSC allowances for the non-trawl fisheries.

    Pursuant to Section 3.6 of the FMP, the Council recommends, and NMFS agrees, that certain specified non-trawl fisheries be exempt from the halibut PSC limit. As in past years, after consultation with the Council, NMFS exempts pot gear, jig gear, and the sablefish IFQ hook-and-line gear fishery categories from halibut bycatch restrictions for the following reasons: (1) The pot gear fisheries have low halibut bycatch mortality; (2) NMFS estimates halibut mortality for the jig gear fleet to be negligible because of the small size of the fishery and the selectivity of the gear; and (3) the sablefish and halibut IFQ fisheries have low halibut bycatch mortality because the IFQ program requires legal-size halibut to be retained by vessels using hook-and-line gear if a halibut IFQ permit holder or a hired master is aboard and is holding unused halibut IFQ (§ 679.7(f)(11)).

    The 2016 total groundfish catch for the pot gear fishery in the BSAI was 46,578 mt, with an associated halibut bycatch mortality of 2 mt. The 2016 jig gear fishery harvested about 47 mt of groundfish. Most vessels in the jig gear fleet are exempt from observer coverage requirements. As a result, observer data are not available on halibut bycatch in the jig gear fishery. However, as mentioned above, NMFS estimates a negligible amount of halibut bycatch mortality because of the selective nature of jig gear and the low mortality rate of halibut caught with jig gear and released.

    Under § 679.21(f)(2), NMFS annually allocates portions of either 33,318, 45,000, 47,591, or 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC limits among the AFA sectors, depending on past bycatch performance, on whether Chinook salmon bycatch incentive plan agreements (IPAs) are formed, and on whether NMFS determines it is a low Chinook salmon abundance year. NMFS will determine that it is a low Chinook salmon abundance year when abundance of Chinook salmon in western Alaska is less than or equal to 250,000 Chinook salmon. The State of Alaska provides to NMFS an estimate of Chinook salmon abundance using the 3-System Index for western Alaska based on the Kuskokwim, Unalakleet, and Upper Yukon aggregate stock grouping.

    If an AFA sector participates in an approved IPA and it is not a low Chinook salmon abundance year, then NMFS will allocate a portion of the 60,000 PSC limit to that sector as specified in § 679.21(f)(3)(iii)(A). If no IPA is approved, or if the sector has exceeded its performance standard under § 679.21(f)(6), and it is not a low abundance year, NMFS will allocate a portion of the 47,591 Chinook salmon PSC limit to that sector as specified in § 679.21(f)(3)(iii)(C). If an AFA sector participates in an approved IPA in a low abundance year, then NMFS will allocate a portion of the 45,000 PSC limit to that sector as specified in § 679.21(f)(3)(iii)(B). If no IPA is approved, or if the sector has exceeded its performance standard under § 679.21(f)(6), in a low abundance year, NMFS will allocate a portion of the 33,318 Chinook salmon PSC limit to that sector as specified in § 679.21(f)(3)(iii)(D).

    NMFS has determined that 2016 was not a low Chinook salmon abundance year based on the State of Alaska's estimate that Chinook salmon abundance in western Alaska is greater than 250,000 Chinook salmon. Therefore, in 2017, the Chinook salmon PSC limit is 60,000, and the AFA sector Chinook salmon allocations are seasonally allocated with 70 percent of the allocation for the A season pollock fishery, and 30 percent of the allocation for the B season pollock fishery as stated in § 679.21(f)(3)(i). Allocations of the Chinook salmon PSC limit of 60,000 to each AFA sector are specified in § 679.21(f)(3)(iii)(A). Additionally, in 2017, the Chinook salmon bycatch performance standard under § 679.21(f)(6) is 47,591 Chinook salmon, allocated to each sector as specified in § 679.21(f)(3)(iii)(C).

    The basis for these PSC limits is described in detail in the final rule implementing management measures for Amendment 91 (75 FR 53026, August 30, 2010) and Amendment 110 (81 FR 37534, June 10, 2016). NMFS publishes the approved IPAs, allocations, and reports at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/bycatch/default.htm.

    Section 679.21(g)(2)(i) specifies 700 fish as the 2017 and 2018 Chinook salmon PSC limit for the Aleutian Islands subarea pollock fishery. Section 679.21(g)(2)(ii) allocates 7.5 percent, or 53 Chinook salmon, as the Aleutian Islands subarea PSQ reserve for the CDQ program and allocates the remaining 647 Chinook salmon to the non-CDQ fisheries.

    Section 679.21(f)(14)(i) specifies 42,000 fish as the 2017 and 2018 non-Chinook salmon PSC limit in the Catcher Vessel Operational Area (CVOA). Section 679.21(f)(14)(ii) allocates 10.7 percent, or 4,494 non-Chinook salmon, in the CVOA as the PSQ reserve for the CDQ program, and allocates the remaining 37,506 non-Chinook salmon in the CVOA as the PSC limit for the non-CDQ fisheries.

    PSC limits for crab and herring are specified annually based on abundance and spawning biomass. Section 679.21(e)(3)(i)(A)(1) allocates 10.7 percent from each trawl gear PSC limit specified for crab as a PSQ reserve for use by the groundfish CDQ program.

    Based on the 2016 survey data, the red king crab mature female abundance is estimated to be at 22.8 million mature red king crabs, and the effective spawning biomass is estimated at 42.2 million lbs (19,148 mt). Based on the criteria set out at § 679.21(e)(1)(i), the 2017 and 2018 PSC limit of red king crab in Zone 1 for trawl gear is 97,000 animals. This limit derives from the mature female abundance of more than 8.4 million mature king crab and the effective spawning biomass estimate of more than 14.5 million lbs (6,477 mt) but less than 55 million lbs (24,948 mt).

    Section 679.21(e)(3)(ii)(B)(2) establishes criteria under which NMFS must specify an annual red king crab bycatch limit for the Red King Crab Savings Subarea (RKCSS). The regulations limit the RKCSS red king crab bycatch limit to 25 percent of the red king crab PSC limit, based on the need to optimize the groundfish harvest relative to red king crab bycatch. In December 2016, the Council recommended and NMFS concurs that the red king crab bycatch limit be equal to 25 percent of the red king crab PSC limit within the RKCSS (Table 15).

    Based on 2016 survey data, Tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi) abundance is estimated at 285 million animals. Pursuant to criteria set out at § 679.21(e)(1)(ii), the calculated 2017 and 2018 C. bairdi crab PSC limit for trawl gear is 830,000 animals in Zone 1, and 2,070,000 animals in Zone 2. The limit in Zone 1 is based on the abundance of C. bairdi estimated at 285 million animals, which is greater than 270 million and less than 400 million animals. The limit in Zone 2 is based on the abundance of C. bairdi estimated at 285 million animals, which is greater than 175 million animals and less than 290 million animals.

    Pursuant to § 679.21(e)(1)(iii), the PSC limit for snow crab (C. opilio) is based on total abundance as indicated by the NMFS annual bottom trawl survey. The C. opilio crab PSC limit is set at 0.1133 percent of the Bering Sea abundance index minus 150,000 crab. Based on the 2016 survey estimate of 8.169 billion animals, which is above the minimum PSC limit of 4.5 million and below the maximum PSC limit of 13 million animals, the calculated C. opilio crab PSC limit is 9,105,477 animals.

    Pursuant to § 679.21(e)(1)(v), the PSC limit of Pacific herring caught while conducting any trawl operation for BSAI groundfish is 1 percent of the annual eastern Bering Sea herring biomass. The best estimate of 2017 and 2018 herring biomass is 201,278 mt. This amount was developed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game based on biomass for spawning aggregations. Therefore, the herring PSC limit for 2017 and 2018 is 2,013 mt for all trawl gear as listed in Tables 14 and 15.

    Section 679.21(e)(3)(i)(A)(1) requires crab PSQ reserves to be subtracted from the total trawl crab PSC limits. The 2017 PSC limits assigned to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors are specified in Table 35 to 50 CFR part 679. The resulting allocations of PSC limit to CDQ PSQ, the Amendment 80 sector, and the BSAI trawl limited access fisheries are listed in Table 14. Pursuant to § 679.21(b)(1)(i), 679.21(e)(3)(vi) and § 679.91(d) through (f), crab and halibut trawl PSC limits assigned to the Amendment 80 sector are then further allocated to Amendment 80 cooperatives as PSC cooperative quota as listed in Table 18. PSC cooperative quota assigned to Amendment 80 cooperatives is not allocated to specific fishery categories. In 2017, there are no vessels in the Amendment 80 limited access sector. The 2018 PSC allocations between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access sector will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the program by November 1, 2017. Section 679.21(e)(3)(i)(B) requires NMFS to apportion each trawl PSC limit not assigned to Amendment 80 cooperatives into PSC bycatch allowances for seven specified fishery categories in § 679.21(e)(3)(iv).

    Section 679.21(b)(2) and (e)(5) authorizes NMFS, after consulting with the Council, to establish seasonal apportionments of PSC amounts for the BSAI trawl limited access and Amendment 80 limited access sectors in order to maximize the ability of the fleet to harvest the available groundfish TAC and to minimize bycatch. The factors to be considered are (1) seasonal distribution of prohibited species, (2) seasonal distribution of target groundfish species relative to prohibited species distribution, (3) PSC bycatch needs on a seasonal basis relevant to prohibited species biomass and expected catches of target species, (4) expected variations in bycatch rates throughout the year, (5) expected changes in directed groundfish fishing seasons, (6) expected start of fishing effort, and (7) economic effects of seasonal PSC apportionments on industry sectors. The Council recommended and NMFS approves the seasonal PSC apportionments in Tables 15 and 16 to maximize harvest among gear types, fisheries, and seasons while minimizing bycatch of PSC based on the above criteria.

    Table 14—Final 2017 and 2018 Apportionment of Prohibited Species Catch Allowances to Non-Trawl Gear, the CDQ Program, Amendment 80, and the BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sectors PSC species and area 1 Total PSC Non-trawl PSC CDQ PSQ
  • reserve 2
  • Trawl PSC
  • remaining
  • after CDQ PSQ
  • Amendment 80 sector 3 BSAI trawl
  • limited
  • access
  • fishery
  • Halibut mortality (mt) BSAI 3,515 710 315 n/a 1,745 745 Herring (mt) BSAI 2,013 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Red king crab (animals) Zone 1 97,000 n/a 10,379 86,621 43,293 26,489 C. opilio (animals) COBLZ 9,105,477 n/a 974,286 8,131,191 3,996,480 2,613,365 C. bairdi crab (animals) Zone 1 830,000 n/a 88,810 741,190 312,115 348,285 C. bairdi crab (animals) Zone 2 2,070,000 n/a 221,490 1,848,510 437,542 865,288 1 Refer to § 679.2 for definitions of zones. 2 The PSQ reserve for crab species is 10.7 percent of each crab PSC limit. 3 The Amendment 80 program reduced apportionment of the trawl PSC limits for crab below the total PSC limit. These reductions are not apportioned to other gear types or sectors.
    Table 15—Final 2017 and 2018 Herring and Red King Crab Savings Subarea Prohibited Species Catch Allowances for All Trawl Sectors Fishery categories Herring
  • (mt)
  • BSAI
  • Red king crab (animals)
  • Zone 1
  • Yellowfin sole 100 n/a Rock sole/flathead sole/other flatfish 1 43 n/a Greenland turbot/arrowtooth flounder/Kamchatka flounder/sablefish 5 n/a Rockfish 5 n/a Pacific cod 10 n/a Midwater trawl pollock 1,800 n/a Pollock/Atka mackerel/other species 2 3 50 n/a Red king crab savings subarea non-pelagic trawl gear 4 n/a 24,250 Total trawl PSC 2,013 97,000 1 “Other flatfish” for PSC monitoring includes all flatfish species, except for halibut (a prohibited species), arrowtooth flounder, flathead sole, Greenland turbot, Kamchatka flounder, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. 2 Pollock other than pelagic trawl pollock, Atka mackerel, and “other species” fishery category. 3 “Other species” for PSC monitoring includes skates, sculpins, sharks, squids, and octopuses. 4 In December 2016, the Council recommended that the red king crab bycatch limit for non-pelagic trawl fisheries within the RKCSS be limited to 25 percent of the red king crab PSC allowance (see § 679.21(e)(3)(ii)(B)(2)). Note: Species apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
    Table 16—Final 2017 and 2018 Prohibited Species Bycatch Allowances for the BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector BSAI trawl limited access fisheries Prohibited species and area 1 Halibut
  • mortality (mt) BSAI
  • Red king crab (animals)
  • Zone 1
  • C. opilio
  • (animals)
  • COBLZ
  • C. bairdi (animals) Zone 1 Zone 2
    Yellowfin sole 150 23,338 2,463,587 293,234 826,258 Rock sole/flathead sole/other flatfish 2 0 0 0 0 0 Greenland turbot/arrowtooth flounder/Kamchatka flounder/sablefish 0 0 0 0 0 Rockfish April 15—December 31 4 0 4,069 0 697 Pacific cod 391 2,954 105,008 50,816 34,848 Pollock/Atka mackerel/other species 3 200 197 40,701 4,235 3,485 Total BSAI trawl limited access PSC 745 26,489 2,613,365 348,285 865,288 1 Refer to § 679.2 for definitions of areas. 2 “Other flatfish” for PSC monitoring includes all flatfish species, except for halibut (a prohibited species), flathead sole, Greenland turbot, rock sole, yellowfin sole, Kamchatka flounder, and arrowtooth flounder. 3 “Other species” for PSC monitoring includes skates, sculpins, sharks, squids, and octopuses. Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
    Table 17—Final 2017 and 2018 Halibut Prohibited Species Bycatch Allowances for Non-Trawl Fisheries Halibut mortality (mt) BSAI Non-trawl fisheries Seasons Catcher/
  • processor
  • Catcher
  • vessel
  • All non-trawl
    Pacific cod Total Pacific cod 648 13 661 January 1-June 10 388 9 n/a June 10-August 15 162 2 n/a August 15-December 31 98 2 n/a Non-Pacific cod non-trawl-Total May 1-December 31 n/a n/a 49 Groundfish pot and jig n/a n/a n/a Exempt Sablefish hook-and-line n/a n/a n/a Exempt Total for all non-trawl PSC n/a n/a n/a 710 Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
    Table 18—Final 2017 Prohibited Species Bycatch Allowance for the BSAI Amendment 80 Cooperatives Cooperative Prohibited species and zones 1 Halibut
  • mortality (mt) BSAI
  • Red king crab (animals)
  • Zone 1
  • C. opilio
  • (animals)
  • COBLZ
  • C. bairdi (animals) Zone 1 Zone 2
    Alaska Groundfish Cooperative 474 12,459 1,258,109 82,136 112,839 Alaska Seafood Cooperative 1,271 30,834 2,738,371 229,979 324,703 1 Refer to § 679.2 for definitions of zones. Note: Sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
    Estimates of Halibut Biomass and Stock Condition

    The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) annually assesses the abundance and potential yield of the Pacific halibut stock using all available data from the commercial and sport fisheries, other removals, and scientific surveys. Additional information on the Pacific halibut stock assessment may be found in the IPHC's 2016 Pacific halibut stock assessment (December 2016), available on the IPHC Web site at www.iphc.int. The IPHC considered the 2016 Pacific halibut stock assessment at its January 2017 annual meeting when it set the 2017 commercial halibut fishery catch limits.

    Halibut Discard Mortality Rates

    To monitor halibut bycatch mortality allowances and apportionments, the Regional Administrator uses observed halibut incidental catch rates, halibut discard mortality rates (DMRs), and estimates of groundfish catch to project when a fishery's halibut bycatch mortality allowance or seasonal apportionment is reached. Halibut incidental catch rates are based on observers' estimates of halibut incidental catch in the groundfish fishery. DMRs are estimates of the proportion of incidentally caught halibut that do not survive after being returned to the sea. The cumulative halibut mortality that accrues to a particular halibut PSC limit is the product of a DMR multiplied by the estimated halibut PSC. DMRs are estimated using the best information available in conjunction with the annual BSAI stock assessment process. The DMR methodology and findings are included as an appendix to the annual BSAI groundfish SAFE report.

    In 2016, the DMR estimation methodology underwent revisions per the Council's directive. An interagency halibut working group (IPHC, Council, and NMFS staff) developed improved estimation methods that have undergone review by the Plan Team, SSC, and the Council. A summary of the revised methodology is included in the BSAI proposed 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications (81 FR 87863, December 6, 2016) and the comprehensive discussion of the working group's statistical methodology is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). While the DMR working group's revised methodology is intended to improve estimation accuracy as well as transparency and transferability in the methodology used for calculating DMRs, the working group will continue to consider improvements to the methodology used to calculate halibut mortality. Future DMRs, including the 2018 DMRs, may change based on an additional year of observer sampling that could provide more recent and accurate data and could improve the accuracy of estimation and progress on methodology.

    At the December 2016 meeting, the SSC, AP, and Council reviewed and concurred in the revised DMR estimation methodology proposed by the working group. The Council recommended the halibut DMRs derived from this process for 2017 and 2018. The final calculation of the DMRs changed 1 percent from the proposed DMRs for two sectors (hook-and-line catcher vessel and pot sectors). Table 19 lists the proposed 2017 and 2018 DMRs.

    Table 19—2017 and 2018 Pacific Halibut Discard Mortality Rates for the BSAI Gear Sector Halibut discard mortality rate (percent) Pelagic trawl All 100 Non-pelagic trawl Mothership and catcher/processor 85 Non-pelagic trawl Catcher vessel 52 Hook-and-line Catcher/processor 8 Hook-and-line Catcher vessel 14 Pot All 6 Directed Fishing Closures

    In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator may establish a DFA for a species or species group if the Regional Administrator determines that any allocation or apportionment of a target species has been or will be reached. If the Regional Administrator establishes a DFA, and that allowance is or will be reached before the end of the fishing year, NMFS will prohibit directed fishing for that species or species group in the specified subarea, regulatory area, or district (see § 697.20(d)(1)(iii)). Similarly, pursuant to §§ 679.21(b)(4) and (e)(7), if the Regional Administrator determines that a fishery category's bycatch allowance of halibut, red king crab, C. bairdi crab, or C. opilio crab for a specified area has been reached, the Regional Administrator will prohibit directed fishing for each species in that category in the specified area.

    Based on historic catch patterns and anticipated fishing activity, the Regional Administrator has determined that the groundfish allocation amounts in Table 20 will be necessary as incidental catch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries for the 2017 and 2018 fishing years. Consequently, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator establishes the DFA for the species and species groups in Table 20 as zero. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for these sectors and species in the specified areas effective at 1200 hrs, A.l.t., February 27, 2017, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2018. Also, for the BSAI trawl limited access sector, bycatch allowances of halibut, red king crab, C. bairdi crab, and C. opilio crab listed in Table 20 are insufficient to support directed fisheries. Therefore, in accordance with §§ 679.21(b)(4)(i) and (e)(7), NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for these sectors and fishery categories in the specified areas effective at 1200 hrs, A.l.t., February 27, 2017, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2018.

    Table 20—2017 and 2018 Directed Fishing Closures 1 [Groundfish and halibut amounts are in metric tons. Crab amounts are in number of animals.] Area Sector Species 2017 Incidental catch allowance 2018 Incidental catch allowance Bogoslof District All Pollock 500 500 Aleutian Islands subarea All ICA pollock 2,400 2,400 “Other rockfish” 2 550 550 Eastern Aleutian District/Bering Sea Non-amendment 80, CDQ, and BSAI trawl limited access ICA Atka mackerel 1,000 1,000 Eastern Aleutian District/Bering Sea All Rougheye rockfish 100 100 Eastern Aleutian District Non-amendment 80, CDQ, and BSAI trawl limited access ICA Pacific ocean perch 100 100 Central Aleutian District Non-amendment 80, CDQ, and BSAI trawl limited access ICA Atka mackerel
  • ICA Pacific ocean perch
  • 75
  • 60
  • 75
  • 60
  • Western Aleutian District Non-amendment 80, CDQ and BSAI trawl limited access ICA Atka mackerel
  • ICA Pacific ocean perch
  • 20
  • 10
  • 20
  • 10
  • Western and Central Aleutian Districts All Rougheye rockfish 125 125 Bering Sea subarea All Pacific ocean perch 9,350 9,350 “Other rockfish” 2 325 325 ICA pollock 47,210 47,210 Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands All Northern rockfish 4,250 4,250 Shortraker rockfish 125 125 Skates 22,100 22,100 Sculpins 3,825 3,825 Sharks 125 125 Squids 1,275 1,275 Octopuses 400 400 Hook-and-line and pot gear ICA Pacific cod 500 500 Non-amendment 80 and CDQ ICA flathead sole 4,000 4,000 ICA rock sole 5,000 5,000 Non-amendment 80, CDQ, and BSAI trawl limited access ICA yellowfin sole 4,500 4,500 BSAI trawl limited access Rock sole/flathead sole/other flatfish—halibut mortality, red king crab Zone 1, C. opilio COBLZ, C. bairdi Zone 1 and 2 0 0 Turbot/arrowtooth/sablefish—halibut mortality, red king crab Zone 1, C. opilio COBLZ, C. bairdi Zone 1 and 2 0 0 Rockfish—red king crab Zone 1 0 0 1 Maximum retainable amounts may be found in Table 11 to 50 CFR part 679. 2 “Other rockfish” includes all Sebastes and Sebastolobus species except for Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, shortraker rockfish, and rougheye rockfish.

    Closures implemented under the final 2016 and 2017 BSAI harvest specifications for groundfish (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016) remain effective under authority of these final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications, and are posted at the following Web sites: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/cm/info_bulletins/ and http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries_reports/reports/. While these closures are in effect, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a fishing trip. These closures to directed fishing are in addition to closures and prohibitions found at 50 CFR part 679.

    Listed AFA Catcher/Processor Sideboard Limits

    Pursuant to § 679.64(a), the Regional Administrator is responsible for restricting the ability of listed AFA C/Ps to engage in directed fishing for groundfish species other than pollock to protect participants in other groundfish fisheries from adverse effects resulting from the AFA and from fishery cooperatives in the pollock directed fishery. These restrictions are set out as “sideboard” limits on catch. The basis for these sideboard limits is described in detail in the final rules implementing the major provisions of the AFA (67 FR 79692, December 30, 2002) and Amendment 80 (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007). Table 21 lists the 2017 and 2018 AFA C/P sideboard limits. Section 679.64(a)(1)(v) exempts AFA catcher/processors from a yellowfin sole sideboard limit because the 2017 and 2018 aggregate ITAC of yellowfin sole assigned to the Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl limited access sector is greater than 125,000 mt.

    All harvest of groundfish sideboard species by listed AFA C/Ps, whether as targeted catch or incidental catch, will be deducted from the sideboard limits in Table 21. However, groundfish sideboard species that are delivered to listed AFA C/Ps by CVs will not be deducted from the 2017 and 2018 sideboard limits for the listed AFA C/Ps.

    Table 21—Final 2017 and 2018 Listed BSAI American Fisheries Act Catcher/Processor Groundfish Sideboard Limits [Amounts are in metric tons] Target species Area/season 1995-1997 Retained catch Total catch Ratio of
  • retained
  • catch to
  • total catch
  • 2017 ITAC available to trawl C/Ps 1 2017
  • AFA C/P
  • sideboard
  • limit
  • 2018 ITAC available to trawl C/Ps 1 2018
  • AFA C/P
  • sideboard
  • limit
  • Sablefish trawl BS 8 497 0.016 541 9 541 9 AI 0 145 0 369 0 369 0 Atka mackerel Central AI A season 2 n/a n/a 0.115 15,405 1,772 15,405 1,772 Central AI B season 2 n/a n/a 0.115 15,405 1,772 15,405 1,772 Western AI A season 2 n/a n/a 0.2 5,582 1,116 5,582 1,116 Western AI B season 2 n/a n/a 0.2 5,582 1,116 5,582 1,116 Rock sole BSAI 6,317 169,362 0.037 42,060 1,556 42,060 1,556 Greenland turbot BS 121 17,305 0.007 3,719 26 3,719 26 AI 23 4,987 0.005 106 1 106 1 Arrowtooth flounder BSAI 76 33,987 0.002 11,900 24 11,900 24 Kamchatka flounder BSAI 76 33,987 0.002 4,250 9 4,250 9 Flathead sole BSAI 1,925 52,755 0.036 12,949 466 12,949 466 Alaska plaice BSAI 14 9,438 0.001 11,050 11 11,050 11 Other flatfish BSAI 3,058 52,298 0.058 2,125 123 2,125 123 Pacific ocean perch BS 12 4,879 0.002 9,350 19 9,350 19 Eastern AI 125 6,179 0.02 7,055 141 7,055 141 Central AI 3 5,698 0.001 6,251 6 6,251 6 Western AI 54 13,598 0.004 8,037 32 8,037 32 Northern rockfish BSAI 91 13,040 0.007 4,250 30 4,250 30 Shortraker rockfish BSAI 50 2,811 0.018 125 2 125 2 Rougheye rockfish EBS/EAI 50 2,811 0.018 100 2 100 2 CAI/WAI 50 2,811 0.018 125 2 125 2 Other rockfish BS 18 621 0.029 325 9 325 9 AI 22 806 0.027 550 15 550 15 Skates BSAI 553 68,672 0.008 22,100 177 22,100 177 Sculpins BSAI 553 68,672 0.008 3,825 31 3,825 31 Sharks BSAI 553 68,672 0.008 125 1 125 1 Squids BSAI 73 3,328 0.022 1,141 25 1,141 25 Octopuses BSAI 553 68,672 0.008 400 3 400 3 1 Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch, and BSAI Atka mackerel, flathead sole, and rock sole are multiplied by the remainder of the TAC after the subtraction of the CDQ reserve under § 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C). 2 The seasonal apportionment of Atka mackerel in the open access fishery is 50 percent in the A season and 50 percent in the B season. Listed AFA catcher/processors are limited to harvesting no more than zero in the Eastern Aleutian District and Bering Sea subarea, 20 percent of the annual ITAC specified for the Western Aleutian District, and 11.5 percent of the annual ITAC specified for the Central Aleutian District.

    Section 679.64(a)(2) and Tables 40 and 41 of 50 CFR part 679 establish a formula for calculating PSC sideboard limits for halibut and crab for listed AFA C/Ps. The basis for these sideboard limits is described in detail in the final rules implementing the major provisions of the AFA (67 FR 79692, December 30, 2002) and Amendment 80 (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007).

    PSC species listed in Table 22 that are caught by listed AFA C/Ps participating in any groundfish fishery other than pollock will accrue against the 2017 and 2018 PSC sideboard limits for the listed AFA C/Ps. Sections 679.21(b)(4)(iii) and (e)(3)(v) authorize NMFS to close directed fishing for groundfish other than pollock for listed AFA C/Ps once a 2017 or 2018 PSC sideboard limit listed in Table 22 is reached.

    Pursuant to §§ 679.21(b)(1)(ii)(C) and (e)(3)(ii)(C), crab or halibut PSC caught by listed AFA C/Ps while fishing for pollock will accrue against the bycatch allowances annually specified for either the midwater pollock or the pollock/Atka mackerel/“other species” fishery categories under §§ 679.21(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (e)(3)(iv).

    Table 22—Final 2017 and 2018 BSAI AFA Listed Catcher/Processor Prohibited Species Sideboard Limits PSC species and area 1 Ratio of PSC catch to total PSC 2017 and 2018
  • PSC available to
  • trawl vessels
  • after subtraction
  • of PSQ 2
  • 2017 and 2018
  • AFA catcher/
  • processor
  • sideboard limit 2
  • Halibut mortality BSAI n/a n/a 286 Red king crab zone 1 0.007 86,621 606 C. opilio (COBLZ) 0.153 8,131,191 1,244,072 C. bairdi Zone 1 0.14 741,190 103,767 C. bairdi Zone 2 0.05 1,848,510 92,426 1 Refer to § 679.2 for definitions of areas. 2 Halibut amounts are in metric tons of halibut mortality. Crab amounts are in numbers of animals.
    AFA Catcher Vessel Sideboard Limits

    Pursuant to § 679.64(b), the Regional Administrator is responsible for restricting the ability of AFA CVs to engage in directed fishing for groundfish species other than pollock to protect participants in other groundfish fisheries from adverse effects resulting from the AFA and from fishery cooperatives in the pollock directed fishery. Section 679.64(b)(3)-(4) establishes a formula for setting AFA CV groundfish and PSC sideboard limits for the BSAI. The basis for these sideboard limits is described in detail in the final rules implementing the major provisions of the AFA (67 FR 79692, December 30, 2002) and Amendment 80 (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007). Section 679.64(b)(6) exempts AFA catcher vessels from a yellowfin sole sideboard limit because the 2017 and 2018 aggregate ITAC of yellowfin sole assigned to the Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl limited access sector is greater than 125,000 mt. Tables 23 and 24 list the 2017 and 2018 AFA CV sideboard limits.

    All catch of groundfish sideboard species made by non-exempt AFA CVs, whether as targeted catch or incidental catch, will be deducted from the 2017 and 2018 sideboard limits listed in Table 23.

    Halibut and crab PSC limits listed in Table 24 that are caught by AFA CVs participating in any groundfish fishery for groundfish other than pollock will accrue against the 2017 and 2018 PSC sideboard limits for the AFA CVs. Sections 679.21(d)(7) and 679.21(e)(3)(v) authorize NMFS to close directed fishing for groundfish other than pollock for AFA CVs once a 2016 or 2017 PSC sideboard limit listed in Table 24 is reached. Pursuant to §§ 679.21(b)(1)(ii)(C) and (e)(3)(ii)(C), the PSC that is caught by AFA CVs while fishing for pollock in the BSAI will accrue against the bycatch allowances annually specified for either the midwater pollock or the pollock/Atka mackerel/“other species” fishery categories under § 679.21(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (e)(3)(iv).

    Table 23—Final 2017 and 2018 American Fisheries Act Catcher Vessel BSAI Groundfish Sideboard Limits [Amounts are in metric tons] Species/gear Fishery by area/season Ratio of 1995-1997 AFA CV catch to 1995-1997 TAC 2017 initial TAC 1 2017 AFA catcher vessel sideboard
  • limits
  • 2018 initial TAC 1 2018 AFA catcher vessel sideboard
  • limits
  • Pacific cod/Jig gear BSAI 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 Pacific cod/Hook-and-line CV ≥ 60 feet LOA BSAI Jan 1-Jun 10
  • BSAI Jun 10-Dec 31
  • 0.0006
  • 0.0006
  • 217
  • 209
  • 0
  • 0
  • 217
  • 209
  • 0
  • 0
  • Pacific cod pot gear CV BSAI Jan 1-Jun 10 0.0006 9,123 5 9,123 5 BSAI Sept 1-Dec 31 0.0006 8,765 5 8,765 5 Pacific cod CV ≤ 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear BSAI 0.0006 4,259 3 4,259 3 Pacific cod trawl gear CV BSAI Jan 20-Apr 1 0.8609 34,962 30,099 34,962 30,099 BSAI Apr 1-Jun 10 0.8609 5,197 4,474 5,197 4,474 BSAI Jun 10-Nov 1 0.8609 7,087 6,101 7,087 6,101 Sablefish trawl gear BS 0.0906 541 49 541 49 AI 0.0645 369 24 369 24 Atka mackerel Eastern AI/BS Jan 1-Jun 10 0.0032 15,405 49 15,405 49 Eastern AI/BS Jun 10-Nov 1 0.0032 15,405 49 15,405 49 Central AI Jan 1-Jun 10 0.0001 8,037 1 8,037 1 Central AI Jun 10-Nov 1 0.0001 8,037 1 8,037 1 Western AI Jan 1-Jun 10 0 5,582 0 5,582 0 Western AI Jun 10-Nov 1 0 5,582 0 5,582 0 Rock sole BSAI 0.0341 42,060 1,434 42,060 1,434 Greenland turbot BS 0.0645 3,719 240 3,719 240 AI 0.0205 106 2 106 2 Arrowtooth flounder BSAI 0.069 11,900 821 11,900 821 Kamchatka flounder BSAI 0.069 4,250 293 4,250 293 Alaska plaice BSAI 0.0441 11,050 487 11,050 487 Other flatfish BSAI 0.0441 2,125 94 2,125 94 Flathead sole BS 0.0505 1,294 65 1,294 65 Pacific ocean perch BS 0.1 9,350 935 9,350 935 Eastern AI 0.0077 7,055 54 7,055 54 Central AI 0.0025 6,251 16 6,251 16 Western AI 0 8,037 0 8,037 0 Northern rockfish BSAI 0.0084 4,250 36 4,250 36 Shortraker rockfish BSAI 0.0037 125 0 125 0 Rougheye rockfish EBS/EAI 0.0037 100 0 100 0 CAI/WAI 0.0037 125 0 125 0 Other rockfish BS 0.0048 325 2 325 2 AI 0.0095 550 5 550 5 Skates BSAI 0.0541 22,100 1,196 22,100 1,196 Sculpins BSAI 0.0541 3,825 207 3,825 207 Sharks BSAI 0.0541 125 7 125 7 Squids BSAI 0.3827 1,141 437 1,141 437 Octopuses BSAI 0.0541 400 22 400 22 1 Aleutians Islands Pacific ocean perch, and BSAI Atka mackerel, flathead sole, Pacific cod, and rock sole are multiplied by the remainder of the TAC of that species after the subtraction of the CDQ reserve under § 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C).
    Table 24—Final 2017 and 2018 American Fisheries Act Catcher Vessel Prohibited Species Catch Sideboard Limits for the BSAI 1 PSC species and area 1 Target fishery category 2 AFA catcher vessel PSC sideboard limit ratio 2017 and 2018 PSC limit after subtraction of PSQ reserves 3 2017 and 2018 AFA catcher vessel PSC sideboard limit 3 Halibut Pacific cod trawl n/a n/a 887 Pacific cod hook-and-line or pot n/a n/a 2 Yellowfin sole total n/a n/a 101 Rock sole/flathead sole/other flatfish 4 n/a n/a 228 Greenland turbot/arrowtooth/sablefish 5 n/a n/a 0 Rockfish n/a n/a 2 Pollock/Atka mackerel/other species 6 n/a n/a 5 Red king crab Zone 1 n/a 0.299 86,621 25,900 C. opilio COBLZ n/a 0.168 8,131,191 1,366,040 C. bairdi Zone 1 n/a 0.33 741,190 244,593 C. bairdi Zone 2 n/a 0.186 1,848,510 343,823 1 Refer to § 679.2 for definitions of areas. 2 Target trawl fishery categories for halibut PSC limits are defined at § 679.21(b)(1)(ii)(B). 3 Halibut amounts are in metric tons of halibut mortality. Crab amounts are in numbers of animals. 4 “Other flatfish” for PSC monitoring includes all flatfish species, except for halibut (a prohibited species), flathead sole, Greenland turbot, rock sole, yellowfin sole, Kamchatka flounder, and arrowtooth flounder. 5 Arrowtooth for PSC monitoring includes Kamchatka flounder. 6 “Other species” for PSC monitoring includes skates, sculpins, sharks, squids, and octopuses. AFA Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel Sideboard Directed Fishing Closures

    Based on historical catch patterns, the Regional Administrator has determined that many of the AFA C/P and CV sideboard limits listed in Tables 25 and 26 are necessary as incidental catch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries for the 2017 and 2018 fishing years. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iv), the Regional Administrator establishes the sideboard limits listed in Tables 25 and 26 as DFAs. Because many of these DFAs will be reached before the end of 2017, the Regional Administrator has determined, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), that NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing by listed AFA C/Ps for the species in the specified areas set out in Table 25, and directed fishing by non-exempt AFA CVs for the species in the specified areas set out in Table 26.

    Table 25—Final 2017 and 2018 American Fisheries Act Listed Catcher/Processor Sideboard Directed Fishing Closures 1 [Amounts are in metric tons] Species Area Gear types 2017 sideboard limit 2018 sideboard limit Sablefish trawl BS trawl 9 9 AI trawl 0 0 Rock sole BSAI all 1,556 1,556 Greenland turbot BS all 26 26 AI all 1 1 Arrowtooth flounder BSAI all 24 24 Kamchatka flounder BSAI all 9 9 Alaska plaice BSAI all 11 11 Other flatfish 2 BSAI all 123 123 Flathead sole BSAI all 466 466 Pacific ocean perch BS all 19 19 Eastern AI all 141 141 Central AI all 6 6 Western AI all 32 32 Northern rockfish BSAI all 30 30 Shortraker rockfish BSAI all 2 2 Rougheye rockfish EBS/EAI all 2 2 CAI/WAI all 2 2 Other rockfish 3 BS all 9 9 AI all 15 15 Skates BSAI all 177 177 Sculpins BSAI all 31 31 Sharks BSAI all 1 1 Squids BSAI all 25 25 Octopuses BSAI all 3 3 1 Maximum retainable amounts may be found in Table 11 to 50 CFR part 679. 2 “Other flatfish” includes all flatfish species, except for halibut, Alaska plaice, flathead sole, Greenland turbot, rock sole, yellowfin sole, Kamchatka flounder, and arrowtooth flounder. 3 “Other rockfish” includes all Sebastes and Sebastolobus species except for Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, shortraker rockfish, and rougheye rockfish. Table 26—Final 2017 and 2018 American Fisheries Act Catcher Vessel Sideboard Directed Fishing Closures 1 [Amounts are in metric tons] Species Area Gear types 2017 sideboard limit 2018 sideboard limit Pacific cod BSAI hook-and-line CV ≥60 feet LOA 0 0 BSAI pot CV ≥60 feet LOA 10 10 BSAI hook-and-line or pot CV <60 feet LOA 3 3 BSAI jig 0 0 Sablefish BS trawl 49 49 AI trawl 24 24 Atka mackerel Eastern AI/BS all 98 98 Central AI all 2 2 Western AI all 0 0 Greenland turbot BS all 240 240 AI all 2 2 Arrowtooth flounder BSAI all 821 821 Kamchatka flounder BSAI all 293 293 Alaska plaice BSAI all 487 487 Other flatfish 2 BSAI all 94 94 Flathead sole BSAI all 65 65 Rock sole BSAI all 1,434 1,434 Pacific ocean perch BS all 935 935 Eastern AI all 54 54 Central AI all 16 16 Western AI all 0 0 Northern rockfish BSAI all 36 36 Shortraker rockfish BSAI all 0 0 Rougheye rockfish BS/EAI all 0 0 CAI/WAI all 0 0 Other rockfish 3 BS all 2 2 AI all 5 5 Skates BSAI all 1,196 1,196 Sculpins BSAI all 207 207 Sharks BSAI all 7 7 Squids BSAI all 437 437 Octopuses BSAI all 22 22 1 Maximum retainable amounts may be found in Table 11 to 50 CFR part 679. 2 “Other flatfish” includes all flatfish species, except for halibut, Alaska plaice, flathead sole, Greenland turbot, rock sole, yellowfin sole, Kamchatka flounder, and arrowtooth flounder. 3 “Other rockfish” includes all Sebastes and Sebastolobus species except for Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, shortraker rockfish, and rougheye rockfish. Response to Comments

    NMFS received 1 letter with 1 substantive comment during the public comment period for the proposed BSAI groundfish harvest specifications. No changes were made to the final rule in response to the comment letter received. NMFS' response to public comment on the proposed BSAI groundfish harvest specifications is provided below.

    Comment 1: NMFS must manage halibut under their own FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act to properly conserve and manage Pacific halibut and prevent overfishing. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires every fishery management council to develop an FMP for each fishery under its authority that requires conservation and management. NMFS has failed to establish required status determination criteria for halibut stocks that are caught as non-target stocks in the groundfish fishery before finalizing harvest specifications for the groundfish fishery. The groundfish FMP does not establish criteria to assess whether the halibut stock is overfished or subject to overfishing. Although the IPHC assesses halibut stock populations every year, the IPHC has also never developed objective criteria to measure the status of halibut populations. As a result, there is no way for NMFS to ensure that halibut bycatch management measures it implements through the harvest specification process will prevent overfishing or rebuild an overfished halibut stock without first determining whether the halibut stock is overfished or whether the non-target catch of halibut amounts to overfishing. To protect halibut populations for the future and to meet its obligations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prevent overfishing, NMFS must establish an FMP for halibut that includes objective criteria to monitor the status of halibut stocks and identify when the halibut stock is overfished or subject to overfishing.

    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment as outside the scope of this action. NMFS manages groundfish fisheries and prohibited species under the FMP. The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS, after consultation with the Council, to specify the TAC for each groundfish target species category. NMFS also must specify PSC allowances and PSQ reserves as established pursuant to 50 CFR 679.21. NMFS implements these requirements through the annual harvest specifications. The limits set forth in the harvest specifications are based on the most recent scientific and economic information and are consistent with the FMP, regulatory obligations, and harvest strategy, which was described in the proposed harvest specifications (81 FR 87863, December 6, 2016).

    In the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, NMFS and the Council manage halibut as prohibited species. The PSC limits for halibut are set by regulation (see 50 CFR 679.21). NMFS and the Council also must manage halibut bycatch in accordance with the Magnuson-Steven Act and the National Standards therein. NMFS and the Council are committed to minimizing halibut bycatch in the BSAI consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act obligations to minimize bycatch to the extent practicable and to achieve, on a continuing basis, optimum yield from the groundfish fisheries. The halibut PSC limits reflect that NMFS and the Council balance the requirement to minimize halibut bycatch to the extent practicable, consistent with National Standard 9, with the requirement to achieve optimum yield in the groundfish fishery, consistent with National Standard 1. NMFS and the Council have appropriately balanced obligations under National Standard 1 and National Standard 9 to minimize halibut PSC in the commercial groundfish fisheries to the extent practicable, while preserving the potential for the groundfish sectors to fully harvest the groundfish TACs assigned to the trawl and non-trawl sectors.

    The current halibut PSC limits have decreased halibut PSC use. In the BSAI, the current halibut PSC is 1,142 mt less than in 2014, an overall reduction of 39 percent. The Council and NMFS will continue to evaluate the need to implement additional measures to minimize halibut bycatch in the BSAI groundfish fisheries consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act obligations. Such measures, however, will have to be implemented through the Council process. A detailed description of the Council process may be found at http://www.npfmc.org/overview/.

    Classification

    NMFS has determined that these final harvest specifications are consistent with the FMP and with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is authorized under 50 CFR 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.

    NMFS prepared an EIS that covers this action (see ADDRESSES) and made it available to the public on January 12, 2007 (72 FR 1512). On February 13, 2007, NMFS issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for the EIS. In January 2017, NMFS prepared a Supplemental Information Report (SIR) for this action. Copies of the EIS, ROD, and SIR for this action are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The EIS analyzes the environmental consequences of the groundfish harvest specifications and alternative harvest strategies on resources in the action area. The EIS found no significant environmental consequences of this action and its alternatives. The SIR evaluates the need to prepare a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) for the 2017 and 2018 groundfish harvest specifications.

    An SEIS should be prepared if (1) the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (2) significant new circumstances or information exist relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). After reviewing the information contained in the SIR and SAFE reports, the Regional Administrator has determined that (1) approval of the 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications, which were set according to the preferred harvest strategy in the EIS, do not constitute a change in the action; and (2) there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the action or its impacts. Additionally, the 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications will result in environmental impacts within the scope of those analyzed and disclosed in the EIS. Therefore, supplemental NEPA documentation is not necessary to implement the 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications.

    Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 604) requires that, when an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, after being required by that section, or any other law, to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency shall prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA). The following constitutes the FRFA prepared in the final action.

    Section 604 describes the required contents of a FRFA: (1) A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule; (2) a statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments; (3) the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments; (4) a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; (5) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and (6) a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

    A description of this action, its purpose, and its legal basis are included at the beginning of the preamble to this final rule and are not repeated here.

    NMFS published the proposed rule on December 6, 2016 (81 FR 87863). NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to accompany the proposed action, and included a summary in the proposed rule. The comment period closed on January 5, 2017. No comments were received on the IRFA. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not file any comments on the proposed rule.

    The entities directly regulated by this action are those that harvest groundfish in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI and in parallel fisheries within State waters. These include entities operating catcher vessels and catcher/processors within the action area and entities receiving direct allocations of groundfish.

    For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

    The estimated directly regulated small entities in 2015 include approximately 152 catcher vessels, four catcher/processors, and six CDQ groups. Some of these vessels are members of AFA inshore pollock cooperatives, Gulf of Alaska rockfish cooperatives, or BSAI Crab Rationalization Program cooperatives, and, since under the RFA it is the aggregate gross receipts of all participating members of the cooperative that must meet the “under $11 million” threshold, they are considered to be large entities within the meaning of the RFA. Thus, the estimate of 152 catcher vessels may be an overstatement of the number of small entities. Average gross revenues were $520,000 for small hook-and-line vessels, $1.29 million for small pot vessels, and $2.99 million for small trawl vessels. Revenue data for catcher/processors is confidential; however, in 2015, NMFS estimates that there were four catcher/processor small entities with gross receipts less than $11 million.

    This action does not modify recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

    The significant alternatives were those considered as alternative harvest strategies when the Council selected its preferred harvest strategy (Alternative 2) in December 2006. These included the following:

    • Alternative 1: Set TAC to produce fishing mortality rates, F, that are equal to maxFABC, unless the sum of the TAC is constrained by the OY established in the fishery management plans. This is equivalent to setting TAC to produce harvest levels equal to the maximum permissible ABC, as constrained by OY. The term “maxFABC” refers to the maximum permissible value of FABC under Amendment 56 to the BSAI and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fishery management plans. Historically, the TAC has been set at or below the ABC; therefore, this alternative represents a likely upper limit for setting the TAC within the OY and ABC limits.

    • Alternative 3: For species in Tiers 1, 2, and 3, set TAC to produce F equal to the most recent 5-year average actual F. For species in Tiers 4, 5, and 6, set TAC equal to the most recent 5-year average actual catch. For stocks with a high level of scientific information, TAC would be set to produce harvest levels equal to the most recent 5-year average actual fishing mortality rates. For stocks with insufficient scientific information, TAC would be set equal to the most recent 5-year average actual catch. This alternative recognizes that for some stocks, catches may fall well below ABC, and recent average F may provide a better indicator of actual F than FABC does.

    • Alternative 4: (1) Set TAC for rockfish species in Tier 3 at F75%. Set TAC for rockfish species in Tier 5 at F=0.5M. Set spatially explicit TAC for shortraker and rougheye rockfish in the BSAI. (2) Taking the rockfish TAC as calculated above, reduce all other TAC by a proportion that does not vary across species, so that the sum of all TAC, including rockfish TAC, is equal to the lower bound of the area OY (1,400,000 mt in the BSAI). This alternative sets conservative and spatially explicit TAC for rockfish species that are long-lived and late to mature, and sets conservative TAC for the other groundfish species.

    • Alternative 5: Set TAC at zero.

    Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative chosen by the Council: Set TAC that fall within the range of ABC recommended through the Council harvest specifications process and TACs recommended by the Council. Under this scenario, F is set equal to a constant fraction of maxFABC. The recommended fractions of maxFABC may vary among species or stocks, based on other considerations unique to each. This is the method for determining TAC that has been used in the past.

    Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 do not meet the objectives of this action, and although Alternatives 1 and 3 may have a smaller adverse economic impact on small entities than the preferred alternative, Alternatives 4 and 5 would have a significant adverse economic impact on small entities. The Council rejected these alternatives as harvest strategies in 2006, and the Secretary of Commerce did so in 2007. Alternative 1 would lead to TAC limits whose sum exceeds the fishery OY, which is set out in statute and the FMP. As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, the sum of ABCs in 2017 and 2018 would be 4,013,993 mt and 4,214,648 mt, respectively. Both of these are substantially in excess of the fishery OY for the BSAI. This result would be inconsistent with the objectives of this action, in that it would violate the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, Public Law 108-199, Section 803(c), and the FMP for the BSAI groundfish fishery, which both set a 2 million mt maximum harvest for BSAI groundfish.

    Alternative 3 selects harvest rates based on the most recent 5 years' worth of harvest rates (for species in Tiers 1 through 3) or for the most recent 5 years' worth of harvests (for species in Tiers 4 through 6). This alternative is also inconsistent with the objectives of this action because it does not take into account the most recent biological information for this fishery.

    Alternative 4 would lead to significantly lower harvests of all species to reduce TAC from the upper end of the OY range in the BSAI to its lower end. This result would lead to significant reductions in harvests of species by small entities. While reductions of this size could be associated with offsetting price increases, the size of these increases is very uncertain, and NMFS has no confidence that they would be sufficient to offset the volume decreases and leave revenues unchanged. Thus, this action would have an adverse economic impact on small entities, compared to the preferred alternative.

    Alternative 5, which sets all harvests equal to zero, may also address conservation issues, but would have a significant adverse economic impact on small entities.

    Impacts on marine mammals resulting from fishing activities conducted under this rule are discussed in the EIS (see ADDRESSES).

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this rule because delaying this rule is contrary to the public interest. Plan Team review occurred in November 2016, and the Council considered and recommended the final harvest specifications in December 2016. Accordingly, NMFS' review could not begin until after the December 2016 Council meeting, and after the public had time to comment on the proposed action. If this rule's effectiveness is delayed, fisheries that might otherwise remain open under these rules may prematurely close based on the lower TACs established in the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016). If implemented immediately, this rule would allow these fisheries to continue fishing without the industry worrying about a potential closure because some TAC limits are higher than the ones under which they are currently fishing. Certain fisheries, such as those for pollock and Pacific cod, are intensive, fast-paced fisheries. Other fisheries, such as those for flatfish, rockfish, skates, sculpins, sharks, and octopuses, are critical as directed fisheries and as incidental catch in other fisheries. U.S. fishing vessels have demonstrated the capacity to catch the TAC allocations in these fisheries. Any delay in allocating the final TAC limits in these fisheries would cause confusion in the industry and potential economic harm through unnecessary discards. Determining which fisheries may close is impossible because these fisheries are affected by several factors that cannot be predicted in advance, including fishing effort, weather, movement of fishery stocks, and market price. Furthermore, the closure of one fishery has a cascading effect on other fisheries by freeing up fishing vessels, allowing them to move from closed fisheries to open ones, increasing the fishing capacity in those open fisheries, and causing them to close at an accelerated pace.

    Additionally, in fisheries subject to declining sideboards, delaying this rule's effectiveness could allow some vessels to inadvertently reach or exceed their new sideboard levels. Because sideboards are intended to protect traditional fisheries in other sectors, allowing one sector to exceed its new sideboards by delaying this rule's effectiveness would effectively reduce the available catch for sectors without sideboard limits. Moreover, the new TAC and sideboard limits protect the fisheries from being overfished. Thus, the delay is contrary to the public interest in protecting traditional fisheries and fish stocks.

    If the final harvest specifications are not effective by March 11, 2017, which is the start of the 2017 Pacific halibut season as specified by the IPHC, the hook-and-line sablefish fishery will not begin concurrently with the Pacific halibut IFQ season. Delayed effectiveness of this action would result in confusion for sablefish harvesters and economic harm from unnecessary discard of sablefish that are caught along with Pacific halibut, as both hook-and-line sablefish and Pacific halibut are managed under the same IFQ program. Immediate effectiveness of the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications will allow the sablefish IFQ fishery to begin concurrently with the Pacific halibut IFQ season. Also, immediate effectiveness of this action will ensure consistent management and conservation of fishery resources based upon the best available scientific information, particularly for those species that have lower 2017 ABC and TAC limits than those established in the 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016). Immediate effectiveness also would provide the fishing industry the earliest possible opportunity to plan and conduct its fishing operations with respect to new information about TAC limits. Therefore, NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Small Entity Compliance Guide

    This final rule is a plain language guide to assist small entities in complying with this final rule as required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule's primary purpose is to announce the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications and prohibited species bycatch allowances for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI. This action is necessary to establish harvest limits and associated management measures for groundfish during the 2017 and 2018 fishing years and to accomplish the goals and objectives of the FMP. This action directly affects all fishermen who participate in the BSAI fisheries. The specific amounts of OFL, ABC, TAC, and PSC are provided in tables to assist the reader. NMFS will announce closures of directed fishing in the Federal Register and information bulletins released by the Alaska Region. Affected fishermen should keep themselves informed of such closures.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1540(f); 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 105-277; Pub. L. 106-31; Pub. L. 106-554; Pub. L. 108-199; Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 109-241; Pub. L. 109-479.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03698 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 150818742-6210-02] RIN 0648-XF244 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Vessels Using Pot Gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2017 Pacific cod total allowable catch apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.

    DATES:

    Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 23, 2017, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    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 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. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.

    The A season allowance of the 2017 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 5,849 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016) and inseason adjustment (81 FR 95063, December 27, 2016).

    In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2017 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 5,839 mt and is setting aside the remaining 10 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting 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 directed fishing closure of Pacific cod for vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 21, 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 § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 22, 2017. Karen H. Abrams, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03784 Filed 2-22-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 37 Monday, February 27, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service 7 CFR Part 250 RIN 0584-AE38 Revisions and Clarifications in Requirements for the Processing of Donated Foods; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is extending the comment period for this proposed rule. This rule proposes to revise and clarify requirements for the processing of donated foods in order to: Incorporate successful processing options tested in demonstration projects, ensure accountability for donated foods provided for processing, and increase program efficiency. The rule would require multi-State processors to enter into National Processing Agreements to process donated foods into end products, permit processors to substitute commercially purchased beef and pork of U.S. origin and of equal or better quality for donated beef and pork, and would increase oversight of inventories of donated foods at processors. The rule also revises regulatory provisions in plain language, to make them easier to read and understand.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register of January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1231), has been extended from March 6, 2017, to April 5, 2017. To be assured of consideration, comments must be received on or before April 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Food and Nutrition Service invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. You may submit comments, identified by RIN number 0584-AE38, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: Send comments to [email protected] Include RIN number 0584-AE38 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Send comments to Kiley Larson, Program Analyst, Policy Branch, Food Distribution Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 500, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kiley Larson or Erica Antonson at the above address or telephone (703) 305-2680.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Food and Nutrition Service is extending by 30 days the public comment period for this proposed rule, which was published on January 5, 2017.

    To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking for good cause and for reasons cited above, the Food and Nutrition Service finds that notice and solicitation of comment regarding the brief extension of the comment period of the rule is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

    The Food and Nutrition Service believes that affected parties need to be informed as soon as possible of the extension and its length.

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Jessica Shahin, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03560 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1255 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-16-0112] Organic Research, Promotion, and Information Order AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is extending the comment period for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5746), until April 19, 2017. The proposed rule invited comments on the proposed establishment of an industry-funded research, promotion, and information program for certified organic products. The proposed rule also announced the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intent to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of new information collection requirements to implement the program. This document extends the comment period for the proposed rule by 30 days.

    DATES:

    Comments received by April 19, 2017, will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments may be submitted on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov or to the Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; facsimile: (202) 205-2800. All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection, including name and address, if provided, in the above office during regular business hours or it can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, ways to minimize the burden, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, or any other aspect of this collection of information, should be sent to the above address. In addition, comments concerning the information collection should also be sent to the Desk Office for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Room 725, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Heather Pichelman, Division Director, Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; facsimile: (202) 205-2800; or electronic mail: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5746). This proposed action invited comments on a proposed industry-funded research, promotion, and information program for certified organic products. Organic products are products produced under the authority of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522) and its implementing regulations at 7 CFR part 205. The organic market includes a range of agricultural commodities such as fruits, vegetables, dairy, meat, poultry, breads, grains, snack foods, condiments, beverages, and packaged and prepared foods as well as non-food items such as fiber (linen and clothing), personal care products, pet food, and flowers. The program would be financed by an assessment on domestic producers, handlers and importers of organic products and would be administered by a board of industry members nominated by organic stakeholders and appointed by the Secretary. The proposed initial assessment rate would be one tenth of one percent of net organic sales for producers and handlers, and one tenth of one percent of the transaction value of organic products imported into the United States for importers. Citing domestic supply shortages, challenges with viable pest management, and market confusion, program proponents have proposed an organic research and promotion program for the purposes of: (1) Developing and financing an effective and coordinated program of research, promotion, industry information, and consumer education regarding organic commodities; and (2) maintaining and expanding existing markets for organic commodities.

    A referendum would be held among eligible domestic producers, handlers and importers to determine whether they favor implementation of the program prior to it going into effect. The proposal was submitted to USDA by the Organic Trade Association (OTA), a membership business association, in collaboration with the 7-member GRO Organic Core Committee. OTA is a membership-based trade organization representing growers, processors, certifiers, farmers associations, distributors, importers, exporters, consultants, retailers, and others involved in the organic sector. The GRO Organic Core Committee is a subset of OTA's larger Organic Research and Promotion Program Steering Committee. It included OTA subcommittee chairs and other industry leaders who built on the outreach and input from the larger committee to guide the development of a proposed Order.

    This proposed rule also announced AMS's intent to request approval from OMB of new information collection requirements to implement the program.

    The 60-day comment period provided in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5746) was set to end on March 20, 2017. AMS has extended the end of comment period by 30 days to April 19, 2017 to ensure that interested persons have sufficient time to review and comment on the proposed rule.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 7411-7425; 7 U.S.C. 7401.

    Dated: February 22, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03825 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1255 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-16-0112] Organic Research, Promotion, and Information Order; Referendum Procedures AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is extending the comment period for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5438), until April 19, 2017. The proposed rule invited comments on the proposed procedures for conducting a referendum to determine whether the issuance of a proposed Organic Research, Promotion, and Information Order (proposed Order) is favored by certified organic producers, certified organic handlers, and importers of certified organic products. The procedures would also be used for any subsequent referendum under the proposed Order. This proposed rule also announced the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intent to request approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of new information collection requirements to implement the program. The proposed Order was published separately in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5746).

    DATES:

    Comments received by April 19, 2017, will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments may be submitted on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov or to the Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; facsimile: (202) 205-2800. All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection, including name and address, if provided, in the above office during regular business hours or it can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, ways to minimize the burden, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, or any other aspect of this collection of information, should be sent to the above address. In addition, comments concerning the information collection should also be sent to the Desk Office for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Room 725, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Heather Pichelman, Division Director, Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; facsimile: (202) 205-2800; or electronic mail: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5438). This proposed action invited comments on a proposed procedures for conducting a referendum to determine whether covered domestic certified organic producers, certified organic handlers and importers of organic products favor issuance of a proposed Order. Accordingly, this proposed rule would add subpart B to part 1255 that would establish procedures for conducting the referendum. The procedures would cover definitions, voting instructions, use of subagents, ballots, the referendum report, and confidentiality of information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would conduct the referendum. The program would be implemented if it is favored by a majority of domestic certified organic producers, certified organic handlers and importers of organic products voting in the referendum. The procedures would be applicable for the initial referendum and future referenda under the proposed Order.

    This proposed rule also announced AMS's intent to request approval by the OMB of new information collection requirements to implement the program. The proposed Order was published separately in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5746).

    The 60-day comment period provided in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5438) was set to end on March 20, 2017. AMS has extended the end of comment period by 30 days to April 19, 2017 to ensure that interested persons have sufficient time to review and comment on the proposed rule.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 7411-7425; 7 U.S.C. 7401.

    Dated: February 22, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03824 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9494; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-19] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; for Haskell, TX AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending up to 700 feet above the surface at Haskell Municipal Airport, Haskell, TX. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Haskell non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of the NDB approach. This action would also update the geographic coordinates of the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9494; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-19, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ron Laster, Federal Aviation Administration, Contract Support, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5879.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify Class E airspace extending up to and including 700 feet MSL above the surface area at Haskell Municipal Airport, Haskell, TX.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-9494/Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-19.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Haskell Municipal Airport, Haskell, TX. The segment 8 miles east and 4 miles west of the 015° bearing from the Haskell RBN extending from the airport to 16 miles northeast of the RBN would be removed due to the decommissioning of the NDB, and cancellation of NDB approaches. This action would enhance the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas. ASW TX E5 Haskell, TX [Amended] Haskell Municipal Airport, TX (Lat. 33°11′29″ N., long. 99°43′04″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Haskell Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on February 10, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03511 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9374; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-23] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Modification of VOR Federal Airways V-55, V-63, V-177, V-228, and V-246 in the Vicinity of Stevens Point, WI AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify five VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways in the vicinity of Stevens Point, WI. The FAA is proposing this action due to the planned decommissioning of the Stevens Point, WI (STE), VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid (NAVAID) which provides navigation guidance for portions of the ATS routes proposed to be amended by this action. This action would enhance the safety and efficient management of aircraft in the Stevens Point, WI, area.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9374 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-23 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1 (800) 647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the NAS route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9374 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-23) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9374 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-23.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Blvd., Fort Worth, TX, 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    Background

    The FAA is planning decommissioning activities for the Stevens Point, WI (STE), VORTAC to take place in 2017 as one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the VOR Minimum Operating Network (VOR MON) program and listed in the Final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the Federal Register of July 26, 2016 (81FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082. Additionally, the Stevens Point VORTAC has been reported as out-of-service since October 31, 2012, by Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) due to extreme fluctuations in signal modulation and out-of-tolerance structure. The VORTAC is unusable as a terminal facility, is showing out-of-tolerance conditions at many enroute altitudes, and numerous attempts to repair the VORTAC to put it back in service have failed. The affected ATS routes are VOR Federal airways V-55, V-63, V-177, V-228, and V-246.

    With the planned decommissioning of the Stevens Point, WI, VORTAC, the FAA has determined the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of the affected airways. As such, proposed modifications to VOR Federal airways V-55, V-63, V-177, V-228, and V-246 will result in gaps in the route structures. To overcome the gaps that would result in the route structures, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic could use adjacent VOR Federal airways V-9, V-26, V-78, V-191, V-341, or V-345 to circumnavigate the affected area, could file point-to-point through the affected area using the fixes that will remain in place, or could receive air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors through the area. VFR pilots who elect to navigate via airways through the affected area could also take advantage of the adjacent VOR Federal airways or ATC services listed previously.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the descriptions of VOR Federal airways V-55, V-63, V-177, V-228, and V-246 due to the planned decommissioning of the Stevens Point, WI, VORTAC. The proposed route changes are described below.

    V-55: V-55 currently extends between the Dayton, OH (DQN), VOR and the Bismarck, ND (BIS), VOR. In a separate NPRM, the FAA proposed to remove the airway segment between the Siren, WI (RZN), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the Park Rapids, MN (PKD), VOR/DME (82 FR 6353, January 19, 2017). The FAA now proposes to remove the airway segment between the intersection of the Green Bay, WI (GRB), VORTAC 270°(T)/269°(M) and Oshkosh, WI (OSH), VORTAC 339°(T)/337°(M) radials (the BIPID fix) and the Eau Claire, WI (EAU), VORTAC in this NPRM. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted in the three remaining segments.

    V-63: V-63 currently extends between the Bowie, TX MN (UKW), VORTAC and the Houghton, MI (CMX), VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Oshkosh, WI (OSH), VORTAC and the Wausau, WI (AUW), VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted in the two remaining segments.

    V-177: V-177 currently extends between the Joliet, IL (JOT), VORTAC and the Ely, MN (ELO), VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Madison, WI (MAD), VOR/DME and the Wausau, WI (AUW), VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted in the two remaining segments.

    V-228: V-228 currently extends between the Stevens Point, WI (STE), VORTAC and the Gipper, MI (GIJ), VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airways segment between the Stevens Point, WI (STE), VORTAC and the Dells, WI (DLL), VORTAC. The unaffected portion of the existing airway would remain as charted.

    V-246: V-246 currently extends between the Janesville, WI (JVL), VOR/DME and Stevens Point, (STE), VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the intersection of the Nodine, MN (ODI), VORTAC 055°(T)/054°(M) and Eau Claire, WI (EAU), VORTAC 134°(T)/130°(M) radials (the MILTO fix) and the Stevens Point, WI (STE), VORTAC. The unaffected portion of the existing airway will remain as charted.

    All radials in the route descriptions below that do not reflect True (T)/Magnetic (M) degree radial information are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016 and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal airways. V-55 [Amended]

    From Dayton, OH; Fort Wayne, IN; Goshen, IN; Gipper, MI; Keeler, MI; Pullman, MI; Muskegon, MI; INT Muskegon 327° and Green Bay, WI, 116° radials; Green Bay; to INT Green Bay 270°(T)/269°(M) and Oshkosh, WI, 339°(T)/337°(M) radials. From Eau Claire, WI; to Siren, WI. From Park Rapids, MN; Grand Forks, ND; INT Grand Forks 239° and Bismarck, ND, 067° radials; to Bismarck.

    V-63 [Amended]

    From Bowie, TX; Texoma, OK; McAlester, OK; Razorback, AR; Springfield, MO; Hallsville, MO; Quincy, IL; Burlington, IA; Moline, IL; Davenport, IA; Rockford, IL; Janesville, WI; Badger, WI; to Oshkosh, WI. From Wausau, WI; Rhinelander, WI; to Houghton, MI. Excluding that airspace at and above 10,000 feet MSL from 5 NM north to 46 NM north of Quincy, IL, when the Howard West MOA is active.

    V-177 [Amended]

    From Joliet, IL; Janesville, WI; to Madison, WI. From Wausau, WI; Hayward, WI; Duluth, MN; to Ely, MN.

    V-228 [Amended]

    From Dells, WI; Madison, WI; INT Madison 138° and Chicago O'Hare, IL, 316° radials; INT Chicago O'Hare 316° and Northbrook, IL, 291° radials; Northbrook; INT Northbrook 110° and Gipper, MI, 290° radials; to Gipper.

    V-246 [Amended]

    From Janesville, WI; Dubuque, IA; Waukon, IA; Nodine, MN; to INT Nodine 055°(T)/054°(M) and Eau Claire, WI, 134°(T)/130°(M) radials.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 6, 2017. Leslie M. Swann, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03536 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9555; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-2] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Modification and Revocation of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Northcentral United States AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend and remove multiple VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways in northcentral United States to reflect and accommodate route changes being made as part of the FAA's Cleveland/Detroit Metroplex Project airspace redesign effort.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 13, 2017

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9555 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-2 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1 (800) 647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the National Airspace System (NAS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9555 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-2) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9555 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-2.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Blvd., Fort Worth, TX, 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    Background

    The Cleveland Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), with the Cleveland and Detroit Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facilities, is currently undertaking the Cleveland/Detroit (CLE/DTW) Metroplex Project. This project is in support of the FAA's Next Generation (NextGen) goal to safely improve the overall efficiency of the NAS by increasing efficiencies in metropolitan areas with multiple airports and complex air traffic flows. More specifically, these proposed changes would enhance the way aircraft navigate the complex airspace, improve airport access, and make flight routes more efficient by optimizing the airspace and procedures based on satellite-based navigation.

    At present, the enroute airway structure within the CLE/DTW metroplex project area is conventionally based with the Federal airways established using ground-based navigation aids, and most of the current procedures rely on the existing Federal airways. The CLE/DTW metroplex project is aimed at amending the current Federal airways to assist NAS users by providing more efficient satellite-based navigation options for routing and integrating 100 new area navigation (RNAV) procedures that are being designed.

    Aircraft within the airspace area controlled by the Cleveland ARTCC often file direct to their final airport destinations, or are vectored direct to waypoints or VOR navigation aids further along their intended route of flight. Cleveland ARTCC and the Cleveland and Detroit TRACONs conducted an analysis of the Federal airways usage in Cleveland ARTCC's airspace. According to that analysis, 57 percent of the airways in Cleveland ARTCC's airspace were never filed or used, and the remaining 43 percent of the airways were filed or used less than 1 percent of the total monthly operations flown in the CLE/DTW metroplex project area.

    While the FAA proposes to amend the current Federal airway structure in support of the CLE/DTW metroplex project, the proposal itself does not remove any existing VORs. Unless proposed in a separate airspace action, the VORs within the CLE/DTW metroplex project area would remain available for flight plan filing and navigation purposes. Additionally, as part of the CLE/DTW metroplex project, the FAA plans to amend the current fixes contained within the project area by converting them into RNAV waypoints that would remain in place to assist pilots and air traffic controllers already familiar with them, for navigation purposes.

    Lastly, the FAA plans to continue NextGen modernization efforts of the Cleveland and Detroit TRACON assigned airspace areas, at a later date, by working with the TRACONs and establishing new RNAV T-routes designed to enhance the flow of traffic through their busy terminal airspace areas. The new RNAV T-routes would be proposed in a separate airspace action after the RNAV procedures being developed for the CLE/DTW metroplex project are published and available for use.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify VOR Federal airways V-2, V-5, V-6, V-8, V-10, V-11, V-14, V-26, V-30, V-38, V-43, V-45, V-47, V-59, V-75, V-84, V-92, V-96, V-103, V-116, V-126, V-133, V-170, V-188, V-210, V-221, V-232, V-233, V-450, V-464, V-493, and V-542. Additionally, this action proposes to remove VOR Federal airways V-40, V-98, V-176, V-297, V-353, V-383, V-396, V-406, V-416, V-418, V-426, V-435, V-443, V-467, V-486, V-522, V-523, V-525, and V-584. The VOR Federal airway amendments and removals are proposed in support of the FAA's planned CLE/DTW metroplex project and are outlined below.

    V-2: V-2 currently extends between the Seattle, WA, VORTAC and the Gardner, MA, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Lansing, MI, VORTAC and the Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME. Additionally, this proposal would remove the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-5: V-5 currently extends between the Pecan, GA, VOR/DME and the London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and the London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME. Additionally, this proposal would remove the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-6: V-6 currently extends between the Oakland, CA, VORTAC and the DuPage, IL, VOR/DME; between the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° and Gipper, MI, VORTAC 271° radials (NILES fix) and the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and the La Guardia, NY, VOR/DME; excluding the airspace within restricted areas R-4803, R-4813A, and R-4813B when active. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the intersection of the Gipper, MI, VORTAC 092°(T)/092°(M) and Litchfield, MI, VOR/DME 196°(T)/201°(M) radials (MODEM fix) and the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and the Clarion, PA, VOR/DME. Additionally, this proposal would remove the exclusion statement for the airspace within restricted areas R-4803, R-4813A, and R-4813B because they do not affect V-6. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-8: V-8 currently extends between the intersection of the Seal Beach, CA, VORTAC 266° and Ventura, CA, VOR/DME 144° radials (DOYLE fix) and the Washington, DC, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Flag City, OH, VORTAC and the Briggs, OH, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-10: V-10 currently extends between the Pueblo, CO, VORTAC and the intersection of the Bradford, IL, VORTAC 058° and Joliet, IL, VORTAC 287° radials (PLANO fix); and between the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° and Gipper, MI, VORTAC 271° radials (NILES fix) and the Lancaster, PA, VOR/DME; excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Litchfield, MI, VOR/DME and the Youngstown, OH, VORTAC. Additionally, this proposal would remove the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-11: V-11 currently extends between the Brookley, AL, VORTAC and the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 038° and Carleton, MI, VORTAC 262° radials (CRUXX fix). The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, 038°(T)/038°(M) and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME 273°(T)/275°(M) radials (EDGEE fix) and the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 038° and Carleton, MI, VORTAC 262° radials (CRUXX fix). The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-14: V-14 currently extends between the Chisum, NM, VORTAC and the Norwich, CT, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Flag City, OH, VORTAC and the Dunkirk, NY, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-26: V-26 currently extends between the Blue Mesa, CO, VOR/DME and the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Lansing, MI, VORTAC and the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. Additionally, this proposal would remove the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-30: V-30 currently extends between the Badger, WI, VORTAC and the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and the Solberg, NJ, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Litchfield, MI, VOR/DME and the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and the Clarion, PA, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-38: V-38 currently extends between the Moline, IL, VORTAC and the Cape Charles, VA, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 091°(T)/091°(M) and Rosewood, OH, VORTAC 334°(T)/339°(M) radials (WINES fix) and the Appleton, OH, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-40: V-40 currently extends between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and the intersection of the Briggs, OH, VOR/DME 077° and Youngstown, OH, VORTAC 177° radials (CUTTA fix). The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-43: V-43 currently extends between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and the Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and the Youngstown, OH, VORTAC. Additionally, this proposal would add an exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-45: V-45 currently extends between the New Bern, NC, VOR/DME and the Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within restricted areas R-5502A and R-5502B. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and the Saginaw, MI, VOR/DME. Additionally, this proposal would remove the exclusion statement for the airspace within restricted areas R-5502A and R-5502B because they do not affect V-45. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-47: V-47 currently extends between the Pine Bluff, AR, VOR/DME and the Pocket City, IN, VORTAC; and between the Cincinnati, KY, VORTAC and the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Flag City, OH, VORTAC and the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    In addition, the V-47 description incorrectly lists the state location of the Cincinnati VORTAC as “Ohio” instead of “Kentucky.” This action would correct the route description to reflect the proper state.

    V-59: V-59 currently extends between the Pulaski, VA, VORTAC and the Briggs, OH, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME and the Briggs, OH, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-75: V-75 currently extends between the Morgantown, WV, VORTAC and the intersection of the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME 325° and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME 062° radials (LLEEO fix), excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Briggs, OH, VOR/DME and the intersection of the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME 325° and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME 062° radials (LLEEO fix). Additionally, this proposal would remove the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-84: V-84 currently extends between the Northbrook, IL, VOR/DME and the Flint, MI, VORTAC; and between the Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME and the Syracuse, NY, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Lansing, MI, VORTAC and the Flint, MI, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-92: V-92 currently extends between the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° and Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME 127° radials (BEBEE fix) and the Armel, VA, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the intersection of the Goshen, IN, VORTAC 092°(T)/092°(M) and Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 016°(T)/016°(M) radials (ILTON fix) and the Tiverton, OH, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-96: V-96 currently extends between the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC and the Detroit, MI, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 071°(T)/071°(M) and Flag City, OH, VORTAC 289°(T)/291°(M) radials (TWERP fix) and the Detroit, MI, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-98: V-98 currently extends between the Dayton, OH, VOR/DME and the intersection of the Carleton, MI, VORTAC 243° and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME 321° radials (MIZAR fix). The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-103: V-103 currently extends between the Chesterfield, SC, VOR/DME and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Akron, OH, VOR/DME and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC. Additionally, this proposal would remove the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-116: V-116 currently extends between the intersection of the Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME 092° and Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 013° radials (WILLA fix) and the Sparta, NJ, VORTAC, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the intersection of the Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME 092° and Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 013° radials (WILLA fix) and the Erie, PA, VORTAC. Additionally, this proposal would remove the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-126: V-126 currently extends between the intersection of the Peotone, IL, VORTAC 053° and Knox, IN, VOR/DME 297° radials (BEARZ fix) and the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and the Stonyfork, PA, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the intersection of the Goshen, IN, VORTAC 092°(T)/092°(M) and Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 016°(T)/016°(M) radials (ILTON fix) and the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and the Erie, PA, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-133: V-133 currently extends between the intersection of the Charlotte, NC, VOR/DME 305° and Barretts Mountain, NC, VOR/DME 197° radials and the Mansfield, OH, VORTAC; and between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and the Red Lake, ON, Canada, VOR/DME; excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Tiverton, OH, VOR/DME and the Mansfield, OH, VORTAC; and between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and the Saginaw, MI, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada would remain unchanged.

    V-170: V-170 currently extends between the Devils Lake, ND, VOR/DME and the Salem, MI, VORTAC; and between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and the intersection of the Andrews, MD, VORTAC 060° and Baltimore, MD, VORTAC 165° radials (POLLA fix); excluding the airspace within restricted area R-5802. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and the Bradford, PA, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway and the exclusion statement for restricted area R-5802 would remain unchanged.

    V-176: V-176 currently extends between the Carleton, MI, VORTAC and the intersection of the Chardon, OH, VOR/DME 294° and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME 357° radials (HIMEZ fix), excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-188: V-188 currently extends between the Carleton, MI, VORTAC and the Groton, CT, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Carleton, MI, VORTAC and the Tidioute, PA, VORTAC. Additionally, this proposal would remove the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-210: V-210 currently extends between the Los Angeles, CA, VORTAC and the Okmulgee, OK, VOR/DME; and between the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC and theYardley, PA, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Tiverton, OH, VOR/DME and the Revloc, PA, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-221: V-221 currently extends between the Bible Grove, IL, VORTAC and the Erie, PA, VORTAC, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 016°(T)/016°(M) and Goshen, IN, VORTAC 092°(T)/092°(M) radials (ILTON fix) and the Erie, PA, VORTAC. Additionally, this proposal would remove the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-232: V-232 currently extends between the Chardon, OH, VOR/DME and the Colts Neck, NJ, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Chardon, OH, VOR/DME and the Keating, PA, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-233: V-233 currently extends between the Spinner, IL, VORTAC and the Pellston, MI, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Litchfield, MI, VOR/DME and the Mount Pleasant, MI, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-297: V-297 currently extends between the Johnstown, PA, VORTAC and the intersection of the Akron, OH, VOR/DME 305° and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME 062° radials (LLEEO fix), excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-353: V-353 currently extends between the Jackson, MI, VOR/DME and the Flint, MI, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-383: V-383 currently extends between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and the Detroit, MI, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-396: V-396 currently extends between the Windsor, ON, Canada, VOR/DME and the Chardon, OH, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-406: V-406 currently extends between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and the London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-416: V-416 currently extends between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and the intersection of the Mansfield, OH, VORTAC 045° and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME 123° radials (JAKEE fix). The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-418: V-418 currently extends between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and the Jamestown, NY, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-426: V-426 currently extends between the Carleton, MI, VORTAC and the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-435: V-435 currently extends between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-443: V-443 currently extends between the intersection of the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME 099° and Bellaire, OH, VOR/DME 044° radials (WISKE fix) and the Aylmer, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-450: V-450 currently extends between the Escanaba, MI, VOR/DME and the London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Flint, MI, VORTAC and the London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME. Additionally, this proposal would remove the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-464: V-464 currently extends between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and the Geneseo, NY, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and the Aylmer, ON, Canada, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada would remain unchanged.

    V-467: V-467 currently extends between the Richmond, IN, VORTAC and the Detroit, MI, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-486: V-486 currently extends between the intersection of the Akron, OH, VOR/DME 316° and Chardon, OH, VOR/DME 260° radials (LEBRN fix) and the Jamestown, NY, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-493: V-493 currently extends between the Livingston, TN, VORTAC and the Carleton, MI, VORTAC; and between the Menominee, MI, VOR/DME and the Rhinelander, WI, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and the Carleton, MI, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-522: V-522 currently extends between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and the Toronto, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-523: V-523 currently extends between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and the Erie, PA, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-525: V-525 currently extends between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    V-542: V-542 currently extends between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and the Lebanon, NH, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and the Tidioute, PA, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain unchanged.

    V-584: V-584 currently extends between the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME and the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in its entirety.

    All radials in the route descriptions below that do not reflect True (T)/Magnetic (M) degree radial information are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016 and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways. V-2 [Amended]

    From Seattle, WA; Ellensburg, WA; Moses Lake, WA; Spokane, WA; Mullan Pass, ID; Missoula, MT; Helena, MT; INT Helena 119° and Livingston, MT, 322° radials; Livingston; Billings, MT; Miles City, MT; 24 miles, 90 miles, 55 MSL, Dickinson, ND; 10 miles, 60 miles, 38 MSL, Bismarck, ND; 14 miles, 62 miles, 34 MSL, Jamestown, ND; Fargo, ND; Alexandria, MN; Gopher, MN; Nodine, MN; Lone Rock, WI; Madison, WI; Badger, WI; Muskegon, MI; to Lansing, MI. From Buffalo, NY, 259° radials; Buffalo; Rochester, NY; Syracuse, NY; Utica, NY; Albany, NY; INT Albany 084° and Gardner, MA, 284° radials; to Gardner.

    V-5 [Amended]

    From Pecan, GA; Vienna, GA; Dublin, GA; Athens, GA; INT Athens 340° and Electric City, SC, 274° radials; INT Electric City 274° and Choo Choo, GA, 127° radials; Choo Choo; Bowling Green, KY; New Hope, KY; Louisville, KY; Cincinnati, OH; to Appleton, OH.

    V-6 [Amended]

    From Oakland, CA; INT Oakland 039° and Sacramento, CA, 212° radials; Sacramento; Squaw Valley, CA; Mustang, NV; Lovelock, NV; Battle Mountain, NV; INT Battle Mountain 062° and Wells, NV, 256° radials; Wells; 5 miles, 40 miles, 98 MSL, 85 MSL, Lucin, UT; 43 miles, 85 MSL, Ogden, UT; 11 miles, 50 miles, 105 MSL, Fort Bridger, WY; Rock Springs, WY; 20 miles, 39 miles 95 MSL, Cherokee, WY; 39 miles, 27 miles 95 MSL, Medicine Bow, WY; INT Medicine Bow 106° and Sidney, NE., 291° radials; Sidney; North Platte, NE; Grand Island, NE; Omaha, NE; Des Moines, IA; Iowa City, IA; Davenport, IA; INT Davenport 087° and DuPage, IL, 255° radials; to DuPage. From INT Chicago Heights, IL, 358° and Gipper, MI, 271° radials; Gipper; to INT Gipper 092°(T)/092°(M) and Litchfield, MI, 196°(T)/201°(M) radials. From Clarion, PA; Philipsburg, PA; Selinsgrove, PA; Allentown, PA; Solberg, NJ; INT Solberg 107° and Yardley, PA, 068° radials; INT Yardley 068° and La Guardia, NY, 213° radials; to La Guardia.

    V-8 [Amended]

    From INT Seal Beach, CA, 266° and Ventura, CA, 144° radials; Seal Beach; Paradise, CA; 35 miles, 7 miles wide (3 miles SE and 4 miles NW of centerline) Hector, CA; Goffs, CA; INT Goffs 033° and Morman Mesa, NV, 196° radials; Morman Mesa; Bryce Canyon, UT; Hanksville, UT; Grand Junction, CO; Rifle, CO; Kremmling, CO; Mile High, CO; Akron, CO; Hayes Center, NE; Grand Island, NE; Omaha, NE; Des Moines, IA; Iowa City, IA; Moline, IL; Joliet, IL; Chicago Heights, IL; Goshen, IN; to Flag City, OH. From Briggs, OH; Bellaire, OH; INT Bellaire 107° and Grantsville, MD, 285° radials; Grantsville; Martinsburg, WV; to Washington, DC. The portion outside the United States has no upper limit.

    V-10 [Amended]

    From Pueblo, CO; 18 miles, 48 miles, 60 MSL, Lamar, CO; Garden City, KS; Dodge City, KS; Hutchinson, KS; Emporia, KS; INT Emporia 063° and Napoleon, MO, 243° radials; Napoleon; Kirksville, MO; Burlington, IA; Bradford, IL; to INT Bradford 058° and Joliet, IL, 287° radials. From INT Chicago Heights, IL, 358° and Gipper, MI, 271° radials; Gipper; to Litchfield, MI. From Youngstown, OH; INT Youngstown 116° and Revloc, PA, 300° radials; Revloc; INT Revloc 107° and Lancaster, PA, 280° radials; to Lancaster.

    V-11 [Amended]

    From Brookley, AL; Greene County, MS; INT Greene County 315° and Magnolia, MS 133° radials; Magnolia; Sidon, MS; Holly Springs, MS; Dyersburg, TN; Cunningham, KY; Pocket City, IN; Brickyard, IN; Marion, IN; Fort Wayne, IN; to INT Fort Wayne 038°(T)/038°(M) and Waterville, OH, 273°(T)/275°(M) radials.

    V-14 [Amended]

    From Chisum, NM; Lubbock, TX; Childress, TX; Hobart, OK; Will Rogers, OK; INT Will Rogers 052° and Tulsa, OK 246° radials; Tulsa; Neosho, MO; Springfield, MO; Vichy, MO; INT Vichy 067° and St. Louis, MO, 225° radials; St. Louis; Vandalia, IL; Terre Haute, IN; Brickyard, IN; Muncie, IN; to Flag City, OH. From Dunkirk, NY; Buffalo, NY; Geneseo, NY; Georgetown, NY; INT Georgetown 093° and Albany, NY, 270° radials; Albany; INT Albany 084° and Gardner, MA, 284° radials; Gardner; to Norwich, CT.

    V-26 [Amended]

    From Blue Mesa, CO, via Montrose, CO; 13 miles, 112 MSL, 131 MSL; Grand Junction, CO; Meeker, CO; Cherokee, WY; Muddy Mountain, WY; 14 miles 12 AGL, 37 miles 75 MSL, 84 miles 90 MSL, 17 miles 12 AGL; Rapid City, SD; Philip, SD; Pierre, SD; Huron, SD; Redwood Falls, MN; Farmington, MN; Eau Claire, WI; Waussau, WI; Green Bay, WI; INT Green Bay 116° and White Cloud, MI 302° radials; White Cloud; Lansing, MI.

    V-30 [Amended]

    From Badger, WI; INT Badger 102° and Pullman, MI, 303° radials; Pullman; to Litchfield, MI. From Clarion, PA; Philipsburg, PA; Selinsgrove, PA; East Texas, PA; INT East Texas 095° and Solberg, NJ, 264° radials; to Solberg.

    V-38 [Amended]

    From Moline, IL; INT Moline 082° and Peotone, IL, 281° radials; Peotone; Fort Wayne, IN; to INT Fort Wayne 091°(T)/091°(M) and Rosewood, OH, 334°(T)/339°(M) radials. From Appleton, OH; Zanesville, OH; Parkersburg, WV; Elkins, WV; Gordonsville, VA; Richmond, VA; Harcum, VA; to Cape Charles, VA.

    V-40 [Removed] V-43 [Amended]

    From Youngstown, OH; Erie, PA; INT Erie 042° and Buffalo, NY, 259° radials; to Buffalo. The airspace within Canada is excluded.

    V-45 [Amended]

    From New Bern, NC; Kinston, NC; Raleigh-Durham, NC; INT Raleigh-Durham 275° and Greensboro, NC, 105° radials; Greensboro; INT Greensboro 334° and Pulaski, VA, 147° radials; Pulaski; Bluefield, WV; Charleston, WV; Henderson, WV; to Appleton, OH. From Saginaw, MI; Alpena, MI; to Sault Ste Marie, MI.

    V-47 [Amended]

    From Pine Bluff, AR; Gilmore, AR; Dyersburg, TN; Cunningham, KY; to Pocket City, IN. From Cincinnati, KY; Rosewood, OH; to Flag City, OH.

    V-59 [Amended]

    From Pulaski, VA; Beckley, WV; Parkersburg, WV; to Newcomerstown, OH.

    V-75 [Amended]

    From Morgantown, WV; Bellaire, OH; to Briggs, OH.

    V-84 [Amended]

    From Northbrook, IL; Pullman, MI; to Lansing, MI. From Buffalo, NY; Geneseo, NY; INT Geneseo 091° and Syracuse, NY, 240° radials; to Syracuse.

    V-92 [Amended]

    From INT Chicago O'Hare, IL, 127° and Chicago Heights, IL, 358° radials; Chicago Heights; Goshen, IN; to INT Goshen 092°(T)/092°(M) and Fort Wayne, IN, 016°(T)/016°(M) radials. From Tiverton, OH; Newcomerstown, OH; Bellaire, OH; INT Bellaire 107° and Grantsville, MD, 285° radials; Grantsville; INT Grantsville 124° and Armel, VA, 292° radials; to Armel.

    V-96 [Amended]

    From Brickyard, IN; Kokomo, IN; Fort Wayne, IN; to INT Fort Wayne 071°(T)/071°(M) and Flag City, OH, 289°(T)/291°(M) radials.

    V-98 [Removed] V-103 [Amended]

    From Chesterfield, SC; Greensboro, NC; Roanoke, VA; Elkins, WV; Clarksburg, WV; Bellaire, OH; INT Bellaire 327° and Akron, OH, 181° radials; to Akron.

    V-116 [Amended]

    From Erie, PA; Bradford, PA; Stonyfork, PA; INT Stonyfork 098° and Wilkes-Barre, PA, 310° radials; Wilkes-Barre; INT Wilkes-Barre 084° and Sparta, NJ, 300° radials; to Sparta.

    V-126 [Amended]

    From INT Peotone, IL, 053° and Knox, IN, 297° radials; INT Knox 297° and Goshen, IN, 270° radials; Goshen; to INT Goshen 092°(T)/092°(M) and Fort Wayne, IN, 016°(T)/016°(M) radials. From Erie, PA; Bradford, PA; to Stonyfork, PA.

    V-133 [Amended]

    From INT Charlotte, NC, 305° and Barretts Mountain, NC, 197° radials; Barretts Mountain; Charleston, WV; Zanesville, OH; to Tiverton, OH. From Saginaw, MI; Traverse City, MI; Escanaba, MI; Sawyer, MI; Houghton, MI; Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; International Falls, MN; to Red Lake, ON, Canada. The airspace within Canada is excluded.

    V-170 [Amended]

    From Devils Lake, ND; INT Devils Lake 187° and Jamestown, ND, 337° radials; Jamestown; Aberdeen, SD; Sioux Falls, SD; Worthington, MN; Fairmont, MN; Rochester, MN; Nodine, MN; Dells, WI; INT Dells 097° and Badger, WI, 304° radials; Badger; INT Badger 121° and Pullman, MI, 282° radials; Pullman; to Salem, MI. From Bradford, PA; Slate Run, PA; Selinsgrove, PA; Ravine, PA; INT Ravine 125° and Modena, PA, 318° radials; Modena; Dupont, DE; INT Dupont 223° and Andrews, MD, 060° radials; to INT Andrews 060° and Baltimore, MD, 165° radials. The airspace within R-5802 is excluded when active.

    V-176 [Removed] V-188 [Amended]

    From Tidioute, PA; Slate Run, PA; Williamsport, PA; Wilkes-Barre, PA; INT Wilkes-Barre 084° and Sparta, NJ, 300° radials; Sparta; INT Sparta 082° and Carmel, NY, 243° radials; Carmel; INT Carmel 078° and Groton, CT, 276° radials; to Groton.

    V-210 [Amended]

    From Los Angeles, CA, INT Los Angeles 083° and Pomona, CA, 240° radials; Pomona; INT Daggett, CA, 229° and Hector, CA, 263° radials; Hector; Goffs, CA; 13 miles, 23 miles 71 MSL, 85 MSL, Peach Springs, AZ; Grand Canyon, AZ; Tuba City, AZ; 10 miles 90 MSL, 91 miles 105 MSL, Rattlesnake, NM; Alamosa, CO; INT Alamosa 074° and Lamar, CO, 250° radials; 40 miles, 51 miles, 65 MSL, Lamar; 13 miles, 79 miles, 55 MSL, Liberal, KS; INT Liberal 137° and Will Rogers, OK, 284° radials; Will Rogers; INT Will Rogers 113° and Okmulgee, OK, 238° radials; Okmulgee. From Brickyard, IN, Muncie, IN; Rosewood, OH; to Tiverton, OH. From Revloc, PA; INT Revloc 096° and Harrisburg, PA, 285° radials; Harrisburg; Lancaster, PA; INT Lancaster 095° and Yardley, PA, 255° radials; to Yardley.

    V-221 [Amended]

    From Bible Grove, IL; Hoosier, IN; Shelbyville, IN; Muncie, IN; Fort Wayne, IN; to INT Fort Wayne 016°(T)/016°(M) and Goshen, IN, 092°(T)/092°(M) radials.

    V-232 [Amended]

    From Keating, PA; Milton, PA; INT Milton 099° and Solberg, NJ, 299° radials; Solberg; INT Solberg 137° and Colts Neck, NJ, 263° radials; to Colts Neck.

    V-233 [Amended]

    From Spinner, IL; INT Spinner 061° and Roberts, IL, 233° radials; Roberts; Knox, IN; Goshen, IN; to Litchfield, MI. From Mount Pleasant, MI; INT Mount Pleasant 351° and Gaylord, MI, 207° radials; Gaylord; to Pellston, MI.

    V-297 [Removed] V-353 [Removed] V-383 [Removed] V-396 [Removed] V-406 [Removed] V-416 [Removed] V-418 [Removed] V-426 [Removed] V-435 [Removed] V-443 [Removed] V-450 [Amended]

    From Escanaba, MI; Menominee, MI; Green Bay, WI; Muskegon, MI; INT Muskegon 094° and Flint, MI, 280° radials; to Flint.

    V-464 [Amended]

    From Aylmer, ON, Canada; Dunkirk, NY; to Geneseo, NY. The airspace within Canada is excluded.

    V-467 [Removed] V-486 [Removed] V-493 [Amended]

    From Livingston, TN, Lexington, KY; York, KY; INT York 030° and Appleton, OH, 183° radials; to Appleton. From Menominee, MI; to Rhinelander, WI.

    V-522 [Removed] V-523 [Removed] V-525 [Removed] V-542 [Amended]

    From Tidioute, PA; Bradford, PA; INT Bradford 078° and Elmira, NY, 252° radials; Elmira; Binghampton, NY; Rockdale, NY; Albany, NY; Cambridge, NY; INT Cambridge 063° and Lebanon, NH, 214° radials; to Lebanon.

    V-584 [Removed]
    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 13, 2017. Leslie M. Swann, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03515 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0047; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-1] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Grassrange, MT AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at N Bar Ranch, Grassrange, MT, to support the development of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport, for the safety and management of aircraft within the National Airspace System.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0047; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-1, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0047/Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-1”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at N Bar Ranch, Grassrange, MT. Class E airspace would be established within an area 3.6 miles wide extending 6.1 miles northeast and 5.9 miles southwest of the airport. This airspace is necessary to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM MT E5 Grassrange, MT [New] N Bar Ranch, MT (Lat. 46°50′17″ N., long. 108°56′13″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 1.8 miles each side of a 070° bearing from the N Bar Ranch Airport extending to 6.1 miles northeast of the airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of a 250° bearing from the airport extending to 5.9 miles southwest of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February 14, 2017. Tracey Johnson, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03520 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0077] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Tred Avon River, Between Bellevue, MD and Oxford, MD AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations for certain waters of the Tred Avon River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters located between Bellevue, MD and Oxford, MD during a swim event on June 10, 2017. If necessary, due to inclement weather, the event will be rescheduled to June 11, 2017. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0077 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone 410-576-2674, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On January 23, 2017, Charcot-Marie-Tooth Association of Trappe, MD notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the swim portion of the Oxford Biathlon from 9:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on June 10, 2017, and if necessary, due to inclement weather, from 9:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on June 11, 2017. The swim consist of approximately 25 participants competing on a designated 1300-meter course that starts at the ferry dock at Bellevue, MD and finishes at the Tred Avon Yacht Club at Oxford, MD. Hazards from the swim competition include participants swimming within and adjacent to the designated navigation channel and interfering with vessels intending to operate within that channel, as well as swimming within approaches to local public and private marinas and public boat facilities. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that potential hazards associated with the swim would be a safety concern for anyone intending to participate in this event or for vessels that operate within specified waters of the Tred Avon River between Bellevue, MD and Oxford, MD.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, spectators and transiting vessels on specified waters of the Tred Avon River before, during, and after the scheduled event.

    The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region proposes to establish special local regulations from 8:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. on June 10, 2017, and if necessary, due to inclement weather, from 8:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. on June 11, 2017. The regulated area would include all navigable waters of the Tred Avon River, from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by a line drawn from latitude 38°42′25″ N., longitude 076°10′45″ W., thence south to latitude 38°41′37″ N., longitude 076°10′26″ W., and bounded on the west by a line drawn from latitude 38°41′58″ N., longitude 076°11′04″ W., thence south to latitude 38°41′25″ N., longitude 076°10′49″ W., thence east to latitude 38°41′25″ N., longitude 076°10′30″ W., located at Oxford, MD. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of event participants and vessels within the specified navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. swim. Except for Oxford Biathlon participants, no vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the Tred Avon River for 3 hours. The Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow vessel operators to request permission to enter the regulated area for the purpose of safely transiting the regulated area if deemed safe to do so by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that may negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities within the event area. This category of marine event water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, canoe and sail board racing. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

    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.

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add a temporary § 100.35-T05-0077 to read as follows:
    § 100.501-T05-007 Special Local Regulation; Tred Avon River, between Bellevue, MD and Oxford, MD.

    (a) Regulated area. The following location is a regulated area: All navigable waters of the Tred Avon River, from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by a line drawn from latitude 38°42′25″ N., longitude 076°10′45″ W., thence south to latitude 38°41′37″ N., longitude 076°10′26″ W., and bounded on the west by a line drawn from latitude 38°41′58″ N., longitude 076°11′04″ W., thence south to latitude 38°41′25″ N., longitude 076°10′49″ W., thence east to latitude 38°41′25″ N., longitude 076°10′30″ W., located at Oxford, MD. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.

    (b) Definitions. (1) Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.

    (2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    (3) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

    (4) Participant means all persons and vessels participating in the Oxford Biathlon event under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    (c) Special local regulations: (1) The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated area shall immediately comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or the operation of any support vessel participating in the event, at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.

    (2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, all persons and vessels within the regulated area at the time it is implemented shall depart the regulated area.

    (3) Persons and vessels desiring to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area must obtain authorization from Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Prior to the enforcement period, vessel operators may request permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area from Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). During the enforcement period, persons or vessel operators may request permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) for direction.

    (4) The Coast Guard may be assisted with marine event patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other Federal, State, and local agencies. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz).

    (5) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event date and times.

    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. on June 10, 2017, and if necessary, due to inclement weather, from 8:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. on June 11, 2017.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Lonnie P. Harrison, Jr., Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03757 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter III Proposed Waiver and Extension of the Project Period for the National Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood Longitudinal Data Systems [Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.373Z.] AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Proposed waiver and extension of the project period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary proposes to waive the requirements in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations that generally prohibit project periods exceeding five years and project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds. We take this action because this proposed waiver and extension of the project period would enable the current National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood Longitudinal Data Systems (Center), currently funded under the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program, to receive funding from October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018.

    DATES:

    We must receive your comments on or before March 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address all comments about this proposed waiver and extension of the project period to Meredith Miceli, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5130, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5108.

    If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following address: [email protected] You must include the phrase “Proposed waiver and extension of the project period” in the subject line of your message.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Meredith Miceli. Telephone: (202) 245-6028, or by email at: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this proposed waiver and extension. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this proposed waiver and extension of the project period in Room 5130, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week, except Federal holidays.

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

    Background

    On August 8, 2012, the Department of Education (Department) published in the Federal Register (77 FR 47501) a notice inviting applications (2012 NIA) for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2012 for one national technical assistance (TA) center. The National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood Longitudinal Data Systems was funded under the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program, authorized under section 611(c)(1) of the IDEA.

    The purpose of the Center is to provide TA to States on the development and enhancement of statewide early childhood longitudinal data systems to improve States' capacity to collect, analyze, and report high-quality data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. This Center provides TA to States on developing or enhancing statewide early childhood longitudinal data systems that horizontally link child-level data on infants, toddlers, and young children with disabilities (birth through age 5) in different early learning data systems (including those developed with funding provided by the Department's Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge program); vertically link these child-level data to statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) for school-aged children (including those developed with funding provided by the Department's SLDS program); and meet the data system capabilities and elements described under paragraph (b) in the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities section of the 2012 NIA. These statewide early childhood longitudinal data systems should allow States to:

    (a) Accurately and efficiently respond to IDEA-related data submission requirements (e.g., IDEA sections 616 and 618 requirements);

    (b) Continuously improve processes for defining, acquiring, and validating the data; and

    (c) Comply with applicable Federal, State, and local privacy laws, including the applicable requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and privacy requirements in parts B and C of the IDEA.

    The TA provided by the Center focuses on building the State's capacity to report high-quality data to meet IDEA reporting requirements and is conducted in coordination with other SLDS work being conducted in the State.

    Based on the selection criteria published in the 2012 NIA, the Department made one award for a period of 60 months to SRI International. The project period for the current Center is scheduled to end on September 30, 2017. The Center will continue to provide TA to States to support IDEA Part C and Part B preschool State programs' participation in the development or enhancement of integrated early childhood data systems. The Center will continue to:

    (a) Generate useful products for State agencies that administer the IDEA part C and part B preschool program to use in the development and enhancement of State integrated early childhood data systems with linkages to the SLDS;

    (b) Design and implement a continuum of TA services for State IDEA part C and part B preschool staff and other staff, employing strategies that are supported by evidence, useful, and cost-effective; and

    (c) Provide national leadership and coordination around IDEA part C and part B preschool data systems and their inclusion in integrated early childhood and longitudinal State efforts to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of Federal and State resources.

    We do not believe that it would be in the public interest to run a competition for a new Center at this time for a number of reasons.

    First, extending the Center would ensure uninterrupted TA services in critically needed areas currently provided to States by the Center. We have concluded that it is not in the public interest to have a lapse in the resources currently provided by the Center because States have begun emerging work on data systems and need the Center to continue as a TA resource during this critical juncture. States need ongoing expert TA and support as they implement and coordinate data horizontally across different early childhood programs, especially in light of recent guidance and resources on early childhood data systems issued by both the Department and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Department recently highlighted the emerging work of States in The Integration of Early Childhood Data: State Profiles and Report from the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Education. 1 In addition, the Department provided guidance on privacy requirements under parts C and B of the IDEA and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act in Understanding the Confidentiality Requirements Applicable to IDEA Early Childhood Programs Frequently Asked Questions, 2 and the Center provided TA to States on this guidance through a webinar and other resources. Finally, HHS issued new data-related regulations through its 2016 Head Start Performance Standards (45 CFR 1303 Subpart C) and the Child Care Development Fund (45 CFR part 98), and these regulations support the existing efforts of many States to develop or enhance early childhood data systems.

    1 Document available online at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/earlylearning/files/integration-of-early-childhood-data.pdf.

    2 Document available online at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/idea-confidentiality-requirements-faq.pdf.

    Second, running a competition for a new Center for early childhood data would not be timely this year because the Center currently coordinates extensively with the work of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program to more efficiently and effectively meet the vertical data coordination needs of States for serving children with disabilities from birth through age 21. An extension of the current grantee's project would align the end of the current Center's project period with the expiration of the project period for the technical assistance data center that assists States with data for school-aged children, namely the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Accurately Collect and Report IDEA Data (CFDA number 84.373Y), and allow the Department to better coordinate overall its Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program and ensure continued vertical data coordination for another year.

    For these reasons, the Secretary proposes to waive the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250, which prohibit project periods exceeding five years, as well as the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261(a) and (c)(2), which allow the extension of a project period only if the extension does not involve the obligation of additional Federal funds. The waiver would allow the Department to issue a one-time FY 2017 continuation award of $6,500,000 to the Center originally funded in FY 2012.

    Any activities carried out during the year of this continuation award would have to be consistent with, or a logical extension of, the scope, goals, and objectives of the grantee's application as approved in the 2012 competition. The requirements for continuation awards are set forth in the 2012 NIA and in 34 CFR 75.253.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that the proposed waiver and extension of the project period would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The only entities that would be affected by the proposed waiver and extension of the project period are the current grantee and any other potential applicants.

    The Secretary certifies that the proposed waiver and extension would not have a significant economic impact on these entities because the extension of an existing project period imposes minimal compliance costs, and the activities required to support the additional year of funding would not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This notice of proposed waiver and extension of the project period does not contain any information collection requirements.

    Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: February 22, 2017. Ruth E. Ryder, Delegated the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03810 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 111 Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; revision; additional comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service is revising its pending proposal to amend Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®), to introduce a newly proposed measurement and assessment procedure for evaluating address quality for mailers who enter eligible letter- and flat-size pieces of First-Class Mail® (FCM) and USPS Marketing MailTM (formerly Standard Mail®) that meet the requirements for Basic or Full-Service mailings. In addition, the Postal Service is proposing to extend free Address Change Service (ACSTM) to mailers who enter qualifying mailpieces.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before March 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. If sending comments by email, include the name and address of the commenter and send to [email protected], with a subject line of “Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process.” Faxed comments are not accepted.

    You may inspect and photocopy all written comments, by appointment only, at the USPS® Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., 11th Floor North, Washington, DC 20260. These records are available for review on Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.-4 p.m., by calling 202-268-2906.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Heather Dyer, USPS Mail Entry, Phone: (207) 482-7217, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On December 23, 2014, the Postal Service published a notice of proposed rulemaking (79 FR 76930-76931) to add a process for measuring address quality. In response to that proposed rule, the mailing industry provided many valuable comments, which prompted the Postal Service to issue a revised proposed rule on July 6, 2016 (81 FR 43965-43971). In response to the revised proposed rule, the Postal Service again received valuable feedback from the mailing industry. The Postal Service has elected to issue a second revised proposed rule in order to further clarify our proposal, more thoroughly respond to mailer comments, and clearly outline the ways in which the proposal has changed since the revised notice of proposed rulemaking was published on July 6, 2016.

    Implementation of this proposed rulemaking will require action by Postal Service management and the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC). In an effort to facilitate compliance with the requirements set forth in the DMM, the full details of the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, including step-by-step instructions and explanatory charts, would be set forth in Publication 6850, Publication for Streamlined Mail Acceptance for Letters and Flats, and made available at https://postalpro.usps.com/node/581.

    The Postal Service continues to look for opportunities to work with mailers to improve address quality and reduce undeliverable-as-addressed (UAA) mail. We have developed a newly proposed procedure, the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, to measure address quality pertaining to move-related changes. This proposed process would allow the Postal Service to provide valuable feedback to mailers who enter eligible letter- and flat-size pieces of FCM and USPS Marketing Mail that meet the requirements for Basic or Full-Service mailings.

    The Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process would utilize a scorecard for mailers that conveys information on address hygiene as well as Move Update quality. The scorecard provides mailers with results of change-of-address (COA) verifications along with details about mailpieces that are UAA.

    As announced in the proposed rule of July 6, 2016, to encourage the further adoption of Full-Service and to increase the number of mailers that receive address quality information, the Postal Service is proposing to extend free ACS to mailers who enter qualifying Basic automation and non-automation mailpieces; mailpieces that meet the criteria of the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process; and mailers who meet a Full-Service threshold of 95 percent along with other requirements that are outlined later in this document. Although the basic requirements for mailers to receive free ACS have not changed, as discussed below under the updated subheadings Address Change Service and Correction Notifications and Summary of Industry Comments and Postal Service Responses, the Postal Service has made minor revisions to the free ACS proposal.

    The Postal Service has not changed the proposal as it pertains to Periodicals. Because some mailers who enter Periodicals today could potentially be charged for manual address correction notices on mailpieces using a Full-Service ACS Service Type IDentifier (STID), the Postal Service is proposing that mailers who enter Full-Service Periodicals mailings using a Full-Service ACS STID would not be required to pay for or receive manual address correction notices, unless they are requested by the mailer. Although mailers who enter Periodicals would be provided with address quality data, these mailpieces would not be subject to the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process.

    The following updated subheadings build upon the information furnished in the preamble to the proposed rule of July 6, 2016, and are intended to provide a current snapshot of the evolving Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment proposal.

    Terms (Updated)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Mailpieces that are priced as single-piece.

    • Mailpieces that qualify for the Legal Restraint method.

    • Mailpieces without the documentation submitted electronically.

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

    Summary of Industry Comments and Postal Service Responses (Updated)

    The Postal Service appreciates all of the comments that were provided by the mailing industry in response to the original proposed rule of December 23, 2014, and the revised proposal of July 6, 2016. This valuable feedback was used to establish this further revised proposal. These comments and replies can serve as frequently asked questions (FAQs) to help clarify the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. The mailers' comments and corresponding Postal Service responses are outlined as follows:

    Mailer Comment

    In the proposed rule, the Postal Service mentioned multiple times that Periodicals would not be part of the Move Update requirement. This makes sense since Periodicals already have a requirement to receive address corrections. However, Periodicals appear to be removed from getting free ACS for the small portion of their mailing that may be Basic. Would the small portion of Periodicals mailing entered as Basic, which meet all of the other requirements, receive free ACS as the other classes of mail mentioned?

    Postal Service Response

    No; the portions of Periodicals mailings entered under Basic instead of the Full-Service would not be eligible for ACS without an associated fee.

    Mailer Comment

    For the last few years, many Periodicals mailers have been going through an ACS reconciliation process. This was implemented and administered by the National Customer Support Center (NCSC) to prevent Periodicals mailers from being charged for traditional ACS that should have been scanned as Full-Service at no charge. Would this process remain in place with the new proposal?

    Postal Service Response

    The Reconciliation process would be discontinued with implementation of the proposed process. Those Periodicals mailers using a Full-Service ACS STID would continue to receive their ACS notices at no charge.

    Mailer Comment

    It was mentioned that mailers who enter mailings of Full-Service Periodicals using a Full-Service ACS STID would not be required to receive or pay for manual address correction notices unless they are requested. Please provide clarification. We don't want to pay for something that we did not request; however, we still need to receive the notice if it is not being sent to us electronically. If we don't receive the manual notice about a correction, then the next issue of the publication would still go to the incorrect address. Should this be worded as “. . . will not be required to pay for manual address corrections unless they are requested.”?

    Postal Service Response

    Only mailpieces for which mailers request and receive manual ACS notices would be charged the applicable fee.

    Mailer Comment

    The Postal Service is proposing to charge the eDoc submitter, if they exceed the address quality error threshold. However, we feel that the Mail Owner should incur the charge since the eDoc submitter is rarely responsible for maintaining address quality. Additionally, since the purpose is to reduce UAA mail, the process of rolling all Move Update errors in an entire month may not identify those Mail Owners who are challenged with maintaining quality address files.

    Postal Service Response

    As is the case with the current verification processes, the Postal Service proposes to charge the eDoc submitter for all verification failures. Data showing the source of errors by the Mail Owner would be available.

    Mailer Comment

    We disagree with the proposed process that would allow the eDoc submitter to charge assessments to any permit during that month without the owner of the permit having the ability to dispute the charges.

    Postal Service Response

    At this time, the eDoc submitter has the option to request review of an assessment. Upon payment of an assessment the Mail Owner whose permit is used receives email notification of the transaction. Mail quality data are available throughout the month, allowing eDoc submitters and Mail Owners to discuss assessments before and during the 10-day mailer review period.

    Mailer Comment

    The proposed rule indicated that the error threshold under consideration is 0.5 percent; however, the assessment amount for each non-compliant mailpiece beyond the threshold was not identified. It was indicated that “The Address Quality Assessment Fee is currently pending management and regulatory approval.” When will the assessment details be communicated?

    Postal Service Response

    The assessment charge will be communicated in the filing at the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC).

    Mailer Comment

    There is some concern regarding the timing of the reconciliations and incoming address corrections. Since the reconciliation does not occur until the 10th of the month for the previous month's activity, a mailer would be unable to determine whether an assessment would apply, if the errors occurred relatively close to the threshold. In addition, after the notification is sent on the 10th of the month, the eDoc submitter has only 10 days to research and dispute an assessment. The amount of research required to validate an error can be extensive, and this narrow window of opportunity may not be sufficient.

    Postal Service Response

    At this time, the Postal Service does not propose changing the review period of 10 business days. Mail quality and estimated assessment data are available throughout the month, which allows eDoc submitters and Mail Owners to review assessments before and during the 10-day mailer review period.

    Mailer Comment

    Mailers need clarification on the role and engagement of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) with regard to use of the Mailer Scorecard. Please outline the process that details how the USPIS can no longer assess mailers for non-compliance without first validating the scorecard/performance results and working with the Postal Service prior to discussing compliance with the mailer. Mailers should not be put at risk of double jeopardy between the Postal Service and USPIS. This is a critical concern that needs to be addressed.

    Postal Service Response

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

    Mailer Comment

    This proposal for a 95 percent Full-Service threshold for ACS (Address Change Services) might not drive the behavior the Postal Service is looking for. Overall, the goal should be working to improve the mail quality results and making it simpler for mailers to automate address quality improvements that would help both mailers and the Postal Service. The Postal Service is making this more complicated than needed.

    This threshold proposal increases complexity and would add an unnecessary burden on the Postal Service to support the administrative costs for explaining what is and isn't free. It would also put an extra burden on mail service providers and Mail Owners in managing their overhead. The Postal Service previously announced that free ACS would be offered to customers for all basic and nonautomation rates. The Postal Service should offer the ACS service for free to continue to promote the use of ACS and improve overall address quality. Establishing a threshold is the wrong approach to “On-Board” mailers to Full-Service and does not help drive toward greater address quality. At the very least, another approach to consider is that once a mailer reaches 95 percent eligible they are qualified going forward. Tying eligibility to the data from the previous month is overly complex and problematic as well.

    Postal Service Response

    We have re-evaluated this process and revised the proposal accordingly. Once a mailer qualifies for free ACS for basic automation and nonautomation pieces by reaching 95 percent Full-Service, ACS information would be provided for free on all qualifying pieces. We would then review compliance on a quarterly basis and provide notification if a mailer would be removed from the program for falling below the threshold. Once the 95 percent threshold is met again, free ACS information would be provided in the next calendar month.

    Mailer Comment

    Please outline the process for establishing and changing thresholds. Changes to the thresholds could have a significant financial impact on mailers, so it is important to clarify and understand this process across all parties.

    Postal Service Response

    The Postal Service sets and revises error thresholds through a periodic statistical analysis of quality for all mailings. The Postal Service has committed to providing at least 90 days of notice prior to changing a threshold.

    Mailer Comment

    Changes are needed on the actual scorecard that makes it clearer to mailers whether they could be at risk for ACS charges. The Postal Service should add a yes/no indicator for free ACS eligibility on the scorecard.

    Postal Service Response

    The Postal Service will evaluate adding this indicator to the Mailer Scorecard as a future enhancement.

    Mailer Comment

    Please clarify which IMb Basic pieces would qualify for free ACS. What is required for uniqueness for the data provisioning? The Postal Service has IMb Basic mail as well as Basic non-automation pricing for postage. The Postal Service needs to further clarify their reference to Basic mail as it is impacted by free ACS.

    Postal Service Response

    IMb Basic mailings would be eligible for no-fee ACS along with non-automation mailpieces. However, the mailpieces must meet all of the following requirements:

    Bear a unique IMb printed on the mailpiece;

    Include a Full-Service or OneCode ACS STID in the IMb;

    Include the unique IMb in eDoc;

    Be sent by an eDoc submitter that provides accurate Mail Owner identification in eDoc, and;

    Be sent by an eDoc submitter entering more than 95 percent of eligible volume as Full-Service.

    Mailer Comment

    We propose that the Postal Service should create a STID that mailers can use if they are above the threshold, so if they dip below the threshold they would not be provided with data and charged.

    Postal Service Response

    At this time, the Postal Service will not be introducing a STID for mailers who do or do not qualify for no-fee ACS.

    Mailer Comment

    The Postal Service needs to clarify how the ACS data would be provisioned when single-piece and presort mail is free over the 95 percent threshold. The process is not clear and could create a potential Move Update compliance issue for mailers using ACS through Full-Service if the data is not provisioned to them when a mailer is below the threshold.

    Postal Service Response

    This data would be available through either the Full-Service ACS data feed in PostalOne! ® or through Single Source ACS. Full-Service ACS data through PostalOne! is provisioned to the Mail Owner identified in eDoc or the established delegate. SingleSource ACS is available for mailers that wish to receive all ACS notices, subject to the appropriate fees for notices provided on mail that does not qualify for the Full-Service discounts and benefits. SingleSource ACS data is provisioned to the Mail Owner identified in the IMb or the established delegate.

    Mailer Comment

    Please outline the fees associated with COA assessments. Mailers need to understand the specific risk or potential business impact.

    Postal Service Response

    The Move Update assessment charge under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process will be communicated in the PRC filing.

    Mailer Comment

    What is the appeal procedure if a mailer does not agree with a BME assessment? How does this change using the Census method?

    Postal Service Response

    Mailers may appeal postage assessments by following the dispute process that is outlined in the current Guide to Postage Assessment available on PostalPro at: http://beta.postalpro.usps.com/node/847.

    Mailer Comment

    Mailers utilizing National Change of Address Linkage System (NCOALink®) End-User licenses have only 18 months of data and not 48 months of data when using NCOALink. Does this put End-User licensees at a disadvantage? Confirm the time period for the data used in the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. If it is not 18 months or less, mailers utilizing NCOALink End-User licenses would be at a disadvantage.

    Postal Service Response

    Move Update errors are generated only for COAs that are between 95 days and 18 months. A COA over 18 months old disadvantages End-User licensees because it generates a Nixie notice for the sender.

    Mailer Comment

    It appears that NCOALink and ACS are not in sync. What reconciliation of files, processes, and addresses would occur between NCOALink and ACS?

    Postal Service Response

    The COA data for NCOALink and ACS are from the same source (the moving customer), and they are in sync. If the mailer has a record with a name or address that cannot be matched to the addressee's COA request, the update may not be provided via NCOALink but may be available through ACS. These scenarios are encompassed within the threshold determined for Move Update errors.

    Mailer Comment

    The error tolerance applied to mailings should be based on the average accuracy observed through census-based verification over an extended period of time. Accordingly, the validity of the proposed 0.5 percent error tolerance should be measured against this standard before being implemented, and should be re-evaluated annually.

    Postal Service Response

    The Postal Service currently sets and revises error tolerances through a periodic statistical analysis of quality for all mailings. The Postal Service has committed to providing at least 90 days of notice prior to changing a threshold.

    Mailer Comment

    The Postal Service should clarify whether the eDoc submitter would be provided piece-level data for all COA errors, not just the first 1,000 records. To the extent the data are driving the fee assessments; the data must be reliable, timely, and comprehensive.

    Postal Service Response

    Piece-level data for all COA errors is available through the bulk data request process. The Postal Service currently provides error information on a weekly and monthly basis upon request.

    Mailer Comment

    The Postal Service should also clarify how the newly proposed Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process would handle mailpieces that are processed using the NCOALink Mail Processing Equipment (MPE) enabled Multiline Optical Character Reader (MLOCR). Specifically, the Postal Service should clarify that COA matches that are not identified by an MPE solution would be excluded from the error threshold calculation for the purpose of determining the assessment fee.

    Postal Service Response

    Piece-level data for all COA errors is available through the bulk data request process. The Postal Service currently provides error information on a weekly and monthly basis upon request.

    Mailer Comment

    The Postal Service should also clarify how it would reconcile different results from NCOALink, NCOALink MPE, and ACS. Currently, those systems do not always return the same results; it would be unfair to charge mailers and mail service providers for COA records that were not identified by a USPS-approved Move Update methodology. The Postal Service should also clarify how COAs older than 18 months would be treated.

    Postal Service Response

    The COA data for NCOALink and ACS are from the same source (the moving customer), and they are in sync. If the mailer has a record with a name or address that is unable to match to the addressee's COA request, the updated information may not be provided via NCOALink but may be available through ACS. These scenarios are encompassed within the threshold determined for Move Update errors.

    Mailer Comment

    The Postal Service should clarify what are the database address update requirements for NCOALink MPE with the new census method. NCOALink MPE Mail Owners are currently not required (though they are encouraged) to update their addresses in the database. This is because each address is run through this Move Update process and updated above the clear zone and in the IMb before every mailing. It would be impossible for every small mailer that uses a commingling service to update their addresses from COA data. It would also cause significant operational costs for the MSP to separately profile every Mail Owner while processing, because Full-Service standards only require profiling for Mail Owners over 5,000 pieces.

    Postal Service Response

    At this time, the Postal Service does not plan to change the established requirements on database address updates for NCOALink MPE.

    Mailer Comment

    In the paragraph labeled Address Change Service and Correction Notifications, the Postal Service stated that any address change information that does not qualify for free ACS would be provided through SingleSource while there is no similar comment in the actual DMM language. Will the Postal Service continue to support returning all the current methods of address correction since our mutual clients do not all subscribe to SingleSource?

    Postal Service Response

    This information would be available through either the Full-Service ACS data feed in PostalOne! or through SingleSource ACS. Full-Service ACS data through PostalOne! is provided to the Mail Owner identified in eDoc or the established delegate. SingleSource ACS is available for mailers that wish to receive all ACS notices, subject to the appropriate fees for notices provided on mail that does not qualify for the Full-Service discounts and benefits. SingleSource ACS data is provided to the Mail Owner identified in the IMb or the established delegate.

    Mailer Comment

    Can you clarify how “or Current Resident” affects the electronic flagging of pieces in the census method? Our expectation is that if a mailpiece is addressed to “John Doe or Current Resident” with a valid physical address, that even if a COA would have been generated for John Doe at that address the piece would NOT be flagged as a Move Update failure.

    Postal Service Response

    When a mailpiece is processed through Postal Automated Redirection System (PARS)/Computerized Forward System (CFS) as UAA, it would be logged as a Nixie not a COA error. PARS normally identifies the “or Current Resident” wording in the address block and returns it to the carrier with a label stating, “Mailpiece to be delivered as addressed.”

    Background (Updated)

    The Postal Service requires mailers to update address-related changes through the Move Update requirements process. Currently, Move Update compliance is measured at the mailing level using the Mail Evaluation Readability and Lookup INstrument (MERLIN®) as follows:

    At the point of acceptance, mailings are randomly selected for address quality assessment, and samples of the selected mailings are processed through MERLIN.

    PostalOne! sends an electronic version of the mailer's Postage Statement Message (PSM) to the MERLIN Maintenance and Operations Database (MMOD).

    MMOD routes the PSM to the appropriate site and MERLIN machine.

    Postal Service personnel generate a verification report, and the report produces a set of results that are routed back to the MMOD system.

    MERLIN generates a report that provides the details on mail quality.

    MMOD sends an Address Quality Validation System (AQVS) message-stream of addresses, names, and ZIP Codes to the NCSC for Move Update processing.

    MERLIN captures the address information from the mailpiece and electronically sends each record to the NCSC to see if there is a COA on file.

    The piece is identified as an error if the mailer did not use the updated address indicated in the COA on file, and the COA “filing date” is between 95 days and 18 months of the postage statement finalization date.

    MMOD sends mail verification results (whether the mailer passed) to the PostalOne! system.

    NCSC processes the AQVS data stream and sends the results to PostalOne! which addresses the Move Update failures.

    PostalOne! uses the mail verification and NCSC Move Update results to formulate the final charges.

    In 2013, the Postal Service introduced the concept of measuring and assessing mail quality for mailings over a calendar month for Full-Service Intelligent Mail, electronic induction (eInduction), and Seamless Acceptance. Since August 2014, Postal Service technology has further evolved so that, when mailers use an IMb and submit their postage statements and supporting documentation electronically, data collection scans from MPE can be used to evaluate the address and move-related quality of mail being processed. Accordingly, the Postal Service is using this technology as an alternative to measure and evaluate the quality of mailings.

    Future Process (Updated)

    The Postal Service has revised its earlier proposal, and is now proposing to replace the existing MERLIN Move Update verification process with the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. In other words, MERLIN Move Update verification would terminate upon implementation of the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. As previously proposed, the new method would apply to mailing of letter- and flat-size pieces FCM and USPS Marketing Mail that meet the requirements for Basic and Full-Service mailings.

    In addition, the revised proposal of July 6, 2016, has been modified to reflect the fact that qualifying mailings would still be required to document Move Update compliance methods on a postage statement, mail.dat, or mail.xml once the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process is in place. Documents demonstrating the method used should be available upon request by the Postal Service, and mailers would continue to use a Move Update method in order to remain below the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold, expedite the delivery of mail by avoiding mail forwarding, and increase the security and privacy of sensitive customer information.

    The proposal has not changed with regard to Periodicals; mailers who enter Periodicals would be provided with address quality data, but the Move Update mailers of Periodicals would not be verified under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, because the Move Update Standard in DMM 602.5 does not extend to Periodicals.

    The Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process is a much more robust method to verify address quality, and would generate several benefits, including enhanced mailing visibility and improved mail quality metrics on all mailings entered within a calendar month, rather than sampled mailings. The Postal Service has not changed the overall method for measuring all applicable mailings within a calendar month under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, which would be accomplished according to the following process:

    Mailpieces would be scanned on MPE.

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

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

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

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

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

    The Postal Service would assess the relevant eDoc submitter CRID the Move Update Assessment Charge for each mailpiece with a COA error beyond the threshold.

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

    Move Update Assessment Charge (Updated)

    Because the new method of verification would replace the MERLIN method, the charge would still be termed the Move Update assessment charge, and not renamed the address quality assessment fee. When the ratio of qualifying mailpieces with COA errors to total qualifying mailpieces submitted in the calendar month by the eDoc submitter exceeds the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold, the Move Update assessment charge would apply to the mailpieces with COA errors above the threshold. The Move Update assessment charge will be communicated to the public upon filing with the PRC.

    Mailer Scorecard (Updated)

    The Mailer Scorecard is currently available to mailers, and this report provides data that allow mailers to gauge address quality on their mailpieces. Mailers would be charged only for mailpieces above the errors threshold after the PRC review is completed and the Postal Service implements the final rule.

    Criteria (Updated)

    The Postal Service has retained the proposed criteria to qualify for verification under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. Mailers would be verified under the process when they:

    Submit any mailpieces during a calendar month as Full-Service;

    Use a unique Basic or Full-Service IMb on mailings of letter- and flat-size pieces for FCM and USPS Marketing Mail, and;

    Use eDoc to submit mailing information.

    Specifications (Updated)

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

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

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

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

    Mailpieces authorized for the Legal Restraint alternate Move Update method (See Guide to Move Update) would be excluded at the CRID level of the Mail Owner, during a short transition period. After the transition period, an established MID would be identified for use on mailpieces that fall under the Legal Restraint method.

    Mailpiece Results (Updated)

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

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

    Address Change Service and Correction Notifications (Updated)

    As announced in the proposed rule of July 6, 2016, to encourage the further adoption of Full-Service, the Postal Service is proposing to extend free Full-Service ACS to qualifying Basic automation and non-automation mailpieces for mailers who enter at least 95 percent of their mail as Full-Service in a calendar month. The Basic mailpieces must be prepared as follows:

    Bear a unique IMb printed on the mailpiece;

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

    Include the unique IMb in eDoc, and;

    Be sent by an eDoc submitter providing accurate Mail Owner identification in eDoc.

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

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

    The revised proposal has not changed with regard to Periodicals; mailers who enter mailings of Full-Service Periodicals would no longer be required to receive and pay for manual address corrections when a Full-Service ACS STID is used. However, these mailers might elect to receive and pay for manual address correction notifications by including the appropriate STID within the IMb.

    List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111

    Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.

    Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comments on the following proposed revisions to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.

    Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 111—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.

    2. Revise the following sections of Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) as follows: Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) 507 Mailer Services 1.0 Treatment of Mail 1.5 Treatment for Ancillary Services by Class of Mail 1.5.2 Periodicals

    [Revise 507.1.5.2c by changing the last word of the sentence to “received” as follows:]

    c. Address correction service is mandatory for all Periodicals publications, and the address correction service fee must be paid for each notice received.

    4.0 Address Correction Services 4.2 Address Change Service (ACS) 4.2.2 Service Options

    [Revise 507.4.2.2 by modifying the introductory sentence and adding a new item “d” as follows:]

    ACS offers four levels of service, as follows:

    d. A Full-Service option available to mailings of First-Class Mail automation cards, letters, and flats; USPS Marketing Mail automation letters and flats; USPS Marketing Mail Carrier Route, High Density, and Saturation letters; Periodicals Outside County barcoded or Carrier Route letters and flats; Periodicals In-County automation or Carrier Route letters and flats; and Bound Printed Matter Presorted, non-DDU barcoded flats. Mailers who present at least 95 percent of their eligible First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail volume as Full-Service in a calendar month would receive electronic address correction notices for their qualifying Basic automation and non-automation First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail pieces, at the address correction fee for pieces eligible for the Full-Service Intelligent Mail option as described in DMM 705.23.0 for future billing cycles. The Basic First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail mailpieces must:

    1. Bear a unique IMb printed on the mailpiece;

    2. Include a Full-Service or OneCode ACS STID in the IMb;

    3. Include the unique IMb in eDoc;

    4. Be sent by an eDoc submitter providing accurate Mail Owner identification in eDoc, and;

    5. Be sent by an eDoc submitter maintaining 95 percent Full-Service compliance to remain eligible for this service and undergo periodic Postal Service re-evaluation.

    4.2.8 Address Correction Service Fee

    [Revise 507.4.2.8 by deleting the old language and replacing with new language as follows:]

    ACS fees would be assessed as follows:

    a. The applicable fee for address correction is charged for each separate notification of address correction or the reason for nondelivery provided, unless an exception applies.

    b. Once the ACS fee charges have been invoiced, any unpaid fees for the prior invoice cycle (month) would be assessed an annual administrative fee of 10 percent for the overdue amount.

    c. Mailers who present at least 95 percent of their eligible First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail volume as Full-Service in a calendar month would receive electronic address correction notices for their qualifying Basic automation and non-automation First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail mailpieces, as specified in 4.2.2. The electronic address correction notices are charged at the applicable Full-Service address correction fee for all future billing cycles.

    600 Basic Mailing Standards for All Mailing Services 602 Addressing 5.0 Move Update Standards

    [Revise 602.5.3 by deleting former contents and replacing with new title and contents as follows:]

    5.3 Move Update Verification

    Mailers who submit any Full-Service volume in a calendar month will be verified pursuant to the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process beginning in the next calendar month. First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail letter and flat-size mailpieces with addresses that have not been updated in accordance with the Move Update Standard will be subject to the Move Update assessment charge, if submitted via eDoc with unique Basic or Full-Service IMbs. Supporting details are described in Publication 6850, Publication for Streamlined Mail Acceptance for Letters and Flats, available at www.postalpro.usps.com.

    [Revise 602.5.4 as follows:]

    5.4 Mailer Certification

    The mailer's signature on the postage statement or electronic confirmation during eDoc submission certifies that the Move Update standard has been met for the address records including each address in the corresponding mailing presented to the USPS.

    700 Special Standards 705 Advanced Preparation and Special Postage Payment Systems 23.0 Full-Service Automation Option 23.5 Additional Standards 23.5.2 Address Correction Notices

    [Revise 705.23.5.2a as follows:]

    a. Address correction notices would be provided at the applicable Full-Service address correction fee for letters and flats eligible for the Full-Service option, except for USPS Marketing Mail ECR flats, BPM flats dropshipped to DDUs, or BPM carrier route flats. Mailers who present at least 95 percent of their eligible First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail volume as Full-Service in a calendar month would receive electronic address correction notices for their qualifying Basic automation and non-automation First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing mailpieces charged at the applicable Full-Service address correction fee for future billing cycles. The Basic automation and non-automation First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail mailpieces must:

    1. Bear a unique IMb printed on the mailpiece.

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

    3. Include the unique IMb in eDoc.

    4. Be sent by an eDoc submitter providing accurate Mail Owner identification in eDoc.

    5. Be sent by an eDoc submitter maintaining 95 percent Full-Service compliance to remain eligible for this service and undergo periodic USPS re-evaluation.

    We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes, if our proposal is adopted.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03723 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Chapter I [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0763; FRL-9959-74] Fluoride Chemicals in Drinking Water; TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for Agency Response AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Petition; reasons for Agency response.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces the availability of EPA's response to a petition it received on November 23, 2016, under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The TSCA section 21 petition was received from the Fluoride Action Network, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, and other individual petitioners. The TSCA section 21 petition requested that EPA exercise its authority under TSCA section 6 to “prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies.” After careful consideration, EPA has denied the TSCA section 21 petition for the reasons discussed in this document.

    DATES:

    EPA's response to this TSCA section 21 petition was signed February 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Darlene Leonard, National Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0516; fax number: (202) 566-0470; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to individuals or organizations interested in drinking water and drinking water additives, including fluoride. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I access information about this petition?

    The docket for this TSCA section 21 petition, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0763, is available online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. Six binders containing copies of references were submitted along with the petition (Ref. 1). Those binders are not available electronically in the docket but may be reviewed in the Public Reading Room. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. TSCA Section 21 A. What is a TSCA section 21 petition?

    Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 2620), any person can petition EPA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under TSCA sections 4, 6, or 8 or an order under TSCA sections 4, 5(e), or 5(f). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth the facts that are claimed to establish the necessity for the action requested. EPA is required to grant or deny the petition within 90 days of its filing. If EPA grants the petition, the Agency must promptly commence an appropriate proceeding that is “in accordance” with the underlying TSCA authority. If EPA denies the petition, the Agency must publish its reasons for the denial in the Federal Register. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(3). A petitioner may commence a civil action in a U.S. district court to compel initiation of the requested rulemaking proceeding within 60 days of either a denial or the expiration of the 90-day period. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4).

    B. What criteria apply to a decision on a TSCA section 21 petition?

    TSCA section 21(b)(1) requires that the petition “set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary” to issue the rule or order requested. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21 implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that apply to the requested action. In addition, TSCA section 21 establishes standards a court must use to decide whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaking in the event of a lawsuit filed by the petitioner after denial of a TSCA section 21 petition. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA has relied on the standards in TSCA section 21 (and those in the provisions under which action has been requested) to evaluate this TSCA section 21 petition.

    III. TSCA Section 6

    Of particular relevance to this TSCA section 21 petition are the legal standards regarding TSCA section 6(a) rules. These standards were significantly altered in 2016 by the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,” Public Law 114-182 (2016), which amended TSCA. One of the key features of the new law is the requirement that EPA now systematically prioritize and assess existing chemicals, and manage identified risks. Through a combination of new authorities, a risk-based safety standard, mandatory deadlines for action, and minimum throughput requirements, TSCA effectively creates a “pipeline” by which EPA will conduct review and management of existing chemicals. This new pipeline—from prioritization to risk evaluation to risk management (when warranted)—is intended to drive forward steady progress on the backlog of existing chemical substances left largely unaddressed by the original law. (Ref. 2).

    In the initial phase of the review pipeline, EPA is to screen a chemical substance for its priority status, propose a designation as either high or low priority, and then issue a final priority designation within one year of starting the screening process. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(1)(C). If the substance is high priority, EPA must initiate a risk evaluation for that substance. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(C). EPA must define the scope of the risk evaluation within six months of starting, 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(D), and complete the risk evaluation within 3 to 3.5 years. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(G). If EPA concludes that a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk, EPA must propose a risk management rule under TSCA section 6(a) within one year and finalize that rule after another year, with limited provision for extension. 15 U.S.C. 2605(c). As EPA completes risk evaluations, EPA is to designate replacement high-priority substances, on a continuing basis. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(2)(C) and (b)(3)(C).

    In general, to promulgate a rule under TSCA section 6(a), EPA must first determine “in accordance with section 6(b)(4)(A) that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture . . . presents an unreasonable risk.” 15 U.S.C. 2605(a). TSCA section (b)(4)(A) is part of the risk evaluation process whereby EPA must determine “whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,” and thus, whether a rule under TSCA section 6(a) is necessary. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A). In particular, EPA must conduct this evaluation “without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Administrator, under the conditions of use.” Id. Unless EPA establishes an exemption under TSCA section 6(g) (whereby certain unreasonable risks may be allowed to persist for a limited period) or EPA is addressing a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substance as set forth in TSCA section 6(h), the standard for an adequate rule under TSCA section 6(a) is that it regulates “so that the chemical substance or mixture no longer presents” unreasonable risks under the conditions of use. 15 U.S.C. 2605(a).

    Prior to the 2016 amendment of TSCA, EPA completed risk assessments that were limited to selected uses of chemical substances. The amended TSCA authorizes EPA to issue TSCA section 6 rules that are not comprehensive of the conditions of use, so long as they are consistent with the scope of such pre-amendment risk assessments. 15 U.S.C. 2625(l)(4). But EPA has interpreted the amended TSCA as requiring that forthcoming risk evaluations encompass all manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal activities that the Administrator determines are intended, known or reasonably foreseen. (Ref. 2, p. 7565). EPA interprets the scope of post-risk-evaluation rulemaking under TSCA section 6(a) in a parallel fashion: While risk management rules for a certain subset of the conditions of use may be promulgated ahead of rulemaking for the remaining conditions of use, rules covering the complete set of conditions of use must be promulgated by the deadlines specified in TSCA section 6(c). 15 U.S.C. 2605(c). While EPA has authority under TSCA section 6(a) to establish requirements that apply only to “a particular use,” the restriction of just one particular use would not constitute an adequate risk management rule unless that particular use were the only reason that the chemical substance presented an unreasonable risk.

    TSCA section 21(b)(4)(B) provides the standard for judicial review should EPA deny a request for rulemaking under TSCA section 6(a): “If the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court by a preponderance of the evidence that . . . the chemical substance or mixture to be subject to such rule . . . presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation, under the conditions of use,” the court shall order the EPA Administrator to initiate the requested action. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). EPA notes that bills preceding the final amendment to TSCA retained language in section 21 that resembled the pre-amendment criteria for rulemaking under section 6. Compare 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B)(ii) (2015) (amended 2016), 15 U.S.C. 2605(a) (2015) (amended 2016), S. Rep. 114-67 at 135 (Ref. 3), and H.R. Rep. No. 114-176 at 81 (Ref. 4). But the effect of the revision in the final bill is to align the standard for judicial review of a TSCA section 21 petition with the standard for EPA's preparation of risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A). Consistent with these revisions, EPA concludes that Congress intended for a petition to set forth facts that would enable EPA to complete a risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b).

    In light of this, EPA interprets TSCA section 21 as requiring the petition to present a scientific basis for action that is reasonably comparable, in its quality and scope, to a risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b). This requirement includes addressing the full set of conditions of use for a chemical substance and thereby describing an adequate rule under TSCA section 6(a)—one that would reduce the risks of the chemical substance “so that the chemical substance or mixture no longer presents” unreasonable risks under all conditions of use. 15 U.S.C. 2605(a). Specifically, EPA interprets section 21(a)—which authorizes petitions “to initiate a proceeding for the issuance . . . of a rule under . . . section 6”—as authorizing petitions for rules that would comply with the requirements of sections 6(a) and 6(c).

    EPA recognizes that information on a single condition of use could, in certain instances, suffice to demonstrate that a chemical substance, as a whole, presents an unreasonable risk. Nonetheless, EPA concludes that such information does not fulfill a petitioner's burden to justify “a rule under [TSCA section 6],” under TSCA section 21, since the information would merely justify a subset of an adequate rule. To issue an adequate rule under section 6, EPA would need to conduct a catch-up risk evaluation addressing all the conditions of use not addressed by the petition, and either determine that those conditions do not contribute to the unreasonable risk or enlarge the scope of the rule to address those further conditions of use. See 15 U.S.C. 2605(a). To issue this rule within the time required by section 6(c), EPA would have to proceed without the benefit of the combined 4 to 4.5-year period that TSCA section 6(b) would ordinarily afford EPA (i.e., time to prioritize a chemical substance, conduct a careful review of all of its conditions of use, and receive the benefit of concurrent public comment). Additionally, before even initiating the prioritization process for a chemical substance, EPA would generally screen the chemical substance to determine whether the available hazard and exposure-related information are sufficient to allow EPA to complete both the prioritization and the risk evaluation processes. (Ref. 5).

    EPA's interpretation is most consonant with the review pipeline established in TSCA section 6. In particular, the prioritization process established in section 6(b) recognizes that a number of chemical substances may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment and charges EPA with prioritizing those that should be addressed first. EPA is required to have 10 chemical substances undergoing risk evaluation as of December 19, 2016, and must have a steady state of at least 20 high-priority substances undergoing risk evaluation by December 2019 (and as many as 10 substances nominated for risk evaluation by manufacturers). 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(2)(A), (B), 2605(b)(4)(E)(i). EPA is obligated to complete rulemakings to address any unreasonable risks identified in these risk evaluations within prescribed timeframes. 15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(1). These required activities will place considerable demands on EPA resources. Indeed, Congress carefully tailored the mandatory throughput requirements of TSCA section 6, based on its recognition of the limitations of EPA's capacity and resources, notwithstanding the sizeable number of chemical substances that will ultimately require review. Under this scheme, EPA does not believe that Congress intended to empower petitioners to promote chemicals of particular concern to them above other chemicals that may well present greater overall risk, and force completion of expedited risk evaluations and rulemakings on those chemicals, based on risks arising from individual uses.

    EPA recognizes that some members of the public may have safety concerns that are limited to a single condition of use for a chemical substance. But EPA's interpretation of TSCA section 21 does not deprive such persons of a meaningful opportunity to request that the Administrator proceed on their concerns. For example, such persons may submit a petition under the Administrative Procedure Act, requesting EPA to commence a “risk-based screening” of the chemical substance under TSCA section 6(b)(1)(A), motivated by their concern about a single condition of use.

    IV. Summary of the TSCA Section 21 Petition A. What action was requested?

    On November 23, 2016, a TSCA section 21 petition was submitted by the Fluoride Action Network, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, and the following individuals signing on behalf of themselves and their children: Audrey Adams of Renton, Washington, Jacqueline Denton of Asheville, North Carolina, Valerie Green of Silver Spring, Maryland, Kristin Lavelle of Berkeley, California, and Brenda Staudenmaier of Green Bay, Wisconsin (Ref. 1). The general object of the petition is to urge EPA “to protect the public and susceptible subpopulations from the neurotoxic risks of fluoride by banning the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water” (Ref. 1). The specific action sought is a rule, under TSCA section 6(a)(2), to “prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies.” However, such a restriction on the allowable use of fluoridation chemicals would actually be based on a rule under TSCA section 6(a)(5), not a rule under TSCA section 6(a)(2). In light of the discrepancy between the description of the rule sought and the cited authority, EPA interprets the petition as requesting both a TSCA section 6(a)(5) rule whereby the purposeful addition of any fluoridation chemical to a drinking water supply would be prohibited and a TSCA section 6(a)(2) rule whereby the manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce of any fluoridation chemical for such use would be prohibited.

    B. What support does the petition offer?

    The petition is focused on the potential for fluoride to have neurotoxic effects on humans; it cites numerous studies bearing on this issue. The petition contends that the purposeful fluoridation of drinking water presents an unreasonable risk to human health from neurotoxicity, and that a ban on this use of fluoridation chemicals is necessary to curtail this unreasonable risk. The following is a summary of the primary support given in the petition for this view:

    1. Fluoride neurotoxicity at levels relevant to U.S. population. The petition claims that fluoride poses neurotoxic risks to the U.S. population. The petition claims that the cited studies of fluoride-exposed human populations have consistently found neurotoxic effects (lower-than-average IQs) at water fluoride levels below the current Maximum Contaminant Level Goal of 4 mg/L set by EPA's Office of Water. The petition argues that the difference between the fluoride levels in the United States and the greater levels in rural China (where most of the cited IQ studies were conducted) is “lessen[ed]” by the abundance of fluoridated toothpaste in the U.S.

    2. Recent epidemiological studies corroborate neurotoxic risk in Western populations. The petition cites two studies from Western populations to attempt to corroborate the assertion that exposure to fluoride in drinking water presents unreasonable risks for neurotoxicity (Refs. 6 and 7).

    3. Neurotoxic risks supported by animal and cell studies. The petition argues that studies on both experimental animals and cell cultures are consistent with cited human research linking fluoride exposure with neurotoxic effects in humans.

    4. Susceptible subpopulations are at heightened risk. The petition argues that certain subpopulations (e.g., infants, the elderly, and persons with nutritional deficiencies, kidney disease or certain genetic predispositions) are more susceptible to fluoride neurotoxicity.

    5. RfD/RfC derivation and uncertainty factor application. The petition argues that EPA's 1998 Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment support the need to apply a 10-fold uncertainty factor in deriving an oral Reference Dose (RfD) or inhalation Reference Concentration (RfC).

    6. Benefits to public health. The petition bases, in part, its claim of unreasonable risk on the assertion that the fluoridation of drinking water confers little benefit to public health, relative to the alleged neurotoxic risks. The petition argues that since fluoride's primary benefit comes from topical contact with the teeth, there is little benefit from swallowing fluoride, in water or any other product. The petition argues that there is therefore “little justification” in exposing the public to “any risk” of fluoride neurotoxicity.

    7. Extent and magnitude of risk from fluoridation chemicals. The petition bases, in part, its claim of unreasonable risk on estimates of the extent and magnitude of risk posed to portions of the U.S. population living in areas where artificial fluoridation occurs.

    8. Consequences of eliminating use of fluoridation chemicals. The petition argues that the risks of fluoride exposure from fluoridated drinking water are unreasonable, in part, because they could be easily and cheaply eliminated, and because alternative products containing topical fluoride are widely available.

    9. Link to elevated blood lead levels. The petition argues that artificial fluoridation chemicals are linked with pipe corrosion and elevated blood lead levels. The petition interprets data in several studies as demonstrating an association between fluoridation chemicals and elevated blood lead levels.

    In addition to supplying the petition, on January 30, 2017, the petitioners also delivered an in-person oral presentation of their views (Ref. 8). At their oral presentation, petitioners reiterated the information already supplied in writing, and requested that EPA also consider an additional study that was not part of the petition (Ref. 9). EPA has discretion (but not an obligation) to consider extra-petition materials when evaluating a petition submitted under TSCA section 21. In cases where the petitioners themselves attempt to enlarge the scope of materials under review while EPA's petition review is pending, EPA exercises its discretion to consider or not consider the additional material based on whether the material was submitted early enough in EPA's petition review process to allow adequate evaluation of the study prior to the petition deadline, the relation of the late materials to materials already submitted. Given the particularly late submittal of the additional study, EPA conducted an abbreviated review of the study and found that the health concerns covered were substantially the same as those covered in other studies submitted with the petition. Based on this abbreviated review, EPA does not believe that the new study provided any new scientific grounds for granting the petition.

    V. Disposition of TSCA Section 21 Petition A. What was EPA's response?

    After careful consideration, EPA denied the TSCA section 21 petition, primarily because EPA concluded that the petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S. In judging the sufficiency of the petition, EPA considered whether the petition set forth facts that would enable EPA to complete a risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b).

    EPA also denied the petition on the independent grounds that the petition neither justified the regulation of fluoridation chemicals as a category, nor identified an adequate section 6 rule as the action sought. Rather than comprehensively addressing the conditions of use that apply to a particular chemical substance, the petition requests EPA to take action on a single condition of use (water fluoridation) that cuts across a category of chemical substances (fluoridation chemicals). A copy of the Agency's response, which consists of a letter to the petitioners, is available in the docket for this TSCA section 21 petition.

    B. What were EPA's reasons for this response?

    To take the actions under TSCA section 6 requested by the petitioners, EPA would need to make a determination of whether a chemical substance or substances present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. This section describes why the petitioners have not provided adequate and sufficient scientific information to make such a determination.

    1. Fluoride neurotoxicity at levels relevant to U.S. population. The petition ignores a number of basic data quality issues associated with the human studies it relies upon. Many of the human studies cited in the petition are cross-sectional in design, and are affected by antecedent-consequent bias. The antecedent-consequent bias means it cannot be determined whether the exposure came before or after the health effects, since both are evaluated at the same time. Cross-sectional studies are most useful for developing hypotheses about possible causal relationships between an exposure and a health effect, but are rarely suitable for the development of a dose-response relationship for risk assessment. These studies are most useful in supporting more robust epidemiological studies in which defined exposures can be linked quantitatively to an adverse outcome.

    The petition also does not properly account for the relatively poor quality of the exposure and effects data in the cited human studies (e.g., it appears to give all studies equivalent weight, regardless of their quality). When an association is suggested between an exposure and a disease outcome, the studies need to be assessed to determine whether the effect is truly because of exposure or if alternate explanations are possible. The way to do that is to adjust for potential confounders, such as diet, behavior, and socioeconomic status, in order to appropriately assess the real relationship between the exposures to a specific substance and health effects. In other words, when these confounding factors are potentially present, but not recognized or controlled for, it is not possible to attribute effects to the contaminant of concern (fluoride) as opposed to other factors or exposures. The evidence presented did not enable EPA to determine whether various confounding factors (e.g., nutritional deficiencies) were indeed placing particular subpopulations at a “heightened risk of fluoride neurotoxicity,” as alleged, because the evidence did not adequately account for the possibility that the confounding factors themselves, rather than concurrent fluoride exposure, were partly or wholly responsible for the health effects observed. Specific confounding factors or variables were noted by the National Research Council (NRC) (Ref. 10). They may include climate, drinking water intake, excessive dietary fluoride, low calcium intake, drinking water sources with fluctuating fluoride levels, and industrial pollution such as use of coal for domestic heating. These factors have the potential to confound efforts to identify a causal relationship between drinking water fluoride exposure and particular health effects, either by introducing additional, unaccounted for sources of fluoride exposure, by being associated with the pertinent health endpoint through some mechanism other than fluoride toxicity, or by directly affecting the health endpoint.

    The petition relies heavily on two meta-analyses which include human cross-sectional (Ref. 11) and case control (Ref. 19) studies. All of the studies listed in Table 1 of the petition were examined in detail by the 2012 Choi et al. study (Ref. 11) as part of their systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the possibility that fluoride exposure delays neurodevelopment in children. The Choi et al. analysis analyzes studies in which IQ was measured using various IQ tests, compares children of various fluoride exposure ranges without accounting for differences in susceptibility to fluoride by age, and used different exposure measures which only delineated between high and low exposure groups. A variety of measures of fluoride exposure were present across studies included in the Choi et al. study, including levels of fluoride in drinking water, observed dental fluorosis, coal burning in houses (i.e., air fluoride levels), and urine fluoride. Despite this disparate collection of types of measurements, all exposure measures were treated equally in the analysis (Ref. 11, Table 1). The authors of the analysis identified a variety of data quality issues associated with this collection of studies. For example, they recognized that several of the populations studied had fluoride exposures from sources other than drinking water (e.g., coal burning; Refs. 13-15); they therefore controlled for this confounding factor by excluding such studies from their analysis. Co-exposures to other potentially neurotoxic chemicals (e.g., iodine) (Refs. 16-18) and arsenic (Refs. 19-22) were also recognized and accounted for in the Choi et al. analysis to understand confounding by these factors. Yet the petitioners include such studies in making their assertion that fluoride is neurotoxic, but have not indicated any attempts to control for the confounding factors. Choi et al. also noted that basic information such as the study subjects' sex and parental education was missing in 80 percent of the studies and household income was missing in 93 percent of studies; they stated that they could not therefore control for these co-variables in their analysis. Consideration of these confounding factors and their impact on the applicability of these studies in a risk assessment context is evident in the authors' discussion. The authors caution readers that “our review cannot be used to derive an exposure limit, because the actual exposures of the individual children are not known” and they are measured in their conclusions (i.e., “our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children's neurodevelopment”) (Ref. 11). The authors indicate that “further research should formally evaluate dose-response relationships based on individual-level measures of exposure over time, including more precise prenatal exposure assessment and more extensive standardized measures of neurobehavioral performance, in addition to improving assessment and control of potential confounders” (Ref. 11). EPA agrees with the conclusions by Choi et al. (Ref. 11) that the studies included in Table 1 of the petition are unsuitable for evaluating levels of fluoride associated with neurotoxic effects and for deriving dose-response relationships necessary for risk assessment.

    The petition also cites an article by Grandjean and Landrigan (Ref. 23), for the proposition that fluoride is “known” to cause developmental neurotoxicity in humans. Grandjean and Landrigan refer only to the study of Choi et al. (2012), of which Grandjean is a co-author, in discussing fluoride. EPA's observations about the limitations of Choi et al. (2012) thus apply with equal force to the cited statement from Grandjean and Landrigan. Grandjean and Landrigan summarize that Choi et al. (2012) “suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.” (Ref. 23). But Grandjean and Landrigan do not opine on whether fluoride exposures, arising from the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies, are in fact causing developmental neurotoxic effects to persons in the U.S. The petition itself concedes that the actual existence of such effects is unestablished, in urging EPA to conduct “a diligent risk assessment, per EPA's Guidelines, to ensure that the general public, and sensitive subpopulations, are not ingesting neurotoxic levels” (Ref 1, p. 3).

    The other meta-analysis cited in the petition (Ref. 12) showed that, based on 16 case-control studies in China, children living in an area with endemic fluorosis are more likely to have low IQ compared to children living in an area with slight fluorosis or no fluorosis. While this analysis may suggest an association between fluorosis and lowered IQ (both of which are possible effects of fluoride exposure at certain levels) any fluoride concentration-to-IQ effect relationship (i.e., dose-response relationship) is only inferred because actual fluoride exposures were not measured. Further, the two effects (fluorosis and lower IQ) both occur at fluoride exposures well above those found in fluoridated U.S. drinking water, such that any inference would only apply at fluoride concentrations not relevant to exposures in the U.S. The studies in the Tang et al. review (Ref. 12) correlate one effect (fluorosis) to another effect (neurotoxicity), but do not establish a dose-response relationship between fluoride exposure and neurotoxicity. This lack of a dose-dependent increase in effect with increasing exposure is a critical limitation of these data. Establishing a dose-response relationship between exposure to a toxicant and an effect “is the most fundamental and pervasive concept in toxicology. Indeed, an understanding of this relationship is essential for the study of toxic materials” (Ref. 12). Likewise, the IQ changes noted in Table 1 (Ref. 1) do not increase with increasing water fluoride concentration (e.g., dose) (Ref. 1).

    The petition suggested that a dose-response relationship between urinary fluoride and IQ is seen in several studies (Refs. 24-26) shown in Figures 1-5 of the petition (Ref. 1). Assuming, as the petitioners claim, that all children were malnourished in the Das and Mondal (Ref. 26) study, it is not possible to determine whether effects on IQ were due to fluoride or to malnutrition (i.e., nutritional status may be an uncontrolled confounding factor). The study authors caution that “it is difficult to determine with any degree of accuracy whether the difference of children's IQ scores solely depends on the exposure dose because many social and natural factors like economic condition, culture and geological environments are also responsible” (Ref. 26). Hence, extrapolating relationships from this study population to other populations is not scientifically defensible.

    Choi et al. (2015) (Ref. 27) report that moderate and severe dental fluorosis was significantly associated with lower cognitive functions. However, associations between drinking water and urine fluoride and the same cognitive functions were not found to be significantly associated. They reached this conclusion from a study of 51 children in China and a comparison group of eight with dental fluorosis (Table 4 in Choi et al., 2015). The authors discuss potential problems associated with using these biomarkers of exposure to fluoride. For example, water samples may be imprecise because internal dose of fluoride depends on total water intake, and urine samples may be affected by the amount of water the subject drank prior to sampling. With regard to fluorosis, the degree of dental fluorosis is dependent not only on the total fluoride dose but also on the timing and duration of fluoride exposure. A person's individual response to fluoride exposure depends on factors such as body weight, activity level, nutritional factors, and the rate of skeletal growth and remodeling. These variables, along with inter-individual variability in response to similar doses of fluoride, indicate that enamel fluorosis cannot be used as a biological marker of the level of fluoride exposure for an individual (Ref. 28). Hence, the petitioner's use of fluorosis levels as a surrogate for evidence of neurotoxic harm to the U.S. population is inappropriate evidence to support an assertion of unreasonable risk to humans from fluoridation of drinking water.

    The petition also cites four studies (Refs. 24, 29-31) that rely on human urine or serum fluoride concentrations as biomarkers of exposure but does not discuss the limitations associated with the biomarkers used in the studies. In their report, Human Biomonitoring for Environmental Chemicals, NRC defines properties of biomarkers and created a framework for grouping biomarkers of exposure (Ref. 32). Figure 3-1 in the NRC report illustrates the relationship between external dose (e.g., water), internal dose (e.g., fluoride concentration) and biological effects, and indicates that internal dose is measured through biomonitoring (e.g., fluoride concentrations measured in urine or serum). NRC grouped the quality of biomarkers based on the robustness of these relationships. NRC designated biomarkers for substances that have been observed in bodily fluids, but that lack established relationships between external dose (e.g., water), internal dose (e.g., urine or serum) and biological effects (e.g., neurotoxicity) as “Group I” biomarkers. Although many human studies have been collated and reviewed in the petition, for the reasons outlined previously—particularly study design and confounding factors—relationships between urine and serum fluoride (internal doses), water fluoride concentration (external dose), and neurotoxic effects in humans have not been established. Further, serum and urine biomarkers for fluoride reflect only recent exposures, not long-term exposures, and may be different from the exposures during the specific time when developmental effects can occur. A lack of established sampling protocols and analytical methods are also hallmarks of “Group I” biomarkers. The main studies cited in the petition which attempt to relate urine or serum levels to possible neurotoxic effects suffer from either lack of good sampling protocols or absence of documenting the sampling protocols. Important issues such as the timing and methods of sample collection were also often not reported in the studies. Using the NRC Framework, urine and serum fluoride levels would be at best “Group I” biomarkers for fluoride-related neurotoxicity. The NRC Framework states “[b]iomarkers in this category may be considered useless” for risk assessment purposes (Ref. 32, p. 78).

    2. Recent epidemiological studies corroborate neurotoxic risk in Western populations. The petition cites two studies from Western populations to attempt to corroborate the assertion that exposure to fluoridated water presents unreasonable risks for neurotoxicity. Two population-level studies were cited which link fluoridated water to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) prevalence in the U.S. (Ref. 6) and drinking water exposures and hypothyroidism prevalence in England (Ref. 7). These studies use cross-sectional population-level data to examine the association between ADHD and hypothyroidism and fluoridated water levels. The studies make reasonable use the population-level data available, but causal inference cannot be made from these studies (Ref. 3).

    As stated in the conclusion of Malin and Till, an association has been reported, but “[p]opulation studies designed to examine possible mechanisms, patterns and levels of exposure, covariates and moderators of this relationship are warranted” (Ref. 6, p. 8). In epidemiology, studies using cross-sectional data are most often used to generate hypotheses that need to be further studied to determine whether a “true” association is present. Ideally, the study designs and methods are improved by each study that is undertaken, such as, among other things, identifying additional potential confounders, considering timing issues or resolving ambiguity in collection of samples and disease outcome, improving upon the exposure analysis, and evaluating the magnitude and consistency of the results, so that the evaluation can adequately assess the association (Ref. 34). For example, the authors assert that there are design issues with their study, especially related to the exposure categories, and they suggest how to address these issues in future studies. Although it is possible that there may be biological plausibility for the hypothesis that water fluoridation may be associated with ADHD, this single epidemiological study is not sufficient to “corroborate” neurotoxic health effects, as stated in the petition. More study would be needed to develop a body of information adequate to make a scientifically defensible unreasonable risk determination under TSCA.

    The Peckham et al. study (Ref. 7) suffers from similar issues noted in Malin and Till (Ref. 6). Adjustment for some confounders was considered, including sex and age, but other potential confounders (such as iodine intake) were not assessed. Fluoride from other sources and other factors associated with hypothyroidism were not assessed in this study. Exposure misclassification, in which populations are placed in the wrong exposure categories based on the water fluoridation status, is very possible in either of the studies presented and is a limitation of the study designs.

    3. Neurotoxic risks supported by animal and cell studies. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) conducted a systematic review of animal and cell studies on the effects of fluoride on learning and memory available up to January 2016 (Ref. 35). Almost all (159 out of 171) of the animal and cell culture studies cited in the petition in Appendix D-E were included in the NTP systematic review. From among 4,656 studies identified in the NTP database search, 4,552 were excluded during title and abstract screening, 104 were reviewed at the full-text level and 68 studies were considered relevant and were included in the analysis. NTP assessed each study for bias, meaning a systematic error in the study that can over or underestimate the true effect and further excluded any studies with a high risk of bias. Of the 68 studies, including studies provided by the Fluoride Action Network, 19 were considered to pose a very serious overall risk of bias, primarily based on concern for at least three of the following factors: Lack of randomization, lack of blinding at outcome assessment in conjunction with not using automated tools to collect information, lack of reporting on what was administered to animals (source, purity, chemical form of fluoride), lack of control for litter effects, lack of expected response in control animals, and lack of reporting of key study information such as the number or sex of animals treated. Of the studies cited in Table 4 in the petition, two were excluded from the NTP analysis because of serious concerns for study bias (Refs. 36 and 37). Based on its review of animal and cell studies, NTP concluded that “[t]he evidence is strongest (moderate level-of-evidence) in animals exposed as adults tested in the Morris water maze and weaker (low level-of-evidence) in animals exposed during development” and “[v]ery few studies assessed learning and memory effects at exposure levels near 0.7 parts per million, the recommended level for community water fluoridation in the United States.” The animal studies cited in the petition (Ref. 1, p. 14, Table 4) reflect these high drinking water exposures ranging from 2.3 mg/L to 13.6 mg/L, equivalent to 3-20 times the levels to which drinking water is fluoridated in the U.S. Overall, NTP concluded that, “[r]esults show low-to-moderate level-of-evidence in developmental and adult exposure studies for a pattern of findings suggestive of an effect on learning and memory” (Ref. 35, p. 52). Based on this review of available evidence, and the identified limitations in the database, NTP is currently pursuing experimental studies in rats to address key data gaps, starting with pilot studies that address limitations of the current literature with respect to study design (e.g., randomization, blinding, control for litter effects), and assessment of motor and sensory function to assess the degree to which impairment of movement may impact performance in learning and memory tests. If justified, follow-up studies would address potential developmental effects using lower dose levels more applicable to human intakes.

    Two studies included in Table 4 (Ref. 1) were not included in the NTP review, but do not show neurotoxicity effects at doses relevant to U.S. populations. One study aimed to establish vitamin A as a marker for fluoride neurotoxicity (Ref. 38), but changes in vitamin A were measured only at an excessive fluoride dose of 20 mg/L. The other study dosed rats with fluoride in drinking water (Ref. 39) and showed effects on behavior and brain neurotransmitters at a dose of 5 mg/L, a level well above the 0.7 parts per million level recommended for community water fluoridation in the United States. Other studies in Table 4, which, according to the title of the table, are indicative of “Water Fluoride Levels Associated with Neurotoxic Effects in Rodents,” erroneously report effect levels not supported by the studies themselves. In Wu et al. (Ref. 36), which NTP excluded based on high bias, no adverse effects were seen at a dose of 1 mg/kg-day as claimed in the petition. In fact, the behavioral effects occurred only at doses of 5 and 25 mg/L. In Chouhan et al. (Ref. 40), which NTP excluded in the initial screen for relevancy, no significant neurotoxicity was seen at 1 mg/L fluoride, in contrast to what the petition claims. In addition, the petition's statement that “rats require 5 times more fluoride in their water to achieve the same level of fluoride in their blood as humans” (Ref. 1) as a rationale for why higher exposure levels in animals are relevant to lower levels in humans is not supported by the NTP review in the petition. The NTP review indicates that “assuming approximate equivalence [of drinking water concentrations in rodents and humans] is not unreasonable” (Ref. 35, p. 58). These several erroneously reported studies do not change EPA's agreement with the conclusions of the NTP report that their “[r]esults show low-to-moderate level-of-evidence in developmental and adult exposure studies for a pattern of findings suggestive of an effect on learning and memory” (Ref. 35, p. 52).

    In cell studies cited in the petition, two studies demonstrated effects following exposure of artificial brain cells to fluoride at concentrations in the range purported to be in the bloodstream of humans. However, relevance of cell assays to humans is limited because the concentrations of fluoride experienced by cells by themselves in culture are not directly comparable to an animal or human exposure due to lack of metabolism, interactions between cells, and the ability to measure chronic (long-term) effects (Ref. 41). Extrapolation from concentrations in cell cultures to human exposures is not straightforward. Pharmacokinetic modeling is necessary to convert the concentrations to a human equivalent dose relevant to risk assessment (Ref. 42), but the petition did not address whether data are available or lacking to complete such an analysis.

    4. Susceptible subpopulations are at heightened risk. The data and information provided in the petition do not support the claims that “nutritional status, age, genetics and disease are known to influence an individual's susceptibility to chronic fluoride toxicity.” The only reference the petition presents that specifically addresses the claim that nutrient deficiencies (i.e., deficiencies in iodine and calcium) can “amplify fluoride's neurotoxicity” is the study by Das and Mondal (Ref. 26). However, the study did not measure any nutrients in their test subjects. Rather, they measured Body Mass Index (BMI), acknowledging that “BMI is the most commonly used measure for monitoring the prevalence of overweight and obesity at population level” and “it is only a proxy measure of the underlying problem of excess body fat or underweight cases.” Not only is the BMI an indirect proxy for the iodine and calcium deficiencies supposed in the petition, the BMI results presented in this study are themselves equivocal, as they show that BMIs ranged from underweight to overweight to obesity depending on the sex and age of the study subjects. Furthermore, the petition concedes that the Das and Mondal study data are only “suggestive” of an area with chronic malnutrition. A few human studies cited provide only suggestive evidence that low levels of iodine may increase the effects of high levels of fluoride in children, but these studies suffer from study design and confounding issues already described previously. Other cited studies describe the effects of iodine or calcium on rats or rat brain cells in addition to irrelevantly high fluoride levels. The petition also claims that a certain “COMT gene polymorphism greatly influences the extent of IQ loss resulting from fluoride exposure,” citing a study by Zhang et al. (Ref. 29) as support. The COMT gene encodes for the enzyme, catechol-O-methyltransferase, which is responsible for control of dopamine levels in the brain. Zhang et al. concludes that, “[t]he present study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional observational design does not allow us to determine temporal or causal associations between fluoride and cognition. Second, the study has a relatively small sample size, which limits the power to assess effects of gene-environmental interactions on children's IQ” (Ref. 29). Zhang et al. continues “[d]espite the study limitations, this is the first gene-environment study investigating the potential impact of COMT single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) on the relationship between children's cognitive performance and exposure to elemental fluoride” (Ref. 29). Several studies are cited in the petition to support the assertion that infants, the elderly and individuals with deficient nutritional intake and kidney disease are more susceptible to fluoride neurotoxicity. However, the level of supporting evidence from these studies (i.e., to specify the potentially greater susceptibility of any particular subpopulation) is insufficient to overcome the petition's broader failure to set forth sufficient facts to establish that fluoridation chemicals present an unreasonable risk to the general population, to allow EPA to reach a risk evaluation.

    5. RfD/RfC derivation and uncertainty factor application. An oral Reference Dose or inhalation Reference Concentration is a daily exposure to the human population, including sensitive subgroups, that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime (Ref. 43). The petition cites EPA's 1998 guidance document, Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment (Ref. 44), purporting that it demonstrates the necessity of applying an uncertainty factor of at least 10. It appears that the petition has selected the eight studies presented in Table 5 (Ref. 1, p. 19) as candidates for deriving a Reference Dose (RfD) or Reference Concentration (RfC). The petition asserts that these dose or concentration values are relevant oral reference values for neurotoxic effects. However, the petition fails to recognize that the question of applying an uncertainty factor does not even arise until one has first appropriately performed a hazard characterization for all health endpoints of concern (Ref. 30, Section 3.1). As outlined in EPA's document, A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes (Ref. 43), the first step in deriving an RfD or RfC is to evaluate the available database. The petition does not set forth the strengths and limitations of each of the studies in the overall database of available studies nor any criteria or rationale for selecting the eight particular studies from which to derive an RfD or RfC. Without setting forth the strengths and limitations associated with each study and the weight of evidence provided by the available database, a necessary step in any assessment, it is not possible to determine whether uncertainty factors are necessary.

    Following hazard characterization and identification of suitable studies for an RfD or RfC, uncertainty factors are generally applied to a lower limit dose or concentration on the continuum of observed effects (dose-response curve) in an individual study (e.g., NOAEL, LOAEL, Benchmark Dose, etc.). The selection of uncertainty factors and their magnitude should be based on the quality of the data, extent of the database and sound scientific judgment and consider the impact of having adverse effects from an inadequate exposure as well as an excess exposure. Uncertainty factor values may be considered appropriate to account for uncertainties associated with extrapolating from (1) a dose producing effects in animals to a dose producing no effects, (2) subchronic to chronic exposure in animals, (3) animal toxicological data to humans (interspecies), (4) sensitivities among the members of the human population (intraspecies), and (5) deficiencies in the database for duration or key effects (Ref. 43). Conflicting statements in the petition indicate that there is both a robust and certain dose-response relationship between fluoride exposure and IQ including for sensitive subpopulations. However, the petition does not clearly identify which sources/types of uncertainty in the data exist, nor which of the aforementioned uncertainty factors should be applied based on the review of the selected studies.

    6. Benefits to public health. The petition asserts that the fluoridation of drinking water confers little benefit to public health, claiming that the primary benefit of fluoride comes from topical fluoride contact with the teeth and that there is thus little benefit from ingesting fluoride in water or any other product. The petition claims there are no randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of fluoridation, and that few studies adequately account for potential confounding factors. In addition, the petition states that modern studies of fluoridation and tooth decay have found small, inconsistent and often non-existent differences in cavity rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. Further, the petition questions the cost-effectiveness of fluoridation relative to costs associated with what have been asserted to be fluoridation-related drops in IQ. The petition argues, then, that there is “little justification” in exposing the public to “any risk” of fluoride neurotoxicity (Ref. 1).

    EPA does not believe that the petition has presented a well-founded basis to doubt the health benefits of fluoridating drinking water. The petition's argument about fluoridation benefits (i.e., that the risks of neurotoxic health effects from fluoridation are unreasonable in part because they outweigh the expected health benefits arising from exposure to fluoride) depends on first setting forth sufficient facts to establish the purported neurotoxic risks, to which the countervailing health benefits from fluoridation could be compared. But as noted earlier, EPA and other authoritative bodies have previously reviewed many of the studies cited as evidence of neurotoxic effects of fluoride in humans and found significant limitations in using them to draw conclusions on whether neurotoxicity is associated with fluoridation of drinking water. Irrespective of the conclusions one draws about the health benefits of drinking water fluoridation, the petition did not set forth sufficient facts to justify its primary claims about purported neurotoxic effect from drinking fluoridated water.

    The petition cites several studies as evidence that water fluoridation does not have any demonstrable benefit to the prevention of tooth decay (Refs. 45-49). However, EPA has found substantial concerns with the designs of each of these studies including small sample size and uncontrolled confounders, such as recall bias and socioeconomic status. Additionally, in Bratthall et al. (Ref. 45), for example, the appropriate interpretation of the responses of the 55 dental care professionals surveyed, based on the data provided in the paper, is that in places where water is fluoridated, the fluoridation is the primary reason for the reduction in dental caries. Diesendorf (Ref. 49) cites only anecdotal evidence and Cheng et al. (Ref. 46) is commentary only, with no supporting data.

    EPA is mindful of the public health significance of reducing the incidence of dental caries in the U.S. population. Dental caries is one of the most common childhood diseases and continues to be problematic in all age groups. Historically, the addition of fluoride to drinking water has been credited with significant reductions of dental caries in the U.S. population. In 2000, the then-Surgeon General noted that “community water fluoridation remains one of the great achievements of public health in the twentieth century—an inexpensive means of improving oral health that benefits all residents of a community, young and old, rich and poor alike.” The U.S. Surgeon General went on to note, “it [is] abundantly clear that there are profound and consequential disparities in the oral health of our citizens. Indeed, what amounts to a silent epidemic of dental and oral diseases is affecting some population groups.” (Ref. 50).

    At that time, among 5- to 17-year-olds, dental caries was more than five times as common as a reported history of asthma and seven times as common as hay fever. Prevalence increases with age. The majority (51.6 percent) of children aged 5 to 9 years had at least one carious lesion or filling in the coronal portion of either a primary or a permanent tooth. This proportion increased to 77.9 percent for 17-year-olds and 84.7 percent for adults 18 or older. Additionally, 49.7 percent of people 75 years or older had root caries affecting at least one tooth (Ref. 50).

    More recently, from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2011-2012, approximately 23% of children aged 2-5 years had dental caries in primary teeth. Untreated tooth decay in primary teeth among children aged 2-8 was twice as high for Hispanic and non-Hispanic black children compared with non-Hispanic white children. Among those aged 6-11, 27% of Hispanic children had any dental caries in permanent teeth compared with nearly 18% of non-Hispanic white and Asian children. About three in five adolescents aged 12-19 years had experienced dental caries in permanent teeth, and 15% had untreated tooth decay (Refs. 51).

    Further, in 2011-2012, 17.5 percent of Americans ages 5-19 years were reported to have untreated dental caries, while 27.4 percent of those aged 20-44 years had untreated caries (Ref. 52). For those living below the poverty line, 24.6 percent of those aged 5-19 years and 40.2 percent of those aged 20-44 years had untreated dental caries (Ref. 52). Untreated tooth decay can lead to abscess (a severe infection) under the gums which can spread to other parts of the body and have serious, and in rare cases fatal, results (Ref. 53). Untreated decay can cause pain, school absences, difficulty concentrating, and poor appearance, all contributing to decreased quality of life and ability to succeed (Ref. 54).

    These data continue to suggest dental caries remains a public health problem affecting many people. Fluoride has been proven to protect teeth from decay by helping to rebuild and strengthen the tooth's surface or enamel. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Dental Association, water fluoridation prevents tooth decay by providing frequent and consistent contact with low levels of fluoride (Refs. 55 and 56). Thus, the health benefits of fluoride include having fewer cavities, less severe cavities, less need for fillings and removing teeth, and less pain and suffering due to tooth decay (Ref. 55).

    Fluoride protects teeth in two ways—systemically and topically (Ref. 57). Topical fluorides include toothpastes, some mouth rinse products and professionally applied products to treat tooth surfaces. Topical fluorides strengthen teeth already in the mouth by becoming incorporated into the enamel tooth surfaces, making them more resistant to decay. Systemic fluorides are those ingested into the body. Fluoridated water and fluoride present in the diet are sources of systemic fluoride. As teeth are developing (pre-eruptive), regular ingestion of fluoride protects the tooth surface by depositing fluorides throughout the entire tooth surface (Ref. 56). Systemic fluorides also provide topical protection as ingested fluoride is present in saliva which continually bathes the teeth (Ref. 56). Water fluoridation provides both systemic and topical exposure which together provide for maximum reduction in dental decay (Ref. 56).

    The Surgeon General, the Public Health Service and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reaffirmed in 2015 the importance of community water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries and its demonstrated effectiveness (Refs. 54 and 58). In the Public Health Service's 2015 Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water, they note “there are no randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of water fluoridation because its community-wide nature does not permit randomization of individuals to study and control groups or blinding of participants. However, community trials have been conducted, and these studies were included in systematic reviews of the effectiveness of community water fluoridation. As noted, these reviews of the scientific evidence related to fluoride have concluded that community water fluoridation is effective in decreasing dental caries prevalence and severity” (Ref. 59).

    7. Extent and magnitude of risk from fluoridation chemicals. The petition argues that the purported risks of drinking water fluoridation are unreasonable in part because they are borne by a large population. The petition (in its discussion of the extent and magnitude of risk posed) cites the total U.S. population and estimates the number of U.S. children under the age of 18 years who live in areas where artificial fluoridation occurs. That estimate is then multiplied by an estimate of the average decrease in lifetime earnings associated with IQ point loss to calculate the overall potential IQ point loss and associated decrease in lifetime earnings for the segment of the U.S. population under the age of 18 years potentially exposed to artificially fluoridated water. The petition concludes, based on the potential extent and magnitude of exposure to fluoridation chemicals, that fluoridation would have caused “a loss of between 62.5 to 125 million IQ points” (Ref. 1, p. 24).

    The petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S. Still less has the petition set forth a scientifically defensible basis to estimate an aggregate loss of IQ points in the U.S., attributable to this use of fluoridation chemicals. As noted previously, EPA has determined the petition did not establish that fluoridation chemicals present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, arising from these chemical substances' use to fluoridate drinking water. The fact that a purported risk relates to a large population is not a basis to relax otherwise applicable scientific standards in evaluating the evidence of that purported risk. EPA and other authoritative bodies have previously reviewed many of the studies cited as evidence of neurotoxic effects of fluoride in humans and found significant limitations in using them to draw conclusions on whether neurotoxicity is associated with fluoridation of drinking water. In contrast, the benefits of community water fluoridation have been demonstrated to reduce dental caries, which is one of the most common childhood diseases and continues to be problematic in all age groups. Left untreated, decay can cause pain, school absences, difficulty concentrating, and poor appearance, all contributing to decreased quality of life and ability to succeed (Ref. 54).

    8. Consequences of eliminating use of fluoridation chemicals. Apparently citing to a repealed provision of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2605(c)[1](A) (2015)) and guidance issued with respect to that statutory provision, the petition argues that the following factors are germane to determining whether the alleged neurotoxic risks presented by fluoridation chemicals are unreasonable: “the societal consequences of removing or restricting use of products; availability and potential hazards of substitutes, and impacts on industry, employment, and international trade.” Along these lines, the petition includes claims such as the following: That any risks of fluoridation chemicals could be easily reduced by discontinuing purposeful fluoridation practices; that alternative topical fluoride products have widespread availability; and that the impacts on the requested rule on industry, employment, and international trade would be little, if any. In short, the petition urges EPA to conclude that the risks of fluoridation chemicals are unreasonable, in part because if EPA found that the risks were unreasonable, the cost and non-risk factors that EPA would need to address in ensuing risk management rulemaking could be readily addressed. But this sort of ends-driven reasoning is forbidden by the texts of section 6(b)(4)(A) and 21(b)(4)(B)(ii) of the amended TSCA, which exclude “costs or other non-risk factors” from the unreasonable risk determination. It is also plainly inconsistent with Congress' intent, in amending TSCA, to “de-couple” the unreasonable risk decision from the broader set of issues (e.g., chemical alternatives and regulatory cost-effectiveness) that may factor into how best to manage unreasonable risks, once particular risks have been determined to be unreasonable. See S. Rep. 114-67 at 17 (Ref. 3); H.R. Rep. 114-176 at 23 (Ref. 4); and 162 Cong. Rec. S3516 (Ref. 60).

    9. Link to elevated blood lead levels. To support the contention that TSCA (and not the Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA]) is the appropriate regulatory authority, the petition asserts an association between fluoridation chemicals and elevated blood lead levels and claims that there is laboratory and epidemiological research linking artificial fluoridation chemicals with pipe corrosion. The petition then argues that issuing a rule under TSCA section 6 rather than SDWA would allow EPA to specifically target and prohibit the addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water. The petition argues that SDWA would not allow EPA to distinguish between intentionally-added, artificial and naturally-occurring fluoride. It is in the public interest, says the petition, to opt for the regulatory option that is less expensive and can be more narrowly tailored.

    Regarding the claims about the relative extent of legal authorities under TSCA and SDWA, EPA notes that the petition has not set forth any specific legal basis for its views on the purported limitations of SDWA. For this reason, and because the petition has not set forth facts sufficient to show that the fluoridation of drinking water presents an unreasonable risk under TSCA, the Agency need not resolve such legal questions in order to adjudicate this petition.

    EPA has further observations about the petition's claims that drinking water fluoridation is linked to lead hazards. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) studied the relationship between fluoridation additives and blood lead levels in children in the United States (Ref. 61). More than 9,000 children between the ages of 1-16 years were included in the study's nationally representative sample. The petition argues that the study, and Table 4 in particular, shows that fluorosilicic acid was associated with increased risk of high blood lead levels. In fact, Macek et al. concluded that their detailed analyses did not support concerns that silicofluorides in community water systems cause high lead concentrations in children. The petition also points to another study (Ref. 62) which re-analyzed CDC's data and concluded that children exposed to “silicofluoridated” water had an elevated risk of having high blood lead levels. Coplan et al. (Ref. 62) criticized the Macek et al. approach as flawed and reevaluated the NHANES data comparing systems that used silicofluorides to all systems (e.g., a combination of fluoridated, nonfluoridated and naturally fluoridated) and found a small difference between the number of children in each group with blood lead levels >5 µg/dL; the results were not evaluated to see if the difference was statistically significant. A number of other chemical characteristics are known to increase lead release into water sources such as pH, natural organic matter, water hardness, oxidant levels, and type of piping, age of housing; the Coplan et al. study did not evaluate these factors.

    In any event, the Agency is not persuaded that the examination of the relationship between fluoridation chemicals, pipe corrosion, and elevated blood lead levels nor their bearing on the comparative efficacy of TSCA or SDWA is germane to the disposition of the petition. Under TSCA, where the EPA Administrator determines “that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture . . . presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, the Administrator shall by rule [regulate a] . . . substance or mixture to the extent necessary so that the chemical substance or mixture no longer presents such risk” 15 U.S.C. 2605(a). As previously discussed, the petition does not demonstrate that purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies presents such unreasonable risk.

    10. Regulation of fluoridation chemicals as a category. EPA has broad discretion to determine whether to regulate by category under TSCA section 26(c) rather than by individual chemical substances. In a prior evaluation of a section 21 petition seeking the regulation of a category of chemical substances, EPA explained that it does so in light of Congress' purpose in establishing the category authority: To “facilitate the efficient and effective administration” of TSCA. See 72 FR 72886 (Ref. 63) (citing Senate Report No. 94-698 at 31). It is of course self-evident that various chemical substances constituting “fluoridation chemicals” would have in common their use to fluoridate drinking water. But as discussed in Unit III., the inquiry does not end there. If EPA were to grant the petitioner's request, the Agency would become obligated to address all conditions of use of the category. If certain chemical substances comprising the category present conditions of use that other members do not, and any of those conditions of use would be significant to whether the category as a whole presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, then the overall approach of regulating by category is less suited to the efficient and effective administration of TSCA. But the petition does not set forth facts that would enable the Agency to reasonably evaluate whether a category approach on fluoridation chemicals would be consistent with the efficient and effective administration of TSCA. Nor does the petition set forth the specific chemical substances that should comprise the category of fluoridation chemicals.

    11. Specification of an adequate rule under TSCA section 6(a). As discussed earlier, the petition does not set forth facts that satisfactorily demonstrate to the Agency that fluoridation chemicals present an unreasonable risk to human health, specifically arising from these chemical substances' use to fluoridate drinking water. But even if the petition had done so, it would still be inadequate as a basis to compel the commencement of section 6(a) rulemaking proceeding under TSCA section 21. This is because the petition does not address whether fluoridation chemicals would still present an unreasonable risk, even after implementing the requested relief, arising from other conditions of use. As discussed earlier in Unit III., EPA interprets TSCA section 21 as requiring a petition to address the full set of conditions of use for a chemical substance and thereby describe an adequate rule under TSCA section 6(a), as opposed to a rule that would merely address a particular subset of uses of special interest. The petition at issue pays little or no attention to the other conditions of use of the various fluoridation chemicals (i.e., uses other than the eponymous use to treat drinking water) and makes no claim for any of these chemical substances that the risks to be addressed by curtailing drinking water fluoridation would be the only unreasonable risks or even the most significant unreasonable risks. This problem is compounded by the petition's lack of specificity as to which chemical substances are being construed as “fluoridation chemicals.”

    EPA acknowledges that its interpretation of the requirements of TSCA section 21, for petitions seeking action under TSCA section 6, was not available to petitioners at the time they prepared this petition. EPA has issued general guidance for preparing citizen's petitions, 50 FR 56825 (1985), but that guidance does not account for the 2016 amendments to TSCA. Particularly relevant under these circumstances, the Agency wishes to emphasize that its denial does not preclude petitioners from obtaining further substantive administrative consideration, under TSCA section 21, of a substantively revised petition under TSCA section 21 that clearly identifies the chemical substances at issue, discusses the full conditions of use for those substances, and sets forth facts that would enable EPA to complete a risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b) for those substances.

    VI. References

    As indicated under ADDRESSES, a docket has been established for this document under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0763. The following is a listing of documents that are specifically referenced in this notice. The docket itself includes both these referenced documents and further documents considered by EPA. The docket also includes supporting documents provided by the petitioner and cited in the petition, which are not available in the electronic version of the docket. For assistance in locating these printed documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    1. Fluoride Action Network. Citizen Petition Under Section 21 of TSCA. November 2016. 2. EPA. Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act; Notice. Federal Register (82 FR 7562, January 19, 2017). 3. Senate Report 114-67. June 18, 2015. Available at https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/srpt67/CRPT-114srpt67.pdf. 4. House Report 114-176. June 23, 2015. Available at https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt176/CRPT-114hrpt176.pdf. 5. EPA. Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substance Control Act; Notice. Federal Register (82 FR 4831, January 17, 2017). 6. Malin, A.J. and Till, C. Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: An ecological association. Environmental Health. Vol. 14, pp. 1-10. 2015. 7. Peckham, S.; Lowery, D. and Spencer, S. Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Vol. 69, pp. 619-624. 2015. 8. Connett, M. Fluoridation & neurotoxicity: An unreasonable risk. [PowerPoint presentation]. Presented on January 30, 2017. 9. Hirzy, W.; Connett, P.; Xiang, Q.; Spittle, B.J. and Kennedy, D.C. Developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride: A quantitative risk analysis towards establishing a safe daily dose of fluoride for children. Fluoride. Vol. 49, pp. 379-400. 2016. 10. National Research Council. Fluoride in drinking water: A scientific review of EPA's standards. The National Academies Press. Washington, DC 2006. 11. Choi, A.L.; Sun, G.; Zhang, Y. and Grandjean, P. Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 120, pp. 1362-1368. 2012. 12. Tang, Q.; Du, J.; Ma, H.H.; Jiang, S.J. and Zhou, S.J. Fluoride and children's intelligence: A meta-analysis. Biological Trace Element Research. Vol. 126, pp. 115-120. 2008. 13. Li, F.; Chen, X.; Huang, R. and Xie, Y. The impact of endemic fluorosis caused by the burning of coal on the development of intelligence in children. Journal of Environment and Health. Vol. 26, pp. 838-840. 2009. 14. Guo, X.; Wang, R.; Cheng, C.; Wei, W.; Tang, L.; et al. A preliminary investigation of the IQs of 7-13 year-old children from an area with coal burning-related fluoride poisoning. Fluoride. Vol. 41, pp. 125-128. 2008. 15. Li, Y.; Li, X. and Wei, S. Effects of high fluoride intake on child mental work capacity: Preliminary investigation into the mechanisms involved. Fluoride. Vol. 41, pp. 331-335. 2008. 16. Hong, F.; Cao, Y.; Yang, D. and Wang, H. Research on the effects of fluoride on child intellectual development under different environmental conditions. Fluoride. Vol 41, pp. 156-160. 2008. 17. Lin, F.F.; Aihaiti; Zhao, H.X.; Lin, J.; et al. The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Endemic Disease Bulletin. Vol. 6, pp. 62-67. 1991. (republished in Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter. Vol 7, pp. 24-25. 1991) Available at http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/lin-1991.pdf. 18. Wang, X.-H.; Wang, L.-F.; Hu, P.-Y; Guo, X.-W. and Luo, X.-H. Effects of high iodine and high fluorine on children's intelligence and thyroid function. Chinese Journal of Endemiology. Vol. 20, pp. 288-290. 2001. (Translated from Chinese into English by Fluoride Action Network in 2001) Available at http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/wang-2001.pdf. 19. Wang, S.-X.; Wang, Z.-H.; Cheng, X.-T.; Li, J.; et al. Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water: Children's IQ and growth in Shanyin county, Shanxi province, China. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 115, pp. 643-647. 2007. 20. Xiang, Q.; Liang, Y.; Chen, C.; Wang, C.; et al. Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children's intelligence Fluoride. Vol. 36, pp. 84-94. 2003. 21. Zhao, L.B.; Liang, G.H.; Zhang, D.N. and Wu, X.R. Effect of a high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Fluoride. Vol. 29, pp. 190-192. 1996. 22. Zhang, J.; Yao, H. and Chen, Y. The effect of high levels of arsenic and fluoride on the development of children's intelligence. Chinese Journal of Public Health. Vol. 17, p. 119. 1998. (Translated from Chinese into English by Fluoride Action Network in 2012). Available at http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/zhang-1998.pdf. 23. Grandjean, P. and Landrigan, P. Neurobehavioral effects of developmental toxicity. Lancet Neural. Vol. 13, pp. 330-338. 2014. 24. Ding, Y.; Yanhui, G.; Sun, H.; Han, H.; et al. The relationships between low levels of urine fluoride on children's intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Hazardous Materials. Vol. 186, pp. 1942-1946. 2011. 25. Wang, Q.-J.; Gao, M.-X.; Zhang, M.-F.; Yang, M.-L. and Xiang, Q.-Y. Study on the correlation between daily total fluoride intake and children's intelligence quotient. Journal of Southeast University. Vol. 31, pp. 743-46. 2012. (Translated from Chinese into English by Fluoride Action Network in 2016.) 26. Das, K. and Mondal, N.K.; Dental fluorosis and urinary fluoride concentration as a reflection of fluoride exposure and its impact on IQ level and BMI of children of Laxmisagar, Simlapal Block of Bankura District, W.B., India. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment. Vol. 188, pp. 218. 2016. 27. Choi, A.L.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, G. and Bellinger, D.C. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Vol. 47, pp. 96-101. 2015. 28. Agali, R.C. and Shintre, S. B. Biological markers of fluoride exposure: A review. IJSS Case Reports & Reviews. Vol. 2, pp. 49-52. 2016. 29. Zhang, S.; Zhang, X.; Liu, H.; Qu, W.; et al. Modifying effect of COMT gene polymorphism and a predictive role for proteomics analysis in children's intelligence in endemic fluorosis area in Tianjin, China. Toxicological Sciences. Vol. 144, pp. 238-245. 2015. 30. Li, M.; Gao, Y.; Ciu J.; Li, Y.; et al. Cognitive impairment and risk factors in elderly people living in fluorosis areas in China. Biological Trace Element Research. Vol. 172, pp. 53-60. 2016. 31. Xiang, Q.; Liang, Y.; Chen, B. and Chen, L. Analysis of children's serum fluid levels in relation to intelligence scores in a high and low fluoride water village in China. Fluoride. Vol. 44, pp. 191-194. 2011. 32. National Research Council. Human Biomonitoring for Environmental Chemicals. The National Academies Press. Washington, DC 2006. 33. Morgenstern, H. Ecologic Studies in Epidemiology: Concepts, Principles, and Methods. Annual Review of Public Health. Vol. 16, pp. 1-81. 1995. 34. EPA. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. March 2005. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/cancer_guidelines_final_3-25-05.pdf. 35. National Toxicology Program (NTP). Systematic literature review on the effects of fluoride on learning and memory in animal studies. NTP Research Report 1. Research Triangle Park, NC. 2016. Available at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/pubs/ntp_rr/01fluoride_508.pdf. 36. Wu, N.; Zhao, Z.; Gao, W. and Li, X.; Behavioral teratology in rats exposed to fluoride. Fluoride. Vol. 41, pp. 129-133. 2008. (Originally published in Chinese in the Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases. Vol. 14, pp. 271. 1995. 37. Han, H.; Du, W.; Zhou, B.; Zhang, W.; et al. Effects of chronic fluoride exposure on object recognition memory and mRNA expression of SNARE complex in hippocampus of male mice. Biological Trace Element Research. Vol. 158, pp. 58-64. 2014. 38. Banala, R.R. and Karnati, P.R. Vitamin A deficiency: An oxidative stress marker in sodium fluoride (NaF) induced oxidative damage in developing rat brain. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience. Vol. 47, pp. 298-303. 2015. 39. Sandeep, B.; Kavitha, N.; Praveena, M.; Sekhar, P.R. and Rao, K.J. Effect of NaF on albino female mice with special reference to behavioral studies and ACh and AChE levels. International Journal of Pharmacy & Life Sciences. Vol. 4, pp. 2751-2755. 2013. 40. Chouhan, S.; Lomash, V. and Flora, S.J. Fluoride-induced changes in haem biosynthesis pathway, neurological variables and tissue histopathology of rats. Journal of Applied Toxicology. Vol. 30, pp. 63-73. 2010. 41. Tice, R.R.; Austin, C.P.; Kavlock, R.J. and Bucher, J.R. Improving the Human Hazard Characterization of Chemicals: A Tox21 Update. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 121, pp. 756-765. 2013. 42. Yoon, M.; Campbell, J.L.; Andersen, M.E.; and Clewell, H.J. Quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation of cell-based toxicity assay results. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. Vol 42, pp. 633-652. 2012. 43. EPA. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes. December 2002. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/rfd-final.pdf. 44. EPA. Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment; Notice. Federal Register (63 FR 26926, May 14, 1998). 45. Bratthall, D.; Hansel-Petersson, G. and Sundberg, H. Reasons for the caries decline: What do the experts believe? European Journal of Oral Science. Vol. 104, pp. 416-422. 1996. 46. Cheng, K.K.; Chalmers, I. and Sheldon, T.A. Adding fluoride to water supplies. The BMJ. Vol. 335, pp. 699-702. 2007. 47. Pizzo, G.; Piscopo, M.R.; Pizzo, I. and Giuliana, G. Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: A critical review. Clinical Oral Investigations. Vol. 11, pp. 189-193. 2007. 48. Neurath, C. Tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in nonfluoridated and fluoridated countries. Fluoride. Vol. 38, pp 324-325. 2005. 49. Diesendorf, M. The mystery of declining tooth decay. Nature. Vol. 322, pp. 125-129. 1986. 50. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2000. Available at https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBBJT.pdf. 51. Dye B.A.; Thornton-Evans G.; Li X. and Iafolla, T.J. Dental caries and sealant prevalence in children and adolescents in the United States, 2011-2012. NCHS Data Brief, No. 191. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2015. 52. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Health, United States, 2015: With Special Feature on Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. 2016. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus15.pdf. 53. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Oral Health Conditions. Retrieved February 1, 2017 from https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/conditions/index.html. 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Statement on the Evidence Supporting the Safety and Effectiveness of Community Water Fluoridation. January 30, 2017. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/pdf/cdc-statement.pdf. 55. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Water Fluoridation Basics. Retrieved February 1, 2017 from https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/basics/index.htm. 56. American Dental Association. Fluoridation Facts. 2005. Available at http://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Member%20Center/FIles/fluoridation_facts.ashx. 57. Buzalaf, M.A.R.; Pessan, J.P.; Honorio, H.M. and ten Cate, J.M. Mechanisms of action of fluoride for caries control. Monographs in Oral Science: Fluoride and the Oral Environment. Vol. 22, pp. 97-114. 2011. 58. Murthy, V.H. Surgeon General's Perspectives: Community water fluoridation: One of CDC's “10 great public health achievements of the 20th century”. Public Health Reports. Vol. 130, pp. 296-298. 2015. 59. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. U.S. Public Health Service recommendation for fluoride concentration in drinking water for the prevention of dental caries. Public Health Reports. Vol. 130, pp. 318-331. 2015. 60. Congressional Record S3516. June 7, 2016. Available at https://www.congress.gov/crec/2016/06/07/CREC-2016-06-07-pt1-PgS3511.pdf. 61. Macek, M.D.; Matte, T.D.; Sinks, T. and Malvitz, D.M. Blood lead concentrations in children and method of water fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 114, pp. 130-134. 2006. 62. Coplan, M.J.; Patch, S.C.; Masters, R.D. and Bachman, M.S. Confirmation of and explanations for elevated blood lead and other disorders in children exposed to water disinfection and fluoridation chemicals. NeuroToxicology. Vol. 28, pp. 1032-1042. 2007. 63. EPA. Air Fresheners; TSC Section 21 Petition; Notice. Federal Register (72 FR 72886, December 21, 2007). List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Fluoridation chemicals, Drinking water, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

    Dated: February 17, 2017. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03829 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    82 37 Monday, February 27, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No.: AMS-SC-17-0010] Notice of Request for a Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection: Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for a revision to and an extension of approval of an information collection associated with qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback on service delivery by the AMS.

    DATES:

    All comments received by April 28, 2017 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are welcome and should referenced OMB No. 0581-0269 and AMS' Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Docket Clerk, Legislative & Regulatory Review Staff, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0202, Room 3943-S, Washington, DC 20250; Fax: (202) 690-3767; or submitted online at www.regulations.gov. All comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular USDA business hours or they can be viewed at www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Marylin Pish, Legislative & Regulatory Review Staff, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0202, Room 3943-S, Washington, DC 20250. Phone: (202) 580-9971. Fax: (202) 690-3767. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery-AMS.

    OMB Number: 0581-0269.

    Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2017.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The proposed information collection activity provides a means for AMS to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Agency's commitment to improving service delivery.

    By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations; provide an early warning of issues with service; or focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. This collection will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

    The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.

    AMS will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:

    • The collection is voluntary;

    • The collection is low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and is low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;

    • The collection is non-controversial and does not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;

    • The collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;

    • Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;

    • Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of AMS (if released, AMS must indicate the qualitative nature of the information);

    • Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and

    • Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collection will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.

    Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding this study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

    As a general matter, this information collection will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.

    AMS currently has approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for this information collection. This approval is for 60,000 burden hours, based on our initial request to OMB in April 2011. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .50 hours per response.

    Respondents: Individuals and households; businesses and organizations; State, local, or Tribal government.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 110,000.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 110,000.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 60,000/(Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    Comments may be sent to [name and address of AMS representative]. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: February 22, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03812 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS-CN-16-0108] Cotton Research and Promotion Program: Request for Comments To Be Used in a Review of 1990 Amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As provided for by the Cotton Research and Promotion Act Amendments of 1990, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing its intention to conduct a review to ascertain whether a referendum is needed to determine whether producers and importers favor continuation of amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (Order). This notice invites all interested parties to submit written comments to the Department of Agriculture (USDA). USDA will consider these comments in determining whether a referendum is warranted.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted to the addresses specified below. All comments will be made available to the public. Please do not include personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publically disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines. Comments may be submitted anonymously.

    Comments, identified by AMS-CN-16-0108, may be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Please follow the instructions for submitting comments. In addition, comments may be submitted by mail or hand delivery to Cotton Research and Promotion, Cotton and Tobacco Program, AMS, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406. Written comments should be submitted in triplicate. All comments received will be made available for public inspection at Cotton and Tobacco Program, AMS, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406. A copy of this document may be found at: www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shethir M. Riva, Director, Research and Promotion, Cotton and Tobacco Program, AMS, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406, telephone (540) 361-2726, facsimile (540) 361-1199, or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Cotton Research and Promotion Act of 1966 (7 U.S.C. 2101-2118) authorized a national Cotton Research and Promotion Program which is industry operated and funded, with oversight by USDA. The program's objective is to enable cotton growers and importers to establish, finance, and carry out a coordinated program of research and promotion to improve the competitive position of, and to expand markets for cotton.

    The program became effective on December 31, 1966, when the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (7 CFR part 1205) was issued. Assessments began with the 1967 cotton crop. The Order was amended and a supplemental assessment initiated, effective January 26, 1977.

    The program is currently financed through assessments levied on domestic and imported cotton and cotton-containing products. Assessments under this program are used to fund promotional campaigns and to conduct research in the areas of U.S. marketing, international marketing, cotton production and processing, and textile research and implementation.

    The program is administered by the Cotton Board, which has 37 members, 37 alternate members and four advisors. The Cotton Board is composed of representatives of cotton producers and cotton importers, each of whom has an alternate selected by the Secretary of Agriculture from nominations submitted by eligible producer and importer organizations. All members and their alternates serve terms of 3 years. The Cotton Board's responsibility is to administer the provisions of the Cotton Research and Promotion Order issued pursuant to the Act. These responsibilities include collecting, holding and safeguarding funds; making refunds when refunds are a provision of the Order; contracting with an organization for the development and implementation of programs of research and promotion; reviewing and making recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture on proposed programs and budgets; and making funds available for such programs when approved. The objective of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program is to strengthen cotton's competitive position and to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and uses for cotton. The Cotton Board is prohibited from participating in any matters influencing governmental policies or action except making recommendations for amendments to the Order.

    Amendments to the Act were enacted under subtitle G of title XIX of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-624, 104 Stat. 3909, November 28, 1990). These amendments provided for: (1) Importer representation on the Cotton Board; (2) the assessment of imported cotton and cotton products; (3) increasing the amount the Secretary of Agriculture can be reimbursed for conduct of a referendum from $200,000 to $300,000; (4) reimbursing government agencies who assist in administering the collection of assessments on imported cotton and cotton products; and (5) terminating the right of a producer to demand a refund of assessments. The Act Amendments of 1990 were approved by a majority (60 percent) of importers and producers of cotton voting in a referendum conducted July 17-26, 1991, as required by the Act. Results of this referendum were announced in a nationally distributed press release dated August 2, 1991.

    The Cotton Research and Promotion Act Amendment of 1990, Section 8(c)(1) provides that once every 5 years after the July 1991 referendum, the Secretary of Agriculture is to conduct a review to ascertain whether a referendum is needed. In such a referendum, producers and importers would determine whether they favor continuation of the amendments to the Order provided for in the Cotton Research and Promotion Act Amendments of 1990. These amendments to the Order were promulgated in final rules published in the Federal Register on December 10, 1991 (56 FR 64470), corrected at 56 FR 66670.

    The results of the most recent review report of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program were issued on May 29, 2013. USDA announced its view (78 FR 32228) not to conduct a referendum regarding the 1991 amendments to the Order. In accordance with Section 8(c)(2) of the Act, USDA provided an opportunity for all eligible persons to request a continuance referendum on the 1991 amendments by making such a request during a sign-up period. During the period of August 3-August 14, 2015, the Department conducted a sign-up period for all eligible persons to request a continuance referendum on the 1990 Act amendments. The announced results of the sign-up period (80 FR 76654) did not meet the criteria established for a continuance referendum by the Cotton Research and Promotion Act and therefore, a referendum was not conducted.

    In 2017, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Secretary of Agriculture will conduct its review of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program Act amendments to ascertain whether a referendum is needed to determine whether producers and importers support continuation of the amendments to the Order, as provided for by the 1990 Act amendments. The Secretary of Agriculture will make a public announcement of the results of the review. Pursuant to the Act, if the Secretary of Agriculture determines that a referendum is needed, the Secretary of Agriculture will conduct the referendum within 12 months after a public announcement of the determination to conduct the referendum.

    If the Secretary determines that a referendum is not warranted, a sign-up period to request such a referendum will be made available to cotton producers and importers. A referendum will be held if requested by 10 percent or more of those voting in the most recent referendum as long as not more than 20 percent are from any one State or importers of cotton. This sign-up period would be announced in the Federal Register. A 60-day comment period is provided for interested persons to provide comments to be used by USDA in its review. All interested persons are invited to submit written comments.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 2101-2118.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03709 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Increase in Fiscal Year 2017 Specialty Sugar Tariff-Rate Quota AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (the Secretary) is providing notice of an increase in the fiscal year (FY) 2017 specialty sugar tariff-rate quota (TRQ) of 40,000 metric tons raw value (MTRV).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Souleymane Diaby, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., AgStop 1021, Washington, DC 20250-1021; by telephone (202) 720-2916; by fax (202) 720-0876; or by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 6, 2016, USDA announced the establishment of the in-quota quantity of the FY 2017 refined sugar TRQ at 162,000 MTRV for which the sucrose content, by weight in the dry state, must have a polarimeter reading of 99.5 degrees or more (81 FR 27390, May 6, 2016). This amount included the minimum level to which the United States is committed under the WTO Uruguay Round Agreements (22,000 MTRV of which 1,656 MTRV is reserved for specialty sugar) and an additional 140,000 MTRV reserved for specialty sugars.

    Pursuant to Additional U.S. Note 5 to Chapter 17 of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) and Section 359k of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, the Secretary today increased the overall FY 2017 refined sugar TRQ by 40,000 MTRV to 202,000 MTRV. The increased amount is reserved for specialty sugar. Entry of this sugar will be permitted beginning March 1, 2017. The sugar entered under this tariff-rate quota is reserved for organic sugar and other specialty sugars not currently produced commercially in the United States or reasonably available from domestic sources.

    Dated: February 7, 2017. Jason Hafemeister, Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03826 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 22, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by March 29, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Customer Service Survey Project.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0334.

    Summary of Collection: The Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 (7, U.S.C. 8301, et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to prevent, control and eliminate domestic diseases such as tuberculosis and brucellosis and to take actions to prevent and to manage foreign animal diseases such as hog cholera, foot-and-mouth disease. The Veterinary Services (VS) program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), USDA, carries out this work. This information collection solicits the beliefs and opinions of persons who use VS services and products. The survey is required to solicit information from the general public who utilize the business services and animal programs administered by the USDA, APHIS, and VS.

    Need and Use of the Information: The data collected from the survey will provide the local Area Office Manager with a general view of the public's perception of customer service and indicate problems which can be addressed locally. The survey will also provide feedback from the public on recommendations to improve upon customer service and provide a vehicle in which questions can be asked about VS to educate the public.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Farms; Individuals or households; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 15,050.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 760.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03749 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 21, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by March 29, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected]MB.EOP.GOV or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Foreign Agricultural Service

    Title: Certificate for Quota Eligibility (CQE).

    OMB Control Number: 0551-0014.

    Summary of Collection: Imports of raw cane sugar are subject to a tariff-rate import quota (TRQ) that is allocated on a country-by-country basis to foreign countries or areas. A U.S. certificate for quota eligibility (CQE) issued by USDA and authenticated by a certifying authority in the foreign country permits entry of raw cane sugar under the TRQ. U.S. Note 5 (a)(i) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United State requires the Secretary to establish a TRQ for raw-cane sugar (entered under HTS 1701.12.10 and 1701.14.10) during each fiscal year with a minimum TRQ amount of 1,117,195 metric tons, raw value. In Addition 5 (b)(1) authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to allocate the raw-cane sugar tariff-rate quota among supplying countries. CQEs are issued to the 40 countries that receive TRQ allocations to export sugar to the United State. The CQE is completed by the certifying authority in the foreign country that certifies that the sugar being exported to the United States was produced in the foreign country that has the TRQ allocation. The Foreign Agriculture will collect information using form FAS-961.

    Need and Use of the Information: FAS will collect the following information: (1) Country of origin or area of the eligible raw cane sugar; (2) quota period; (3) quantity of raw cane sugar to be exported; (4) details of the shipment (shipper, vessel, port of loading); and (5) additional details if available at the time of shipment (consignee, address of consignee, expected date of departure, expected date of arrival in the U.S., expected port of arrival). The information will help determine if the quantity to be imported is eligible to be entered under the TRQ. Without the CQEs, USDA/FAS and CBP could not administer the raw cane sugar TRQs authorized under U.S. law.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 40.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 519.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03695 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-13-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7—Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Romark Global Pharma, LLC; Subzone 7P; Manatí, Puerto Rico (Pharmaceuticals)

    Romark Global Pharma, LLC (Romark), operator of Subzone 7P, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 7P, in Manatí, Puerto Rico. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 6, 2017.

    The Romark facility, currently under construction, will be used to produce finished pharmaceutical products and active ingredients. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Romark from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Romark would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to Alinia® (nitazoxanide) tablets and oral suspension, nitazoxanide controlled release bilayer tablets, and nitazoxanide (active pharmaceutical ingredient) (duty rates—free and 6.5%) for the foreign-status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Croscarmellose sodium; microcrystalline cellulose; plastic bottles; container labels; glass bottles; plastic caps; paper board cartons; colloidal silicon dioxide; cotton coil packaging; desiccant bags; dibasic calcium phosphate; hydroxypropyl cellulose; hydroxypropylmethylcellulose; hypromellose; product information paper inserts; magnesium stearate; pregelatinized corn starch; anhydrous citric acid; corn starch; strawberry flavoring with alcohol; sodium carboxymethylcellulose; nitazoxanide; sodium benzoate; sodium citrate dihydrate; sodium starch glycolate; talc; purified water; and, xanthan gum (duty rates range from free to 6.5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 10, 2017.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03777 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Calendar of Upcoming Trade Missions AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce

    ACTION:

    Notice

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA) is announcing eight upcoming trade missions that will be recruited, organized and implemented by ITA. These missions are:

    • Executive-Led Wastewater Treatment Business Development Mission to China, June 11-17, 2017

    • Paint & Coatings Materials Suppliers Trade Mission to Mexico City, June 18-20, 2017

    • U.S. Healthcare Trade Mission to Africa, October 22-27, 2017

    • Cyber Security Trade Mission to Canada, September 11-14, 2017

    • Smart Cities Trade Mission to Poland and The Czech Republic, September 10-15, 2017

    • Sustainable Building and Construction Trade Mission to Mexico City (Optional Stop in Guadalajara), October 9-13, 2017

    • Trade Mission to Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Greece in Conjunction with Trade Winds—Southeastern Europe Business Forum, October 16-24, 2017

    • Renewable Energy Integration Trade Mission to Canada, October 30-November 2, 2017

    A summary of each mission is found below. Application information and more detailed mission information, including the commercial setting and sector information, can be found at the trade mission Web site: http://export.gov/trademissions.

    For each mission, recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the Federal Register, posting on the Commerce Department trade mission calendar (http://export.gov/trademissions) and other Internet Web sites, press releases to general and trade media, direct mail, broadcast fax, notices by industry trade associations and other multiplier groups, and publicity at industry meetings, symposia, conferences, and trade shows.

    The following Conditions for Participation will be used for each mission: Applicants must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on their products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may either: Reject the application, request additional information/clarification, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the application. If the requisite minimum number of participants are not selected for a particular mission by the recruitment deadline, the mission may be cancelled.

    Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, are marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content by value. In the case of a trade association or organization, the applicant must certify that, for each firm or service provider to be represented by the association/organization, the products and/or services the represented firm or service provider seeks to export are either produced in the United States or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51% U.S. content.

    A trade association/organization applicant must certify to the above for all of the companies it seeks to represent on the mission.

    In addition, each applicant must:

    • Certify that the products and services that it wishes to market through the mission would be in compliance with U.S. export controls and regulations;

    • Certify that it has identified any matter pending before any bureau or office in the Department of Commerce;

    • Certify that it has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the Department of Commerce; and

    • Sign and submit an agreement that it and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with a company's/participant's involvement in this mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials.

    In the case of a trade association/organization, the applicant must certify that each firm or service provider to be represented by the association/organization can make the above certifications.

    The following Selection Criteria will be used for each mission: Targeted mission participants are U.S. firms, services providers and trade associations/organizations providing or promoting U.S. products and services that have an interest in entering or expanding their business in the mission's destination country. The following criteria will be evaluated in selecting participants:

    • Suitability of the applicant's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) products or services to these markets;

    • The applicant's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) past, present, and prospective business activity in relation to the Mission's target market(s) and sector(s);

    • The applicant's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) potential for business in the markets, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission; and

    • Consistency of the applicant's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.

    Referrals from a political party or partisan political group or any information, including on the application, containing references to political contributions or other partisan political activities will be excluded from the application and will not be considered during the selection process. The sender will be notified of these exclusions.

    Trade Mission Participation Fees: If and when an applicant is selected to participate on a particular mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the amount of the designated participation fee below is required. Upon notification of acceptance to participate, those selected have 5 business days to submit payment or the acceptance may be revoked.

    Participants selected for a trade mission will be expected to pay for the cost of personal expenses, including, but not limited to, international travel, lodging, meals, transportation, communication, and incidentals, unless otherwise noted. Participants will, however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government rates for hotel rooms. In the event that a mission is cancelled, no personal expenses paid in anticipation of a mission will be reimbursed. However, participation fees for a cancelled mission will be reimbursed to the extent they have not already been expended in anticipation of the mission.

    If a visa is required to travel on a particular mission, applying for and obtaining such visas will be the responsibility of the mission participant. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are not included in the participation fee. However, the Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain business visas.

    Trade Mission members participate in trade missions and undertake mission-related travel at their own risk. The nature of the security situation in a given foreign market at a given time cannot be guaranteed. The U.S. Government does not make any representations or guarantees as to the safety or security of participants. The U.S. Department of State issues U.S. Government international travel alerts and warnings for U.S. citizens available at https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings.html. Any question regarding insurance coverage must be resolved by the participant and its insurer of choice.

    Definition of Small and Medium Sized Enterprise: For purposes of assessing participation fees, the Department of Commerce defines Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SME) as a firm with 500 or fewer employees or that otherwise qualifies as a small business under SBA regulations (see http://www.sba.gov/services/contractingopportunities/sizestandardstopics/index.html). Parent companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries will be considered when determining business size. The dual pricing reflects the Commercial Service's user fee schedule that became effective May 1, 2008 (see http://www.export.gov/newsletter/march2008/initiatives.html for additional information)

    Mission List: (additional information about each mission can be found at http://export.gov/trademissions).

    Department of Commerce Wastewater Business Development Mission to China, June 11-17, 2017 Summary

    The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), is organizing an Executive-led Wastewater Treatment Business Development Mission to China from June 11-17, 2017. This mission is a follow-up to an April 2015 Smart Cities—Smart Growth Business Development Mission to China led by Secretary Pritzker. This mission will promote U.S. exports to China by supporting U.S. companies in launching or increasing their business in the marketplace products and services relating to wastewater treatment, including industrial wastewater treatment. Key elements will include business-to-government and business-to-business meetings, market briefings, and networking events.

    Trade mission delegates will participate in a five-day program, including roundtables and policy meetings with officials in China. In Beijing the mission will coincide with the China International Environmental Protection Exhibition and Conference (CIEPEC). CIEPEC is the Ministry of Environmental Protection's biennial sponsored trade show and conference. CIEPEC draws officials from all regional Environmental Protection Bureaus (EPBs) and municipalities, providing access to the tendering organizations that are developing water and wastewater treatment plant projects. Participants will have an opportunity to walk this trade show floor, as well as have a series of one-on-one meetings with pre-screened potential agents, distributors, and representatives at the show. In Nanjing and Guangzhou, participants will also have one-on-one meetings with pre-screened potential partners, as well as meet end users and government officials. In each city, the participants will also attend market briefings by U.S. Embassy officials and other industry experts, as well as networking events offering further opportunities to speak with local business and industry decision-makers.

    Schedule Beijing, China June 12-13, 2017 • Business Development Mission Orientation • Market Briefing by U.S. Embassy Officials • Government Meetings • Industry Briefings/Roundtable Discussions • Individual Company Business Appointments • Participation in China International Environmental Protection Exhibition and Conference (CIEPEC) • Networking Reception

    (All day group bus transportation included)

    Nanjing, China June 14-15, 2017 • Business matchmaking sessions • Government meetings • Evening travel to Dubai

    (All day group bus transportation included)

    Guangzhou, China June 15-16, 2017 • Government Meetings • Individual Company Business Appointments • Networking Dinner or Reception • Wrap-up Session

    (All day group bus transportation included)

    Traded Mission concludes Participation Requirements

    A minimum of 10 and a maximum of 12 firms, service providers, and/or trade associations/organizations will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool. U.S. companies doing business in China, as well as U.S. companies seeking to enter the market for the first time may apply.

    Fees and Expenses

    After a company has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. Upon notification of acceptance to participate, those selected have 10 business days to submit payment or the acceptance may be revoked. This fee will include entrance to the China International Environmental Protection Exhibition and Conference (CIEPEC) show and matchmaking in all three mission stops. The fee schedule for the mission is $7,000 for large firms and $6,600 for a small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The fee for an additional firm representative (large firm or SME—limit one additional representative per company) is $500.

    Timeline for Recruitment

    The Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a comparative basis until the maximum of 15 companies are selected. Recruitment for the trade mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than May 1, 2017. All applications must be submitted before May 1, 2017. The Department of Commerce will evaluate all applications and inform applicants of selection decisions as soon as possible after this application deadline. Applications received after May 1, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.

    For Further Information Contact Jay Biggs, Commercial Officer, U.S. Embassy Beijing, [email protected], Office +86-10-8531-4325. Pamela Kirkland, Project Officer, Trade Promotion Programs, [email protected], 202-482-3587. Paint & Coatings Materials Suppliers Trade Mission to Mexico City, June 18-20, 2017 Summary

    The U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, is organizing the first trade mission for U.S. Paint and Coatings Materials Suppliers in conjunction with the ANAFAPYT (Mexican National Association of Manufacturers of Paints and Inks) trade show, “Latin Americas Coatings Show 2017,” to be held June 20-22, 2017. This show is the largest event in Latin America for raw materials suppliers and equipment manufacturers in the paint and coatings industry.

    The purpose of the mission is to help participating firms gain market insight, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects with the goal of increasing their exports to and business in Mexico.

    U.S. firms will participate in: (1) Customized Business-to-Business matchmaking appointments with pre-screened potential distributors and buyers; (2) networking events; (3) commercial briefings about doing business in Mexico; (4) a presentation about the industrial chemical and the automotive sectors in Mexico; (5) a mini trade fair; (6) the opportunity to visit the Latin Americas Coating Show 2017 and; (7) have limited marketing materials displayed in the U.S. Commercial Service booth at Latin American Coatings Show 2017.

    Proposed Timetable Sunday, June 18 Arrival/Hotel check-in (no group transportation provided). Monday, June 19 7:30 a.m Shuttle to the U.S. Trade Center. 8:00-9:00 a.m Embassy Commercial briefing (light breakfast included). 9:00 a.m Depart for Business-to-Business Matchmaking appointments (up to four meetings) includes drivers and trade professionals.
  • Lunch on your own depending on schedule.
  • 7:00-9:00 p.m Networking reception for mission members. Shuttle to return to the hotel. Tuesday, June 20 7:45 a.m Shuttle to the U.S. Trade Center. 8:30-10:00 a.m Industry overview and presentations in the chemical and auto sectors. 10:00-11:30 a.m Mini-trade fair with Mexican contacts from the chemical, automotive and paints industries. 11:30-12:30 p.m Box lunch provided. 12:30-1:30 p.m Shuttle to the ANAFAPYT LACS ribbon-cutting (1:30 p.m.). 2:00-7:00 p.m ANAFAPYT LACS show (optional). Formal Trade Mission activities ends, participants can depart after the show or stay to walk it. 7:00 p.m Shuttle departs for hotel. Wednesday, June 21 11:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m ANAFAPYT LACS show (optional). Thursday, June 22 11:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m ANAFAPYT LACS show (optional). Friday, June 23 Departure.

    Participating firms who wish to exhibit at the show will receive a 20% discount on the cost of the booth. All arrangements related to participating in the trade show must be made through the show organizer and by registering online. For further information or questions about the show please contact Ms. Adriana Ortiz, Public Relations Manager at ANAFAPYT [email protected], Tel: + (52) 55-5682-7794 ext. 104.

    Participants only wishing to visit the show will receive complimentary passes to be obtained by SCS Mexico.

    Participation Requirements

    A minimum of 7 and maximum of 11 firms, service providers, and/or trade associations will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool.

    Fees and Expenses

    Participation fee for small or medium sized enterprises (SME): $ 1,900.

    Participation fee for large firms or trade associations: $ 2,900.

    Fee for each additional firm representative (large firm or SME/trade organization): $ 750.

    Timeline for Recruitment and Applications

    Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than April 12, 2017. The Department of Commerce will evaluate applications and inform applicants of selection decisions three times during the recruitment period. All applications received subsequent to an evaluation date will be considered at the next evaluation. Deadlines for each round of evaluation are as follows:

    • March 15, 2017 • April 12, 2017 Applications received after April 12, 2017 will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit. Contacts Mr. Dustin Ross, Project Officer, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, Tel: 202-482-1108, [email protected]. Allison Mello, Commercial Officer, U.S. Department of Commerce, Chicago, Illinois, Tel: 312-353-8490, [email protected]. Nathalie Scharf, Commercial Attaché, U.S. Embassy—Mexico City, U.S. Department of Commerce, Tel: +52-55-5080-2000 ext. 2191, [email protected]. Sylvia Montano, Commercial Specialist, Industrial Chemicals, U.S. Embassy—Mexico City, U.S. Department of Commerce, Tel: +52-55-5080-2000 ext. 5219, [email protected].

    U.S. Healthcare Trade Mission to Africa, October 22-27, 2017.

    Summary

    The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration is organizing a U.S. Healthcare Trade Mission to South Africa and Kenya scheduled for October 22-27, 2017. Optional add-on post-mission stops will be available for selected mission participants that seem to appropriately fit market opportunities. These additional stops would include customized appointments with pre-screened potential foreign partners for an additional fee in: Ethiopia, Ghana, and Mozambique (space limited).

    This Healthcare Trade Mission is intended to include representatives from various U.S. medical/healthcare industry manufacturers, service providers, associations and trade organizations. In addition to new-to-market companies, the mission also will assist U.S. companies already doing business in South Africa and Kenya to expand their footprint. Target sectors holding high potential for U.S companies include:

    • Medical equipment/devices • Laboratory equipment • Dental equipment • Emergency equipment • Imaging and Diagnostic equipment • Physiotheraphy and Orthopedic equipment/devices • Healthcare information technology • Products and technologies for other allied health sectors

    The mission will include appointments and briefings in Johannesburg, Nairobi, and possibly other cities that are healthcare industry hubs.

    The delegates will meet with experts to obtain firsthand information about the regulations, policies, standards, and procedures for importing medical devices into South Africa and Kenya. Participants will also visit healthcare facilities to get acquainted with specialized care facilities. Trade mission participants will have the opportunity to interact extensively with U.S. Embassy/Consulate Officials and Commercial Service healthcare specialists in South Africa and Kenya to discuss industry developments, opportunities, and sales strategies.

    The U.S. Healthcare Trade Mission to South Africa and Kenya will draw on the resources of several U.S. government agencies and NGO's, including Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Trade Development Agency, U.S. Agency for International Development, and World Health Organization.

    Schedule Sunday, October 22, Johannesburg, South Africa • Arrive Johannesburg and hotel check-in.
  • • Welcome reception/ice breaker.
  • Monday, October 23, Johannesburg, South Africa • Welcome and overview of Trade Mission.
  • • Market briefings from the U.S. Commercial Service and industry experts.
  • • One-on-one business meetings. • Networking reception in Johannesburg. Tuesday, October 24, Johannesburg, South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa • Hospital/Clinic tours and meetings.
  • • One-on-one business meetings.
  • • Government meetings.
  • • Mission participant speaking opportunities.
  • Wednesday, October 25, Johannesburg, South Africa and Nairobi, Kenya • Depart for Nairobi, Kenya (AM).
  • • Market briefings from the U.S. Commercial Service and industry experts (PM).
  • • Networking reception in Nairobi.
  • Thursday, October 26, Nairobi, Kenya • One-on-one business meetings Nairobi.
  • • Government meetings.
  • • Some delegates depart for add-on stops.
  • Friday, October 27, Nairobi, Kenya and possible add-on Post stops • Government meetings.
  • • One-on-one business meetings.
  • • Mission ends.
  • Saturday, October 28 & Sunday, October 29, Travel to optional stops over weekend • Ethiopia, Ghana, or Mozambique (Optional add-on locations). Monday, October 30 • One-on-One Meetings at optional locations and networking opportunities.
    Participation Requirements

    A minimum of 12 and a maximum of 15 companies and/or trade associations/organizations will be selected from the applicant pool to participate in the trade mission.

    Fees and Expenses

    The participation fee for the U.S. Healthcare Trade Mission to South Africa and Kenya is $4,375 for small or medium-sized enterprises (SME) and $5,975 for large firms or trade associations. The fee for each additional representative (large firm or SME or trade association/organization) is $950.

    The additional fee for the optional add-on stops to: Ethiopia (space is limited to 2 companies), Ghana (space is limited to 2 companies), and Mozambique (space is limited to 3 companies) for an additional fee of $1,000 for an SME and $1,325 for a large firm.

    Delegation members may take advantage of U.S. Embassy rates for hotel rooms. Interpreter and driver services can be arranged for additional cost.

    Timeframe for Recruitment and Application

    Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than June 30, 2017. All applications must be submitted before June 30, 2017. The Department of Commerce will evaluate all applications and inform applicants of selection decisions as soon as possible after this application deadline. A maximum of 15 participants will be selected. Applications received after June 30, 2017 will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.

    Contacts Michelle Ouellette, Senior International Trade Specialist, U.S. Department of Commerce, Boston, MA, Tel: 617-565-4302, Email: [email protected]. Johannesburg, South Africa Brian McCleary, Deputy Senior Commercial Officer, U.S. Commercial Service Johannesburg, South Africa, Tel: +27-11-290-3227, Email: [email protected]. Felicity Nagel, Commercial Specialist, U.S. Commercial Service Johannesburg, South Africa, Tel: +27-11-290-3332, Email: [email protected]. Nairobi, Kenya James Rigasso, Senior Commercial Officer, U.S. Commercial Service Nairobi, Kenya, Tel: +254-20-363-6424, Email: [email protected]. Janet Mwangi, Commercial Specialist, U.S. Commercial Service Nairobi, Kenya, Tel: +254-20-363-6725, Email: [email protected]. Cyber Security Trade Mission to Canada, September 11-14, 2017 Summary

    The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), is organizing a Cyber Security Trade mission to three locations in Canada: Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, September 11-14, 2017.

    The purpose of the mission is to introduce U.S. firms to Canada's expanding opportunities within the cyber security industry, and to assist U.S. companies in pursuing export opportunities in this sector.

    The mission is designed for all U.S. firms and organizations who play a part in the industry, regardless of specific niche. This mission will also help U.S. companies already doing business within the Canadian market to increase their footprint and deepen their business interests.

    The mission will help participating firms gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of creating and increasing U.S. product and services exports. The mission will include market briefings, one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors, industry leaders, and joint venture partners; meetings with national, provincial, regional and municipal governments; and networking events. Participating in an official U.S. industry delegation, rather than traveling on their own, will enhance attending companies' ability to identify opportunities and act on available opportunities in Canada.

    Schedule Monday—September 11 Toronto, Ontario • Welcome and overview of Mission.
  • • Market briefings from CS and industry experts.
  • • Discussions with potential partners at on-site speed meetings or off-site one-on-ones. Tuesday—September 12 Toronto, Ontario • Site Visits, pre-scheduled by industrial focus.
  • • Roundtable with government, CS and industry officials.
  • • Afternoon travel to Ottawa. Wednesday—September 13 Ottawa, Ontario • Morning session on selling to the Government of Canada.
  • • Afternoon roundtable with government, CS and industry officials..
  • • Late Afternoon Networking Reception with government, industry and distributors. • Evening travel to Montreal. Thursday—September 14 Montreal, Quebec • Tabletop display at Montreal Security Tech Show.
  • • Networking reception with targeted guest list from Montreal Security Tech Show and local cybersecurity contacts.
  • Participation Requirements

    A minimum of 10 and maximum of 20 firms, service providers and/or trade associations/organizations will be selected from the applicant pool to participate in the trade mission.

    Fees and Expenses

    The participation fee for the trade mission to Canada is $3,200 for small or medium-sized enterprises (SME) and $3,600 for large firms and trade associations/organizations. The fee for each additional company representative (large firm or SME or trade association/organization) is $500.00. Interpreter and driver services can be arranged for additional cost. The participation fee will cover group transit from hotel to airport/train station on departure from each destination as well as local group transportation to meeting venues, where applicable. Delegation members will be able to take advantage of U.S. Embassy rates for hotel rooms.

    Timeframe for Recruitment and Application

    Recruitment for this mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than June 30, 2017. All applications must be submitted before June 30, 2017. The Department of Commerce will evaluate all applications and inform applicants of selection decisions as soon as possible after this application deadline. Applications received after June 30, 2017 will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.

    Contacts Gemal Brangman, Project Officer, Trade Promotion Programs, Tel: 202-482-3773, [email protected] Tracey Ford, Commercial Specialist, CS Canada Lead, Tel: 1 613-688-5406, [email protected] Stefan Popescu, Commercial Specialist, CS Toronto, Tel: 1 416-595-5412 x223, [email protected] Connie Irrera, Commercial Specialist, CS Montreal,Tel: 1 514-908-3662, [email protected] Pompeya Lambrecht, Northern Virginia U.S. Export Assistance Center, Tel: 703-235-0102, [email protected] Smart Cities Trade Mission to Poland and the Czech Republic, September 10-15, 2017 Summary

    The U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (CS) is organizing a “Smart Cities” Business Development Mission to Poland and the Czech Republic from September 10-15. This mission is designed to help export ready U.S. companies launch or increase their export business in promising sectors in Poland and the Czech Republic that contribute to the development of smart cities, including e-mobility, energy efficiency and management, e-governance, and environmental management and quality, including air and water quality.

    Mission participants will benefit from expert briefings on the policy frameworks in Europe supporting smart cities and the particulars of smart cities developments in Poland and the Czech Republic. The mission will include opportunities to meet key Government officials and decision-makers in both countries, one-on-one meetings with potential business partners and networking events. The government and private sector in Poland and the Czech Republic are investing billions in projects conducive to the development of smart cities.

    Through this mission, U.S. companies will gain an understanding of and position themselves for success in the smart cities markets in Poland and the Czech Republic.

    Schedule Sunday, September 10 Trade Mission Participants Arrive in Warsaw.
  • Country briefing and welcome event.
  • Monday, September 11 Meetings with Polish Government officials and industry experts. One-on-One business matchmaking appointments. Networking Reception at Ambassador's residence. Tuesday, September 12 Morning Site Visit.
  • Depart for Krakow mid—to -late morning.
  • Arrive Krakow between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m.
  • Evening Reception at U.S. Consul General's Residence.
  • Wednesday, September 13 Briefings/Presentations/Meetings with key local government officials/decision makers. One-on-one matchmaking meetings. Thursday, September 14 Travel to Prague. Country briefing and welcome event. Meetings with key Czech Government officials and industry experts. Friday, September 15 One-on-one matchmaking meetings. Evening VIP reception at Ambassador's residence. Saturday, September 16 Trade Mission Participants Depart.
    Participation Requirements

    A minimum of 10 and maximum of 15 firms and/or trade associations will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool.

    Fees and Expenses

    The participation fee for the Business Development Mission will be $2,500.00 for small or medium-sized enterprises (SME); and $3,750 for large firms or trade associations. The fee for each additional firm representative (large firm or SME/trade organization) is $1,000. Interpreter and driver services can be arranged for additional cost. Delegation members will be able to take advantage of U.S. Embassy rates for hotel rooms.

    Timeline for Recruitment and Applications

    Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than June 1, 2017. All applications must be submitted before June 1, 2017. The Department of Commerce will evaluate all applications and inform applicants of selection decisions as soon as possible after this application deadline. Applications received after June 1, 2017, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.

    Contacts Gemal Brangman, Project Officer, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, Tel: 202-482-3773, Fax: 202-482-9000, [email protected] Kenneth Duckworth, Commercial Attaché, U.S. Embassy—Warsaw, Poland, U.S. Department of Commerce, Tel: +48-22-625-4374, [email protected] Anna Janczewska, Commercial Specialist, U.S. Embassy—Warsaw, Poland, U.S. Department of Commerce, Tel: +48-22-625-4274 [email protected] Helen Peterson, Senior Commercial Officer, U.S. Embassy—Prague, Czech Republic, U.S. Department of Commerce, Tel: +420-257-022-434, ext. 2436, [email protected] Luda Taylor, Commercial Specialist, U.S. Embassy—Prague, Czech Republic, Tel: +420-257-022-424, ext. 2315, [email protected] Sustainable Building & Construction Trade Mission to Mexico City (Optional Stop in Guadalajara), October 9-13, 2017 Summary

    The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), is organizing a Sustainable Construction Trade Mission to Mexico from October 9-13, 2017. The purpose of the mission is to introduce U.S. firms to Mexico's Sustainable Building & Construction sector, and to assist U.S. companies in pursuing export opportunities in this sector. The mission also will help U.S. companies already doing business in Mexico increase their footprint and deepen their business interests. By focusing on infrastructure-related projects, this mission advances ITA's work to increase U.S. company participation in infrastructure and strategically position our clients to tap medium and long-term opportunities.

    This trade mission is open to all qualified companies in the sector. Under ITA's Veterans Go Global initiative, it also includes a focus on U.S. veteran-owned companies who play a significant role in sustainable building and construction.

    Schedule Tuesday, October 10, 2017 Briefing by U.S. Embassy Mexico officials B2B matchmaking meetings with Mexican companies at Expo CIHAC No-host lunch B2B matchmaking meetings with Mexican companies at Expo CIHAC Optional no-host dinner Wednesday, October 11, 2017 Hotel check out (if departing for Guadalajara) Attend Expo CIHAC Depart for Guadalajara (Optional Stop Guadalajara) Thursday, October 12, 2017 Briefing by U.S. Guadalajara Consulate officials B2B matchmaking meetings Optional no-host dinner Friday, October 13, 2017 Return to United States Participation Requirements

    A maximum of 20 firms and a minimum of 10 firms, service providers and/or trade associations/organizations will be selected from the applicant pool to participate in the trade mission in Mexico City. For the optional Guadalajara portion, a maximum of 10 firms will be selected.

    Fees and Expenses

    For Mexico City only, the fee for a small & medium sized enterprise is $1400 and the fee for a large firm and a trade association is $1800. The cost for an additional representative is $400. For Mexico City and Guadalajara, the fee for a small and medium-sized company is $2750 and the fee for a large firm and a trade association is $3550. The cost for an additional representative is $700.

    Application Deadline. Recruitment for this mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than August 23, 2017. The Department of Commerce will evaluate applications and inform applicants of selection decisions on a rolling basis until the maximum number of participants has been selected.

    Contact Information Oscar Magaña, International Trade Specialist, San Antonio U.S. Export Assistance Center, Phone: 210-472-4020, Mobile: 210-419-3043, Fax: 210-472-4019, [email protected] Warren Anderson, St Louis U.S. Export Assistance Center, Phone: 314-260-3785, Mobile: 314-502-3263, Email: [email protected] Jeffrey Odum, Project Officer, Trade Promotion Programs, Phone: (202) 482-6397, Email: [email protected] Mr. Adrián Orta, Commercial Specialist, U.S. Embassy, Mexico, Phone: +52(55) 5080-2000 ext. 5220, Mobile: +52(55) 4450-0469, Email: [email protected] Mr. Paul Oliva, Commercial Attaché, U.S. Embassy, Mexico, Phone: +52(55) 5080-2206, Mobile: +52(55) 4450-0462, Email: [email protected] Ms. Patricia Reinosa Muñoz, Commercial Specialist, U.S. Consulate Guadalajara, Phone: +52(33) 3615-1140 ext. 102, Mobile: +52(33) 1603-4848, Email: [email protected] Trade Mission to Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Greece in Conjunction With Trade Winds—Southeastern Europe Business Forum, October 16-24, 2017 Summary

    The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration is organizing a trade mission to Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Greece that will include the Trade Winds—Southeastern Europe business forum in Bucharest, Romania on October 18-20, 2017. U.S. trade mission members will participate in the Trade Winds—Southeastern Europe business forum in Bucharest, Romania, which is also open to U.S. companies not participating in the trade mission. Trade mission participants may choose to participate in their choice of trade mission stops based on recommendations from the USFCS, including in Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Greece. Each trade mission stop will include one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors or joint-venture partners. Trade mission participants in the Trade Winds—Southeastern Europe business forum may attend regional and industry-specific sessions and consultations with USFCS Senior Commercial Officers and other government officials representing the Europe region during the business forum in Bucharest, Romania on October 18-20, 2017.

    This mission is open to U.S. companies and trade associations from a cross-section of industries with growth potential in Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Greece, including, but not limited to the following industries: Agricultural technology, machinery and equipment; energy, power generation, environmental technologies; information and communications technology and equipment; healthcare, medical products, pharmaceuticals; infrastructure; and safety and security products and services.

    Schedule Sunday, October 15 Trade Mission Participants Arrive in Belgrade, Serbia or Sofia, Bulgaria (if electing to participate in one of these mission stops). Monday, October 16 Belgrade, Serbia or Sofia, Bulgaria (choice of one mission stop), Business to Business meetings and networking with government and business officials. Tuesday, October 17 Arrive in Bucharest, Romania. Wednesday-Friday, October 18-20 Bucharest, Romania: Trade Winds Business Forum and SCO Consultations Market Briefings, Business to Business meetings, Consultations with U.S. government trade representatives and networking with U.S. and foreign government and business officials. Saturday-Sunday, October 21-22 Travel to Zagreb, Croatia or Athens, Greece (if electing to participate in one of these mission stops). Monday, October 23 Zagreb, Croatia or Athens, Greece (choice of one mission stop) Business to Business meetings and networking with government and business officials. Tuesday, October 24 Trade Mission Participants Depart. Participation Requirements

    All parties interested in participating in the trade mission to Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Greece must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below.

    A minimum of 40 companies and/or trade associations will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool on a first-come, first-served basis. Mission stop participation will be limited as follows: The Serbia mission stop is limited to 20 companies; the Bulgaria mission stop is limited to 20 companies; the Croatia mission stop is limited to 15 companies; the Greece mission stop is limited to 20 companies; and the Romania mission stop is limited to 40 companies.

    Additional delegates may be accepted based on available space. U.S. companies and/or trade associations already doing business in or seeking business in Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Greece for the first time may apply.

    Fees and Expenses

    After a company has been selected to participate in the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required.

    • For one mission stop, the participation fee will be $1,950 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) and $3,300 for large firms.

    • For two mission stops, the participation fee will be $2,950 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) and $4300 for large firms.

    • For three mission stops, the participation fee will be $3,950 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) and $5300 for large firms.

    An additional representative for both SMEs and large firms will require an additional fee of $500.

    The above trade mission fees include the $650 fee for full participation in the Trade Winds business forum to be held in Bucharest, Romania on October 18-20, 2017.

    Timeline for Recruitment and Applications

    Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than August 18, 2017. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis beginning 14 days after publication of this Federal Register notice, until the maximum number of participants for each mission stop is selected. After August 18, 2017, applications will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.

    Contact Leslie Drake, Director, U.S. Export Assistance Center—Charleston, WV, [email protected], Tel: 304-347-5123. Diego Gattesco, Director, U.S. Export Assistance Center—Wheeling, WV, [email protected], Tel: 304-243-5493. Greg O'Connor, Regional Senior Commercial Officer, U.S. Commercial Service Romania, Email: Greg.O'[email protected] Renewable Energy Integration Trade Mission to Canada, October 30-November 2, 2017 Mission Description

    The United States Department of Commerce International Trade Administration (ITA) is proposing a Renewable Energy Integration Trade Mission to Toronto and Calgary October 30-November 2, 2017.

    The purpose of the mission is to introduce U.S. firms to Canada's rapidly expanding interest and projects-base towards the effective application of renewable energy and smart grid solutions into the electrical grid, and to assist U.S. companies in pursuing export opportunities while making the most appropriate and impactful contacts within this sector.

    The mission is designed for U.S. industry with a focus on utility-scale and distributed energy resources (DER) renewable energy power generators and services providers. This mission will further support U.S. companies who are active in the Canadian market with a focus on increasing footprints and deepening business interests, especially for those companies of all sizes who are part of the industry's global supply chain. The mission is open to all U.S. firms and organizations in the renewable energy sector focused on solar, wind, and hydropower as well as the smart grid (transmission, distribution, and storage) technologies that will enable effective grid integration.

    The mission will help participants gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of increasing U.S. product and services exports. The mission will include market briefings, one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors, industry leaders, and joint venture partners; meetings with state and local government officials; and networking events. Participating in an official U.S. industry delegation, rather than traveling on their own, will enhance the companies' ability to identify opportunities and act on available opportunities in Canada.

    Schedule Sunday—October 29, Toronto, Ontario • Participants arrive in Toronto by 4:00 p.m.
  • • Welcome social event at venue hotel.
  • Monday—October 30, Toronto • Welcome and overview of Mission from U.S. Consulate staff.
  • • Country briefing by consulate officials on Canada's renewable energy sector and business opportunities.
  • • Market briefings from Foreign Commercial Service, renewable energy stakeholders, and government officials. • Business to business meetings with potential partners at central venue. • Evening reception hosted by U.S. Consulate including mission sponsors, with key stakeholders, government officials, and prospective business partners. Tuesday—October 31, Toronto • Meetings with federal, provincial and/or local government officials at central venue.
  • • Site visit and Lunch with host company/sponsor and leading industry trade associations.
  • • Afternoon travel to Calgary. Wednesday—November 1, Calgary, Alberta • Welcome and overview of Mission from U.S. Consulate staff.
  • • Briefing on Prairie Provinces renewable energy sector by consulate officials and business opportunities.
  • • Market briefings from Foreign Commercial Service, renewable energy stakeholders, and government officials. • Business to business meetings with potential partners at central venue. • Evening event hosted by U.S. Consulate including mission sponsors, with key stakeholders, chamber and trade associations, government officials, and prospective business partners. Thursday—November 2, Calgary • Meetings with federal, provincial and regional government officials at central venue.
  • • Site visit and Lunch with host company/sponsor and leading industry trade associations.
  • • Afternoon wrap-up; mission ends.
    Participation Requirements

    A minimum of 10 and maximum of 20 firms, service providers and/or trade associations/organizations will be selected from the applicant pool to participate in the trade mission.

    Fees and Expenses

    The participation fee for the trade mission to Canada, including 2 stops (Toronto and Calgary) will be $3,500 for small or medium-sized enterprises (SME) and $6,000 for large firms and trade associations/organizations. The fee for each additional company representative (large firm or SME or trade association/organization) is $1,000. A maximum of 2 representatives per company will be able to participate in the Mission.

    Timeframe for Recruitment and Application

    Recruitment for this mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than July 28, 2017. The Department of Commerce will evaluate applications and inform applicants of selection decisions on a rolling basis until the maximum of 20 applicants are selected. Applications received after July 28, 2017, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.

    Contacts Stefan Popescu, Senior Advisor—Sector, Lead Renewable Energy, U.S. Consulate General Toronto, Tel: +1 (416) 595-5412 x 223, Email: [email protected] Tom Hanson, Principal Commercial Officer, Western Canada, U.S. Consulate General Calgary, Tel: +1 (403) 265-2116, Email: [email protected] Ethel M. Azueta Glen, International Trade Specialist, International Trade Administration—Trade Promotion Programs, Tel: +1 (202) 482-5388, Email: [email protected] Frank Spector, Senior Advisor for Trade Missions.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03722 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-818] Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On September 12, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. Based on the timely withdrawal of the requests for review of certain companies from interested parties, we are now rescinding this administrative review with respect to eight companies.

    DATES:

    Effective February 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    George McMahon or Joy Zhang, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1167 or (202) 482-1168, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On July 5, 2016, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy.1 Pursuant to requests from interested parties,2 the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review with respect to the following companies for the period July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016: Delverde Industrie Alimentari S.p.A. (Delverde Alimentari), Ghigi Industria Agroalimentare in San Clemente S.r.L. (Ghigi), GR.A.M.M. S.r.l. (GR.A.M.M.), Industria Alimentare Colavita, S.p.A (Indalco), La Fabbrica Della Pasta di Gragnano S.A.S di Antonio Moccia (La Fabbrica), Liguori Pastificio dal 1820 S.p.A. (Liguori), Pastificio Andalini S.p.A. (Andalini), Pastificio Felicetti S.r.L. (Felicetti), Pastificio Labor S.r.L. (Labor), Pastificio Zaffiri S.r.l. (Zaffiri), Premiato Pastificio Afeltra S.r.l. (Afeltra), Rustichella d'Abruzzo SpA (Rustichella), Tamma Industrie Alimentari de Capitanata S.r.L. (Tamma), and Tesa SrL (Tesa).3

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 81 FR 43584 (July 5, 2016).

    2 The petitioners are American Italian Pasta Company, Dakota Growers Pasta Company, and New World Pasta Company. The petitioners requested a review of Ghigi Industria Agroalimentare in San Clemente S.r.L. and Tamma Industrie Alimentari de Capitanata S.r.L. See Letter from the petitioners to the Department, “Request for 2015-2016 Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from ltaly,” dated July 29, 2016.

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 62720 (September 12, 2016) (Initiation Notice).

    On October 13, 2016, Liguori timely withdrew its request for a review.4 On October 29, 2016, Rustichella timely withdrew its request for review.5 On October 30, 2016, Felicetti timely withdrew its request for a review.6 On November 2, 2016, the petitioners timely withdrew their request for a review of Tamma.7 On November 30, 2016, Delverde Alimentari timely withdrew its request for review.8 On December 12, 2016, Afeltra, La Fabbrica, and Labor, timely withdrew their respective requests for an administrative review.9 No other party requested an administrative review of these particular companies.

    4See Letter from Liguori to the Department, “Certain Pasta from Italy: Withdrawal of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Request for the Period of Review 7/1/2015-6/30/2016,” dated October 13, 2016.

    5See Letter from Rustichella to the Department, “Pasta from Italy: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,” dated October 29, 2016.

    6See Letter from Felicetti to the Department, “Pasta from Italy; Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,” dated October 30, 2016.

    7See Letter from the petitioners to the Department, “2015/2016 (20th) Administrative Review of Certain Pasta from Italy—Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,” dated November 2, 2016.

    8See Letter from Delverde Alimentari to the Department, “Certain Pasta from Italy: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review on Behalf of Delverde Industrie Alimentari S.p.A.,” dated November 30, 2016.

    9See Letter from Afeltra to the Department, “Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Italy” dated December 12, 2016; see also Letter from La Fabbrica, “Certain Pasta from Italy, A-475-818; Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review by La Fabbrica della Pasta di Gragnano S.A.S.,” dated December 12, 2016; see also Letter from Labor to the Department, “Certain Pasta from Italy, A-475-818; Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review by Labor Srl.” dated December 12, 2016.

    Partial Rescission of the 2015-2016 Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. All of the aforementioned withdrawal requests were timely submitted and no other interested party requested an administrative review of these particular companies. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), and consistent with our practice,10 we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy, in part, with respect to Afeltra, Delverde Alimentari, Felicetti, Labor, La Fabbrica, Ligouri, Rustichella, and Tamma. The instant review will continue with respect to Andalini, Ghigi, GR.A.M.M., Indalco, Tesa, and Zaffiri.

    10See, e.g., Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 21781 (May 11, 2009); see also Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 7218 (February 13, 2009).

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, Afeltra, Delverde Alimentari, Felicetti, Labor, La Fabbrica, Ligouri, Rustichella, and Tamma, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).

    The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03778 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-830] Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Notice of Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On December 16, 2016, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (“wire rod”) from Mexico. Based on Nucor Corporation's (“Nucor”) timely withdrawal of the request for review of Ternium Mexico S.A. de C.V. (“Ternium”), we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Ternium. The instant review will continue with respect to ArcelorMittal Las Truchas S.A. de C.V. (“AMLT”) and Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. (“Deacero”).

    DATES:

    Effective February 27, 2017

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Keith Haynes, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5139.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On October 3, 2016, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Mexico.1 Pursuant to requests from interested parties, on December 16, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order 2 on wire rod from Mexico with respect to the following companies for the period October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016: AMLT, Deacero, and Ternium. On February 3, 2017, Nucor timely withdrew its request for an antidumping duty administrative review of Ternium.3

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 81 FR 67968 (October 3, 2016).

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 91122 (December 16, 2016).

    3See Letter from Nucor to the Department titled, Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review, dated February 3, 2017.

    Partial Rescission

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Given that the withdrawal request cited above was timely, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Mexico, in part, with respect to Ternium. Accordingly, the companies subject to the instant review are: Deacero and AMLT.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the company for which this review is rescinded, Ternium, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 41 days after publication of this notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: February 22, 2017. Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03779 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF232 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) will hold a meeting, which is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The HMSMT meeting will be on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 to Thursday, April 20, 2017. This meeting will start at 8:30 a.m. and continue until business is concluded on each day.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Martin-Johnson House (T-29), Scripps Institute of Oceanography, 8840 Biological Grade, La Jolla, CA 92037; phone: (858) 534-5604.

    Council address: Pacific Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kit Dahl, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2422.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Two main topics will be discussed at the HMSMT meeting. The first is the development of a range of alternatives for authorizing a fishery using deep-set buoy gear. The Council directed the HMSMT to propose a range of alternatives for the Council to consider adopting for public review at its June 7-14 meeting in Spokane, Washington. The second topic is the review of biological reference points for HMS stocks managed under the Council's Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species. These biological reference points, identified in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, include maximum sustainable yield, optimum yield, and status determination criteria. The HMSMT will initially focus on identifying these reference points for Pacific bluefin tuna. Other topics the HMSMT may discuss include updates to the HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation document and HMS-related matters scheduled on future Council agendas.

    Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: February 22, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03787 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF243 Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's Outreach and Education Advisory Panel (OEAP) will meet.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on March 30-31, 2017, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., each day.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at CFMC Office, 270 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918, telephone (787) 766-5926.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OEAP will meet to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:

    March 30, 2017 ○ Call to Order ○ Adoption of Agenda ○ OEAP Chairperson's Report ○ Status of: ○ Responsible Seafood Consumption Campaign ○ CFMC Report 158th Regular Meeting ○ 2017 Calendar Fuete y Verguilla Issue Celebrating 40 Year of the Magnusson Stevens Act and the CFMC ○ Caribbean Fishery App ○ USVI Activities March 31, 2017 ○ Social Media for Council Communications with Stakeholders ○ PEPCO ○ MREP Caribbean ○ Island-Based Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) ○ Other Business

    The meeting is open to the public, and will be conducted in English. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: February 22, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03788 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Federal advisory committee meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel. This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday, March 8 and 9, 2017. Public registration will begin at 8:45 a.m. on each day. For entrance into the meeting, you must meet the necessary requirements for entrance into the Pentagon. For more detailed information, please see the following link: http://www.pfpa.mil/access.html.

    ADDRESSES:

    Pentagon Library, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. The meeting will be held in Room B3 on March 8 and M1 on March 9. The Pentagon Library is located in the Pentagon Library and Conference Center (PLC2) across the Corridor 8 bridge.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    LTC Andrew Lunoff, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition), 3090 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3090, email: [email protected], phone: 571-256-9004.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the Government-Industry Advisory Panel was unable to provide public notification concerning its meeting on March 8 through 9, 2017, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    Purpose of the Meeting: This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Government-Industry Advisory Panel will review sections 2320 and 2321 of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), regarding rights in technical data and the validation of proprietary data restrictions and the regulations implementing such sections, for the purpose of ensuring that such statutory and regulatory requirements are best structured to serve the interest of the taxpayers and the national defense. The scope of the panel is as follows: (1) Ensuring that the Department of Defense (DoD) does not pay more than once for the same work, (2) Ensuring that the DoD contractors are appropriately rewarded for their innovation and invention, (3) Providing for cost-effective reprocurement, sustainment, modification, and upgrades to the DoD systems, (4) Encouraging the private sector to invest in new products, technologies, and processes relevant to the missions of the DoD, and (5) Ensuring that the DoD has appropriate access to innovative products, technologies, and processes developed by the private sector for commercial use.

    Agenda: This will be the thirteenth meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel. The panel will cover details of 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321, begin understanding the implementing regulations and detail the necessary groups within the private sector and government to provide supporting documentation for their review of these codes and regulations during follow-on meetings. Agenda items for this meeting will include the following: (1) Final review of tension point information papers; (2) Rewrite FY17 NDAA 2320 and 2321 language; (3) Review Report Framework and Format for Publishing; (4) Comment Adjudication & Planning for follow-on meeting.

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the March 8-9 meeting will be available as requested or at the following site: https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=2561. It will also be distributed upon request.

    Minor changes to the agenda will be announced at the meeting. All materials will be posted to the FACA database after the meeting.

    Public Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Registration of members of the public who wish to attend the meeting will begin upon publication of this meeting notice and end three business days (March 3) prior to the start of the meeting. All members of the public must contact LTC Lunoff at the phone number or email listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to make arrangements for Pentagon escort, if necessary. Public attendees should arrive at the Pentagon's Visitor's Center, located near the Pentagon Metro Station's south exit and adjacent to the Pentagon Transit Center bus terminal with sufficient time to complete security screening no later than 8:30 a.m. on March 8-9. To complete security screening, please come prepared to present two forms of identification of which one must be a pictured identification card. Government and military DoD CAC holders are not required to have an escort, but are still required to pass through the Visitor's Center to gain access to the Building. Seating is limited and is on a first-to-arrive basis. Attendees will be asked to provide their name, title, affiliation, and contact information to include email address and daytime telephone number to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Any interested person may attend the meeting, file written comments or statements with the committee, or make verbal comments from the floor during the public meeting, at the times, and in the manner, permitted by the committee.

    Special Accommodations: The meeting venue is fully handicap accessible, with wheelchair access.

    Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting or seeking additional information about public access procedures, should contact LTC Lunoff, the committee DFO, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Government-Industry Advisory Panel about its mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. Written comments or statements should be submitted to LTC Lunoff, the committee DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. The comment or statement must include the author's name, title, affiliation, address, and daytime telephone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the committee DFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that they may be made available to the Government-Industry Advisory Panel for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the panel until its next meeting. Please note that because the panel operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

    Verbal Comments: Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the meeting only at the time and in the manner allowed herein. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three (3) business days in advance to the committee DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The committee DFO will log each request to make a comment, in the order received, and determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the panel's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 30-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described in this paragraph, will be allotted no more than five (5) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03696 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, March 15, 2017, 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Frank H. Rogers Science and Technology Building, 755 East Flamingo, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara Ulmer, Board Administrator, 232 Energy Way, M/S 167, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 630-0522; Fax (702) 295-2025 or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda: 1. Briefing and Recommendation Development for Fiscal Year 2019 Baseline Prioritization—Work Plan Item #8.

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Nevada, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Barbara Ulmer at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should contact Barbara Ulmer at the telephone number listed above. The request must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments can do so during the 15 minutes allotted for public comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing to Barbara Ulmer at the address listed above or at the following Web site: http://www.nnss.gov/NSSAB/pages/MM_FY17.html.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on February 17, 2017. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03775 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-987-000] Iron Horse Battery Storage, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Iron Horse Battery Storage, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 13, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03763 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-991-000] Hunlock Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Hunlock Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 13, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03766 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-989-000] Chambersburg Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Chambersburg Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 13, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03764 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-990-000] Gans Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Gans Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 13, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03765 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-1002-000] Optimum Power Investments, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Optimum Power Investments, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 13, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03769 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-74-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to January 30, 2017 Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the FPA (Exhibit I) of Duke Energy Florida, LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5091.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1465-003.

    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Re-filing to Align OATT Attachment K to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170221-5172.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/14/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2304-001.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: BPA NITSA (CEC Load) Rev 2 to be effective 3/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170216-5063.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-790-000.

    Applicants: Cimarron Bend Wind Project II, LLC.

    Description: Amendment to January 13, 2017 Cimarron Bend Wind Project II, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5173.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1004-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: BPA NITSA (CEC Load) Rev 2 to be effective 3/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170221-5167.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/14/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1005-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2855R2 KMEA & KCPL Meter Agent Agreement to be effective 2/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170221-5202.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/14/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF17-690-000.

    Applicants: Archer Daniels Midland Company.

    Description: Form 556 of Archer Daniels Midland Company [Marshall].

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5250.

    Comments Due: None Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03762 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14814-000] Watterra Energy, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications Correction

    In notice document 2017-03155, appearing on page 11027, in the issue of Friday, February 17, 2017, make the following correction:

    On page 11027, in the first column, in the document heading, below DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “[Project No. 4814-000]” should read, “[Project No. 14814-000]”.

    [FR Doc. C1-2017-03155 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-992-000] Springdale Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Springdale Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 13, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03767 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-993-000] Bath County Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Bath County Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 13, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03768 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-83-000.

    Applicants: Chambersburg Energy, LLC, Gans Energy, LLC, Hunlock Energy, LLC, Springdale Energy, LLC, Bath County Energy, LLC, Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC, Allegheny Generating Company.

    Description: Joint Application for Approval Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for a Shortened Comment Period of Chambersburg Energy, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5252.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2654-002.

    Applicants: City Point Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of City Point Energy Center, LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5248.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-985-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2017-02-17_Amendment to SA 2907 RockGen-ATC Amended GIA J382/J384 to be effective 2/2/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5206.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1001-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-02-17_SA 2492 MSCPA-METC Project 1 GIA Termination to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5209.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1002-000.

    Applicants: Optimum Power Investments, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective 3/31/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5210.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1003-000.

    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of Rate Schedule 95 w_Progress Energy Florida-Phillips Agreement to be effective 2/23/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/21/17.

    Accession Number: 20170221-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/14/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03761 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change the Community of License AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of License: CSSI Non-Profit Educational Broadcasting Corporation, Station KYQX, Facility ID 62040, BPED-20161216AAP, From Weatherford, TX, To Mineral Wells, TX; East Valley Institute of Technology District #401, Station KPNG, Facility ID 173984, BPED-20170111ABI, From Chandler, AZ, To Maricopa, AZ; Educational Media Foundation, Station KLVK, Facility ID 76329, BPED-20170111ABJ, From Fountain Hills, AZ, To Maricopa, AZ; Educational Media Foundation, Station KLVA, Facility ID 2749, BPED-20170111ABK, From Maricopa, AZ, To Avondale, AZ; New England Broadcasting Edu. Group Inc., Station WVCA, Facility ID 197976, BMPED-20161128ADJ, From Newbury, MA, To Seabrook, NH; Top O' Texas Ed B/Casting Foundation, Station KUHC, Facility ID 174504, BPED-20170127ABL, From Clayton, NM, To Hartley, TX; University Of Massachusetts, Station WUMD, Facility ID 163899, BPED-20170104AAW, From North Dartmouth, MA, To Newport, RI; White Mountains Broadcasting, LLC., Station WWOX, Facility ID 190383, BMPH-20170130AAZ, From Canaan, VT, To Milan, NH.

    DATES:

    The agency must receive comments on or before April 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tung Bui, 202-418-2700.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The full text of these applications is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System, http://licensing.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/cdbs_pa.htm.

    Federal Communications Commission. James D. Bradshaw, Deputy Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03808 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, February 23, 2017 February 16, 2017.

    The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, February 23, 2017 which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC.

    Item No. Bureau Subject 1 Wireless Telecommunications and Wireline Competition Title: Connect America Fund (WC Docket No. 10-90); A National Broadband Plan for Our Future (GN Docket No. 09-51); Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers (WC Docket No. 07-135); High-Cost Universal Service Support (WC Docket No. 05-337); Developing an Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime (CC Docket No. 01-92); Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service (CC Docket No. 96-45); Lifeline and Link-Up (WC Docket No. 03-109); Universal Service Reform—Mobility Fund (WT Docket No. 10-208).
  • Summary: The Commission will consider a Report and Order adopting rules to provide ongoing support targeted to preserve and advance high-speed mobile broadband and voice service in high-cost areas that the marketplace does not otherwise serve.
  • 2 Wireline Competition Title: Connect America Fund (WC Docket No. 10-90); ETC Annual Reports and Certifications (WC Docket No. 14-58).
  • Summary: The Commission will consider a Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration that (1) resolves a number of issues raised in the Phase II Auction Order FNPRM, including the adoption of weights to compare bids among service performance and latency tiers, and (2) considers several petitions for reconsideration for decisions made in the Phase II Auction Order.
  • 3 Media and Office of Engineering & Technology Title: Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard (GN Docket No. 16-142).
  • Summary: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to let television broadcasters use the “Next Generation” broadcast television transmission standard associated with recent work of the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC 3.0) on a voluntary, market-driven basis.
  • 4 Media Title: Revitalization of the AM Radio Service (MB Docket No. 13-249).
  • Summary: The Commission will consider a Second Report and Order that would relax the siting rule for an FM fill-in translator rebroadcasting an AM broadcast station.
  • 5 Consumer & Governmental Affairs Title: Small Business Exemption From Open Internet Enhanced Transparency Requirements (GN Docket No. 14-28).
  • Summary: The Commission will consider an Order granting a five-year waiver to broadband Internet access service providers with 250,000 or fewer broadband connections from the enhanced reporting requirements adopted in the 2015 Title II Order.
  • 6 Wireline Competiton Title: Comprehensive Review of the Part 32 Uniform System of Accounts (WC Docket No. 14-130).
  • Summary: The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would streamline and eliminate outdated accounting rules no longer needed to fulfill the Commission's statutory or regulatory duties.
  • Consent Agenda

    The Commission will consider the following subjects listed below as a consent agenda and these items will not be presented individually:

    1 Media Title: Delta Radio Network, LLC, Application for Minor Modification of Licensed Facilities of WNLA(AM), Indianola, MS.
  • Summary: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Delta Radio Network regarding the dismissal of a modification application.
  • The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to: [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

    Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at www.fcc.gov/live.

    For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03756 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0717] Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before March 29, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0717.

    Title: Billed Party Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls, CC Docket No. 92-77, 47 CFR Sections 64.703(a), 64.709, 64.710.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,418 respondents; 11,250,150 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 minute (.017 hours)-50 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annual and on-occasion reporting requirements. Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is found at 47 U.S.C. 226, Telephone Operator Services, Public Law 101-435, 104 Stat. 986, codified at 47 CFR 64.703(a) Consumer Information, 64.709 Informational Tariffs, and 64.710 Operator Services for Prison Inmate Phones.

    Total Annual Burden: 205,023 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $138,750.

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

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 64.703(a), Operator Service Providers (OSPs) are required to disclose, audibly and distinctly to the consumer, at no charge and before connecting any interstate call, how to obtain rate quotations, including any applicable surcharges. 47 CFR 64.710 imposes similar requirements on OSPs to inmates at correctional institutions. 47 CFR 64.709 codifies the requirements for OSPs to file informational tariffs with the Commission. These rules help to ensure that consumers receive information necessary to determine what the charges associated with an OSP-assisted call will be, thereby enhancing informed consumer choice in the operator services marketplace.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03755 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0994] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before April 28, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0994.

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

    Form No: Not Applicable.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 126 respondents; 126 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.50-50 hours per response.

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

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

    Total Annual Burden: 520 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $530,340.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: This collection will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a revision following the 60-day comment period in order to obtain the full three-year clearance from OMB.

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

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

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03754 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0652] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before April 28, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0652.

    Title: Section 76.309, Customer Service Obligations; Section 76.1602, Customer Service-General Information, Section 76.1603, Customer Service-Rate and Service Changes and Section 76.1619, Information and Subscriber Bills.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 8,260 respondents; 1,117,540 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.0167 to 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 4(i) and 632 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 50,090 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission released on October 14, 2010, a Third Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 10-181, CS Docket 97-80 and PP Docket 00-67, modifying the Commission's rules to implement Section 629 of the Communications Act (Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996). Section 629 of the Communications Act directs the Commission to adopt rules to assure the commercial availability of “navigation devices,” such as cable set-top boxes. One rule modification in the Third Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration is intended to prohibit price discrimination against retail devices. This modification requires cable operators to disclose annually the fees for rental of navigation devices and single and additional CableCARDs as well as the fees reasonably allocable to the rental of single and additional CableCARDs and the rental of operator-supplied navigation devices if those devices are included in the price of a bundled offer.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03753 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [GN Docket No. 12-268; AU Docket No. 14-252; WT Docket No. 12-269; DA 17-142] Information Concerning the Assignment Phase of the Forward Auction (Auction 1002), Including the Schedule for Practice and Mock Auctions; Availability of Assignment Phase User Guide and Online Tutorial; Assignment Phase Bidding Begins March 6, 2017 AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Incentive Auction Task Force (Task Force) and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) announce information regarding the assignment phase of the forward auction (Auction 1002), including the schedule for the practice and mock auctions. Specifically, the Task Force and Bureau announce the availability of the assignment phase bidding system and assignment phase data; the assignment phase practice and mock auction design and schedule; the start date, and scheduled conclusion date, for assignment phase bidding; and the availability of educational and informational materials to help bidders prepare for the assignment phase.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information on the practice and mock auctions, contact Melissa Dunford, [email protected], (202) 418-0617, or Jonathan McCormack, [email protected], (202) 418-1065. For general auction questions, contact Linda Sanderson, [email protected], (717) 338-2868. For forward auction legal questions, contact Valerie Barrish, [email protected], (202) 418-0660, or Scott Mackoul, [email protected], (202) 418-0660. Press contact: Charles Meisch, [email protected], (202) 418-2943. For technical support questions, contact the FCC Auctions Technical Support Hotline at (877) 480-3201, option nine; (202) 414-1250; or TTY: (202) 414-1255 (open 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET), Monday through Friday).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's document, AU Docket No. 14-252, GN Docket No. 12-268, WT Docket No. 12-269; DA 17-142, released February 14, 2017. The complete text of this document is available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is also available on the Commission's Web site at http://wireless.fcc.gov, the Auction 1000 Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/auctions/1000, or by using the search function on the ECFS Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    1. The Incentive Auction Task Force (Task Force) and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) provide information regarding the assignment phase of the forward auction (Auction 1002) of the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction. The assignment phase is designed to give highest priority to assigning bidders within a Partial Economic Area (PEA) contiguous blocks of spectrum to the extent possible and to simplify the bidding process. Bidders that won at least one block of paired spectrum in one PEA in the forward auction clock phase are eligible to participate in the forward auction assignment phase. Bidders eligible to participate in the assignment phase will be able to log in to the assignment phase bidding system between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET on Tuesday, February 21, 2017, to download their assignment phase bidding options (which correspond to their clock phase winnings), view the sequence and timing for the assignment rounds for all PEAs, and identify the assignment rounds in which they will be eligible to participate. Beginning the next day, Wednesday, February 22, 2017, the Task Force and Bureau will provide one practice auction opportunity, and beginning on Tuesday, February 28, 2017, will conduct one mock auction for the assignment phase of Auction 1002, according to the schedule announced below. The first round of forward auction assignment phase bidding will begin on Monday, March 6, 2017, and all assignment rounds are scheduled to conclude by Thursday, March 30, 2017.

    2. The practice and mock auctions will give clock phase winning bidders an opportunity to become familiar with the assignment phase bidding system and to ask Commission auction and technical support staff questions about the system and the conduct of the assignment phase. The Task Force and Bureau strongly recommend that all clock phase winning bidders participate in the practice and mock auctions for the assignment phase of the forward auction.

    3. The Task Force and Bureau announce the availability of the “FCC Incentive Auction Forward Auction Assignment Phase Bidding System User Guide,” which describes the features of the system that will be used to bid in the assignment phase of the forward auction and which provides detailed instructions for bidding and viewing results and payment information from the assignment phase. The Task Force and Bureau also announce the availability of an online tutorial on bidding in the forward auction assignment phase, which explains the structure of the assignment phase, the process for determining winning assignments and associated payments, and the calculation of final auction payments. Both the user guide and tutorial are available in electronic form under the “Education” section of the Auction 1002 Web site (www.fcc.gov/auctions/1002) and will remain available and accessible on the Auction 1002 Web page for reference. The Task Force and Bureau recommend that bidders eligible to participate in the assignment phase thoroughly review the user guide and the tutorial to prepare for bidding in the assignment phase.

    I. Assignment Phase Bidding System Availability and Data

    4. Bidders eligible to participate in the assignment phase will be able to log in to the assignment phase bidding system for a preview period using a link for the system that will be mailed to each bidder. Bidders will be able to access the system during the preview period between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 21, 2017, the day before the assignment phase practice auction begins. Before the assignment phase begins, eligible bidders will be able to access information about their bidding options for each PEA in which they had clock phase winnings, the grouping of PEAs for bidding in each assignment round, and the sequencing of the assignment rounds. The following information will be available to bidders in the system before bidding in the assignment phase begins:

    5. Contiguity Outcome. The contiguity outcome for each PEA or PEA group will be available in the system. Because all blocks are contiguous and of the same category (Category 1) under the band plan associated with the 84 megahertz clearing target of the final stage, it will be possible to assign every winning bidder from the clock phase contiguous blocks of frequency-specific licenses, regardless of whether they bid in the assignment phase.

    6. Grouping of PEAs for Bidding. Bidders will be able to view whether any PEAs have been grouped for purposes of bidding in the assignment phase. PEAs will be grouped for bidding in the same assignment round if the same bidders won the same number of blocks in each of the PEAs in the group, and if all of the PEAs in the group are either high-demand PEAs or in the same Regional Economic Area Grouping (REAG) and either subject to the small market bidding credit cap or not subject to the cap. The same assignment will be made for all of the PEAs in the group.

    7. Bidding Options. Bidders can download their full list of bidding options provided in the “My Bids and Options” download. This file provides information about all of the bidding options available to the bidder for all assignment rounds in which it can bid, based on its winnings in the clock phase. This file can also be used to upload bids. Consistent with the contiguity outcome described above, each bidder's bidding options for a PEA will be all of the contiguous options consistent with the bidder's clock phase winnings.

    8. Detailed Schedule of Rounds. The full schedule of assignment rounds will be available for viewing in the system. The assignment rounds will begin on Monday, March 6, 2017. The bidding system has already determined that there will be seventy-four assignment rounds based on the number of PEAs that can be grouped together for bidding. We expect to conduct four assignment rounds per day; therefore, we anticipate that the assignment phase will conclude on Thursday, March 30, 2017. The high-demand PEAs will be assigned first—in decreasing order of weighted pops—one PEA (or PEA group) per assignment round. Once the high-demand PEAs have been assigned, the remaining PEAs within each of the six REAGs will be assigned, with parallel bidding taking place for a PEA (or PEA group) in as many as six REAGs during the same assignment bidding round. Within each REAG, bidding will take place in order of decreasing weighted pops.

    9. Access to the actual assignment phase data will be suspended during the practice and mock auction, but will become available again at 10:00 a.m. ET on Friday, March 3, 2017—three days before bidding in the assignment phase begins. During the practice and mock auctions, bidders will continue to log in using the same link they use for assignment phase bidding.

    II. Assignment Phase Practice Auction

    10. For the assignment phase practice auction, the bidding system will use the actual PEAs in the incentive auction, but bidders will not necessarily be assigned PEAs in which they have clock phase winnings. Each clock phase winning bidder will be assigned a randomly-selected set of PEAs on which it may bid. Each bidder's assigned practice PEAs will determine the assignment rounds in which it may bid in the practice auction. Bidding in the practice auction will not predict actual bidding in the assignment phase of the forward auction.

    A. Practice Auction Design

    11. Each bidder will be randomly assigned practice winnings in PEAs to provide an opportunity to participate in at least the same number rounds in the practice auction as it will have in the actual assignment phase, up to a maximum of five rounds. For example, if a clock phase winner has actual winnings in PEAs in four rounds of the assignment phase, it will be randomly assigned PEAs in at least four rounds for the practice auction. If a clock phase winner has actual winnings in PEAs in more than five rounds of the assignment phase, it will be randomly assigned PEAs in five rounds for the practice auction.

    12. Bidders' assigned practice winnings will enable them to simulate the experience they will have in the assignment phase. Accordingly, if a bidder's clock phase winnings include any blocks in any of the high-demand PEAs, then the bidder will be randomly assigned practice winnings in one high-demand PEA or PEA group. A bidder that does not have clock phase winnings in any high-demand PEA will not be assigned practice winnings in a high-demand PEA and will not be able to practice bidding in an assignment round for a high-demand PEA or PEA group. If a bidder has clock phase winnings in multiple REAGs that will be assigned in the same assignment round, its assigned practice winnings will include PEAs or PEA groups in multiple REAGs that will be assigned in the same round. If a bidder does not have clock phase winnings in multiple REAGs that will be assigned in the same assignment round, its assigned practice winnings may or may not include PEAs or PEA groups in multiple REAGs that will be assigned in the same round.

    13. In each PEA, a bidder will be randomly assigned either one or two blocks, and each bidder's practice clock phase winnings will include both reserved and unreserved blocks in at least one PEA. Each bidder will be eligible for its actual forward auction bidding credit in the practice auction.

    B. Practice Auction Schedule

    14. The assignment phase practice auction will begin on Wednesday, February 22, 2017, and continue through Friday, February 24, 2017. Bidders will be able to preview assignment phase practice auction data beginning at 10:00 a.m. ET on Wednesday, February 22, 2017, and three practice assignment rounds will be conducted that afternoon with bidding for assignments in high-demand PEAs. The second and third days of the practice auction will consist of four practice assignment rounds each day and will include bidding for assignments in non-high-demand PEAs, with bidding conducted for PEAs in up to six REAGs during each round.

    15. When the assignment phase practice auction data preview period begins, bidders will be able to access the system to download the file of assignment phase practice bidding options and to see the order of the assignment rounds for the PEAs in which they have assignment phase practice PEA selections.

    16. The assignment phase practice auction will occur as follows:

    February 22, 2017 Preview Period—10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. ET Practice Assignment Round—12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. ET Practice Assignment Round—2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. ET Practice Assignment Round—4:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. ET February 23, 2017 and February 24, 2017 Practice Assignment Round—10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. ET Practice Assignment Round—12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. ET Practice Assignment Round—2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. ET Practice Assignment Round—4:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. ET

    17. Bidders that participate in the assignment phase practice auction will have the ability to use all features of the assignment phase bidding system, as in the actual assignment phase bidding rounds.

    III. Assignment Phase Mock Auction

    18. The assignment phase mock auction will provide winning clock phase bidders with a final opportunity, after their experience during the practice auction, to bid in simulated assignment phase rounds. As with the practice assignment rounds, the mock auction will allow participants to become more familiar with the assignment phase bidding system and to ask Commission staff questions they may have in advance of the actual assignment phase of Auction 1002.

    19. The assignment phase mock auction will begin on Tuesday, February 28, 2017, and continue through Thursday, March 2, 2017. As in the practice auction, there will be a preview period on the morning of the first day of the assignment phase mock auction, and three mock assignment rounds will be conducted that afternoon with bidding for assignments in high-demand PEAs. The second and third days of the mock auction will consist of six practice assignment rounds each day and will include bidding for assignments in non-high-demand PEAs, with bidding conducted for PEAs in up to six REAGs during each round.

    20. Clock phase winners will again be randomly assigned clock phase winnings for the assignment phase mock auction. Similar to the practice auction, each bidder will be randomly assigned practice winnings in PEAs that will provide an opportunity to participate in at least the same number rounds in the mock auction as it will have in the actual assignment phase, up to a maximum of 10 rounds. Other than the number of assigned rounds, the mock auction will use the same criteria for assigning PEAs to bidders as described above for the assignment phase practice auction.

    21. The assignment phase mock auction will occur as follows:

    February 28, 2017 Preview Period—10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. ET Mock Assignment Round—12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. ET Mock Assignment Round—2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. ET Mock Assignment Round—4:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. ET March 1, 2017 and March 2, 2017 Mock Assignment Round—10:00 a.m.-10:40 a.m. ET Mock Assignment Round—11:00 a.m.-11:40 a.m. ET Mock Assignment Round—12:00 p.m.-12:40 p.m. ET Mock Assignment Round—2:00 p.m.-2:40 p.m. ET Mock Assignment Round—3:00 p.m.-3:40 p.m. ET Mock Assignment Round—4:00 p.m.-4:40 p.m. ET IV. Bidder Questions During the Assignment Phase, Including the Practice and Mock Auctions

    22. Commission auction staff will be available during the assignment phase practice and mock auctions and the actual assignment phase bidding rounds. Only a person who has been designated as an authorized bidder, the contact person, or the certifying official on the qualified bidder's FCC Form 175 should call on behalf of a bidder. To place bids by telephone or to ask time-sensitive questions during the auction, an authorized bidder must use the FCC Auction Bidder Line telephone number supplied in the registration materials and have his or her login information and RSA SecurID® token available. Bidders can also use the messaging function of the bidding system for non-time-sensitive questions or suggestions.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gary D. Michaels, Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, WTB.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03830 Filed 2-22-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage In or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in the notice have given notice under the Home Owners Loan Act (HOLA) (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) and Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238) or Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is described in § 238.53 or 238.54 of Regulation LL (12 CFR 238.53 or 238.54) or § 239.8 of Regulation MM (12 CFR 239.8). Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 10a(c)(4)(B) of HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)).

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 23, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Admirals Bancorp, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts; Federal One Holdings, LLC and Lazares and Company, LLC, both of Milton, Massachusetts; to engage in lending activities pursuant to 12 CFR 238.54 and 12 CFR 225.28(b)(1), (b)(2).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 22, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03827 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-WWICC-2017-01; Docket No. 2017-0003; Sequence 1] World War One Centennial Commission; Notification of Change to Upcoming Public Advisory Meeting AGENCY:

    World War One Centennial Commission.

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice of this meeting is being provided according to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2). This notice provides the schedule and agenda for the March 22, 2017 meeting of the World War One Centennial Commission (the Commission). The meeting is open to the public via telephone, first come, first served.

    DATES:

    Effective: February 27, 2017.

    MEETING DATE:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 22, 2017 starting at 10:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Saving Time (EDST), and ending no later than 2:00 p.m., EDST. The meeting will be held via teleconference. The meeting will be open for the public to dial in on a first come first served basis by dialing 712-432-1001 and entering Access Code: 474845614#. Note this is not a toll-free number.

    Written Comments may be submitted to the Commission and will be made part of the permanent record of the Commission. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Saving Time (EDST), on March 17, 2017, and may be provided by email to [email protected] Contact Daniel S. Dayton at [email protected] to register to comment during the meeting's 30-minute public comment period.

    Registered speakers/organizations will be allowed five minutes and will need to provide written copies of their presentations. Requests to comment, together with presentations for the meeting, must be received by 5:00 p.m., EDST, on Friday, March 17, 2017. Please contact Mr. Dayton at the email address above to obtain meeting materials.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel S. Dayton, Designated Federal Officer, World War 1 Centennial Commission, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 123, Washington, DC 20004-2608, at 202-380-0725 (note: this is not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The World War One Centennial Commission was established by Public Law 112-272 (as amended), as a commission to ensure a suitable observance of the centennial of World War I, to provide for the designation of memorials to the service of members of the United States Armed Forces in World War I, and for other purposes. Under this authority, the Committee will plan, develop, and execute programs, projects, and activities to commemorate the centennial of World War I, encourage private organizations and State and local governments to organize and participate in activities commemorating the centennial of World War I, facilitate and coordinate activities throughout the United States relating to the centennial of World War I, serve as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of information about events and plans for the centennial of World War I, and develop recommendations for Congress and the President for commemorating the centennial of World War I. The Commission does not have an appropriation and operates solely on donated funds.

    Agenda: Wednesday, March 22, 2017.

    Old Business

    • Acceptance of minutes of last meeting.

    • Public Comment Period.

    New Business

    • Executive Director's Report—Mr. Dayton.

    • Financial Committee Report—Vice Chair Fountain.

    • Fundraising Report—Ambassador Sedgwick.

    • Memorial Report—Vice Chair Fountain.

    • Education Report—Dr. O'Connell.

    • Endorsements—(RFS)—Dr. Seefried.

    • International Report—Dr. Seefried.

    • Report on April 6 Event—Dr. Seefried.

    • Other Business.

    • Chairman's Report.

    • Set Next Meeting.

    • Motion to Adjourn.

    Dated: February 13, 2017. Daniel S. Dayton, Designated Federal Official, World War I Centennial Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03721 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-95-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Docket Number CDC-2017-0014, NIOSH-292]