Federal Register Vol. 82, No.37,

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.

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.

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all 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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Discussion

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

We 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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed 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.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.