Federal Register Vol. 82, No.57,

I. Background and Summary Authority

The Veterinary Services Grant Program (VSGP) is authorized under section 7104 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79), 7 U.S.C. 3151b.

A primary function of NIFA is the fair, effective, and efficient administration of Federal assistance programs implementing agricultural research, education, and extension programs. The awards made under the above authority are subject to the NIFA assistance regulations at 7 CFR part 3430, Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-formula Federal Assistance Programs—General Award Administrative Provisions. NIFA's development and publication of this part serve to enhance its accountability and to standardize procedures across the Federal assistance programs it administers while providing transparency to the public. NIFA published 7 CFR part 3430 with subparts A through E as an interim final rule on September 4, 2009 [74 FR 45736-45752]. These regulations apply to all Federal assistance programs administered by NIFA except for the capacity grant programs identified in 7 CFR 3430.1(f), the Small Business Innovation Research programs, with implementing regulations at 7 CFR part 3403, and the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program, with implementing regulations at 7 CFR part 3431.

NIFA organized part 3430 as follows: Subparts A through E provide administrative provisions for all competitive and noncompetitive non-capacity Federal assistance programs. Subparts F and thereafter apply to specific NIFA programs.

NIFA is, to the extent practical, using the following subpart template for each program authority: (1) Applicability of regulations; (2) purpose; (3) definitions (those in addition to or different from § 3430.2); (4) eligibility; (5) project types and priorities; (6) funding restrictions; and (7) matching requirements. Subparts F and thereafter contain the above seven components in this order. Additional sections may be added for a specific program if there are additional requirements or a need for additional rules for the program (e.g., additional reporting requirements). Through this rulemaking, NIFA is adding subpart Q for the administrative provisions that are specific to the VSGP program.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; nor will it materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs; nor will it have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; nor will it adversely affect the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way. Further, it does not raise a novel legal or policy issue arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or principles set forth in the Executive Order.

This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The Director of NIFA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule does not involve regulatory and informational requirements regarding businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.

The Department certifies that this final rule has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Department concludes that this final rule does not impose any new information requirements or increase the burden hours. In addition to the SF-424 form families (i.e., Research and Related and Mandatory) and the SF-425 Federal Financial Report (FFR) No. 0348-0061, NIFA has three currently approved OMB information collections associated with this rulemaking: OMB Information Collection No. 0524-0042, NIFA REEport; No. 0524-0041, NIFA Application Review Process; and No. 0524-0026, Assurance of Compliance with the Department of Agriculture Regulations Assuring Civil Rights Compliance and Organizational Information.

This final rule applies to the following Federal financial assistance programs administered by NIFA: CFDA No. 10.336 Veterinary Services Grant Program.

The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order No. 13132 and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., and has found no potential or substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. As there is no Federal mandate contained herein that could result in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector, the Department has not prepared a budgetary impact statement.

Executive Order 12866 and the President's Memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. The Department invites comments on how to make this final rule easier to understand.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 3430 is amended as set forth below:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2016 (81 FR 59539). The NPRM was prompted by reports of interior emergency lights remaining “ON” following routine operational checks of the emergency light system. The NPRM proposed to require changing the wiring gauge for the affected emergency lights power supplies wiring to prevent overheating in the wires. Overheating can damage the wire insulation, potentially causing a fire.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-12, effective May 11, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ”the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9054.

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.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International, stated that it supports the NPRM.

Horizon Air and Ryota Takeuchi requested that we revise the NPRM to specify that the wire gauge be changed in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-33-12, Revision B, dated June 28, 2016 (“SB 84-33-12, Revision B”).

Horizon Air also requested that we revise the NPRM to provide credit for previous actions done using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-33-12, Revision A, dated January 19, 2016.

We agree with these requests. We have determined that SB 84-33-12, Revision B, requires no additional actions for airplanes modified using previous revisions. Therefore, we have revised this final rule to refer to SB 84-33-12, Revision B. We have also revised paragraph (h) of this AD to include credit for actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-33-12, Revision A, dated January 19, 2016.

Horizon Air also requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to require that the wire gauge be changed in accordance with paragraph 3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of SB 84-33-12, Revision B. Horizon pointed out that incorporating the Job Set-up and Close Out sections of the Accomplishment Instructions restricts an operator's ability to perform other maintenance in conjunction with the requirements of the proposed AD.

We agree with Horizon Air's request for the reason provided. We have revised this AD to reference only the actions necessary to address the unsafe condition specified in this AD.

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 SB 84-33-12, Revision B. This service information describes procedures for changing the wiring gauge for the affected emergency lights power supplies wiring to prevent overheating in the wires. 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 52 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 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:

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 A300 B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and A300 B4-622R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2016 (81 FR 59530) (“the NPRM”).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0057, dated March 18, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and A300 B4-622R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes. The MCAI states:

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.

FedEx requested that the reporting requirements in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6184, dated November 12, 2015, be specified in the AD as optional. FedEx stated that Airbus has received these reports regularly in the past and they have not provided industry statistics or benefits to the operators.

We agree that reporting is not necessary in this AD. The report in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6184, dated November 12, 2015, is designed to report crack findings. Crack findings are addressed by paragraph (h) of this AD.

Because reporting is specified within the procedures of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6184, dated November 12, 2015, we have revised this AD by adding paragraph (i) to specify no reporting is required. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

FedEx stated the inspection is best fitted for a maintenance program and should be included in an airworthiness limitation document.

We do not agree with the commenter. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6184, dated November 12, 2015, has been issued to address in-service findings, which can lead to an unsafe condition. For this case, no airworthiness limitation instructions were introduced by Airbus. To delay this action until airworthiness limitations were developed would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that inspections must be conducted to ensure continued safety. 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 Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6184, dated November 12, 2015. The service information describes procedures for an ultrasonic inspection of the skin lap joint below STR 28 at FR 72 to FR 76, and repair if necessary. 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 29 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have no way to determine the costs to do any necessary repairs that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these repairs.

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:

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

We are adopting a new AD for Sikorsky Model 269D and Model 269D Configuration A helicopters with KAflex drive shaft (engine side) part number (P/N) SKCP2738-7 and KAflex drive shaft (pulley side) P/N SKCP2738-5 installed. This AD is prompted by four incidents involving failure of the engine side drive shaft. Three incidents experienced loss of rotor drive resulting in forced landings. The fourth incident resulted in vibration during flight prompting an immediate landing. A fractured engine side drive shaft was evident in each incident. Investigations revealed compression of the rubber engine mounts may lead to loss of alignment between the lower pulley shaft and the engine output shaft, resulting in fracture of the engine side drive shaft. Additionally, it has been discovered that increased cyclic torsional loading was inaccurately applied in previous fatigue analysis, making it necessary to reduce the life limit.

Accordingly, this AD requires reducing the life limit of the engine side drive shaft and pulley side drive shaft to 6,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) for Model 269D helicopters and 1,200 hours TIS for Model 269D Configuration A helicopters. If the drive shaft is interchanged or has ever been interchanged between the two model configurations, this AD requires using the lower life limit of 1,200 hours TIS. This AD also requires performing several inspections of the drive shaft within 25 hours TIS and, depending on the results of these inspections, replacing both the engine side and pulley side drive shafts.

The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent failure of the drive shaft, loss of rotor drive, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Additional inspections at longer intervals may also be necessary. We plan to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to give the public an opportunity to comment on those long-term requirements.

In preparation of AD actions such as notices of proposed rulemaking and immediately adopted final rules, it is the practice of the FAA to obtain technical information and information on the operational and economic impact from design approval holders and aircraft operators. We discussed certain aspects of this AD by email and telephone with Sikorsky. A copy of each email contact and a discussion of each telephone contact can be found in the rulemaking docket. For information on locating the docket, see “Examining the AD Docket.”

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

We reviewed Appendix B to Sikorsky S-330 Model 269D Helicopter Basic Handbook of Maintenance Instructions No. CSP-D-2, dated February 1, 1993, and revised October 15, 2014; and Appendix B to Sikorsky S-333 Model 269D Config. “A” Helicopter Basic Handbook of Maintenance Instructions No. CSP-D-9, dated July 20, 2001, and revised October 15, 2014. This service information specifies repetitive inspection procedures, overhaul and retirement schedules, and weight and balance procedures. The Airworthiness Limitations section, which is included in this service information, contains the life limits for drive shaft assembly P/Ns SKCP2738-5 and SKCP2738-7.

We also reviewed Sikorsky 269D Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin DB-052, Basic Issue, dated January 16, 2014, which distributes the service life reduction information and implements a new 1,200-hour overhaul inspection for drive shaft assembly P/Ns SKCP2738-3, SKCP2738-5, and SKCP2738-7.

This AD requires, before further flight:

• Removing from service any engine side drive shaft P/N SKCP2738-7 and pulley side drive shaft P/N SKCP2738-5 that has reached or exceeded its new life limit as follows:

○ 6,000 hours TIS for Model 269D helicopters;

○ 1,200 hours TIS for Model 269D Configuration A helicopters; and

○ 1,200 hours TIS if the parts have ever been interchanged between the two model configurations.

This AD also requires, within 25 hours TIS:

• Inspecting the KAflex drive shaft alignment.

• Inspecting the engine side and pulley side drive shafts for a crack, any corrosion or pitting, a nick, a dent, and a scratch.

• Inspecting each bolted joint (joint) for movement.

• Inspecting each joint for fretting corrosion and each frame and mount bolt torque stripe for movement.

• Inspecting each joint for fretting, for a crack around both the bolt head and washer side, and around the nut and washer side, and each inside and outside corner radii and radii edges on both sides of each frame for a crack.

If the drive shaft fails any of the above inspections, this AD requires replacing both the engine side and pulley side drive shafts before further flight.

Lastly, this AD requires within 25 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS:

• Inspecting the lower pulley to engine alignment, and if there is any interference with the rotation of the belt drive alignment tool, adjusting the engine elevation alignment before further flight.

This AD also specifies installing KAflex engine side coupling assembly P/N SKCP2738-9 and KAflex pulley side coupling assembly P/N SKCP2738-101 as an optional terminating action for the requirements of this AD.

The Sikorsky service information specifies a drive shaft assembly service life of 3,000 hours TIS with a 1,200 hour overhaul inspection for Model 269D Configuration A helicopters, while this AD specifies a service life of 1,200 hours TIS.

This AD specifies several inspections with a compliance time of 25 hours TIS that are currently recurring inspections at 100-hour or 400-hour intervals in Sikorsky's service information.

The Sikorsky service information specifies different inspection procedures if there is spline engagement interference or resistance while inspecting the drive shaft alignment. This AD specifies replacing both the engine side and pulley side drive shafts if there is any spline engagement interference or resistance.

The Sikorsky service information specifies inspecting the working fastener condition without any specific succeeding action regarding the inspection. This AD specifies replacing both the engine side and pulley side drive shafts if there is any joint movement.

The Sikorsky service information specifies returning the drive shaft assembly to Sikorsky if there is fretting dust or red metallic residue at a joint. This AD specifies replacing both the engine side and pulley side drive shafts if there is any fretting corrosion.

We consider this AD interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

We estimate that this AD affects 18 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Removing the engine side and pulley side drive shafts that have reached the new life limit will take about 4 work-hours for a cost of $340 per helicopter. Inspecting the drive shaft alignment will take about 1 work-hour for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $1,530 for the U.S. fleet. Inspecting the drive shafts for damage will take about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $1,530 for the U.S. fleet. Inspecting the joints will take about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $1,530 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing the engine side and pulley side drive shafts, if required, will take about 8 work-hours and parts will cost about $20,000, for an estimated cost of $20,680 per helicopter. Inspecting the lower pulley to engine alignment will take about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $774 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Adjusting the engine elevation alignment will take about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter.

Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because some of the required corrective actions must be completed before further flight.

Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2016 (81 FR 54750) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that the fire block in the closets and video control stations, and fire blocking tape in the floor panel opening in the forward and aft main passenger cabin, might be missing on some airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require installing a fire block in the closets and video control stations, as applicable, and installing fire blocking tape in the floor panel openings in the forward and aft main passenger cabin. We are issuing this AD to prevent propagation of a fire in the lower lobe cheek area outboard of a closet or video control station. Such propagation could result in an increased risk of smoke and/or fire propagation into the passenger cabin.

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.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International indicated its support for the intent of the NPRM.

Boeing asked that we clarify certain language related to the unsafe condition throughout the NPRM. Boeing stated that the location of the unsafe condition, referred to in the NPRM as “video control station and closets,” should be changed to “closets and video control stations.” Boeing stated that closets and video control stations are two separate monument designs, and the current wording implies that the requirement applies only to monuments with video controls.

We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. We have clarified this language in all applicable sections of this AD.

United Airlines (UA) asked that we include Issue 002 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530018-00, for accomplishing certain actions in the proposed AD. UA stated that it was informed by Boeing that Issue 002 is in work. UA noted that adding this later revision will minimize potential requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs).

We do not agree with the commenter's request. We do not consider that delaying this final rule until after the release of the manufacturer's planned service information (Issue 002 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530018-00) is warranted. We have identified an unsafe condition and the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530018-00, Issue 001, dated June 7, 2013, address the unsafe condition for airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD. However, under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD, operators may request approval to use later revisions of the service information as an AMOC with this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

UA asked that we split the NPRM into two ADs; one AD for Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250028-00, Issue 001, dated August 1, 2013; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250070-00, Issue 001, dated March 10, 2015; and one AD for Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530018-00, Issue 001, dated June 7, 2013. UA stated that although all of this service information addresses fire blocking, different areas with different procedures are specified in each service bulletin.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. We do not consider that delaying this final rule, so that the required actions can be split into two ADs based on the location of the corrective actions, is warranted. In order to address the identified unsafe condition in a timely manner, we find that we must issue this AD by mandating the specified actions described in the referenced service information. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Boeing asked that we change the phrase “video control closet” to “closet” in the Costs of Compliance section, for clarification. Boeing stated that the referenced service information does not have a monument listing for a “video control closet” but lists this monument as a “closet.”

We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. We have changed this language in the Costs of Compliance section accordingly.

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:

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250028-00, Issue 001, dated August 1, 2013. The service information describes procedures for installing a fire block in the closets and video control stations.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250070-00, Issue 001, dated March 10, 2015. The service information describes procedures for installing a fire block in the video control station.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530018-00, Issue 001, dated June 7, 2013. The service information describes procedures for installing fire blocking tape in the floor panel openings in the forward and aft main passenger cabin.

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

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 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model DC-6, DC-6A, C-118A, R6D-1, DC-6B, and R6D-1Z airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74352). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a fuel leak in a Model C-118A airplane that resulted from a crack in the wing lower skin. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive radiographic, ETHF, and ETLF inspections for cracking of the wing lower skin just inboard of the number 2 nacelle attach angle at wing station 175, and repairs if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the wing lower skin, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the wing.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received. The National Transportation Safety Board, Boeing, and Ms. Ana Maria expressed their support for the NPRM.

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

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

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

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC6-57A001, dated April 28, 2016. The service information describes procedures for radiographic, ETHF, and ETLF inspections for cracking of the wing lower skin at wing station 175, and repairs. 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 36 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 cost estimates 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.

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:

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 Manti-Ephraim Airport, Manti, UT.

On November 22, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (81 FR, 83749) FAA-2016-8164, proposing to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4-mile radius of Manti-Ephraim Airport, Manti, UT, with segments extending from the 4-mile radius to 11 miles southwest, and 7.2 miles northeast of the airport. The FAA received one comment and concurred with the request by the National Business Aviation Association to develop IFR standard instrument approach circling procedures for category D aircraft for the airport. The additional IFR category D circling procedures would require additional airspace for the safety if IFR aircraft using the new procedure.

On January 23, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (82 FR, 7737) FAA-2016-8164, proposing to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4.7-mile radius (from the proposed 4-mile radius) of Manti-Ephraim Airport, Manti, UT, with segments extending from the 4.7-mile radius to 11 miles southwest, and 7.2 miles northeast of the airport. One comment was received in favor of the proposal.

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 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 4.7-mile radius of Manti-Ephraim Airport, Manti, UT, with segments extending from the 4.7-mile radius to 11 miles southwest of the airport, and 7.2 miles northeast of the airport. This airspace is established to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures developed for 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 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 D and Class E airspace at Elmira/Corning Regional Airport, Elmira, NY.

On December 13, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class D and Class E airspace at Elmira, NY. (81 FR 89885) Docket No. FAA-2015-8128. This proposed change is necessary as the ERINN Outer Marker (OM) has been decommissioned requiring airspace reconfiguration at Elmira/Corning Regional Airport. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Subsequent to publication, the regulatory text for the Class E airspace designated as an extension was found to have some inaccuracies and is rewritten for clarity.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002 and 6004, 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 D and 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 amends Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area at Elmira/Corning Regional Airport, Elmira, NY. This action amends the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and eliminates the NOTAM information from the regulatory text of the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D that reads, “This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and time established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.” This action also corrects some inaccuracies in the segment dimensions northeast, east, and southwest of the airport in the description of Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

On November 7, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Perry Stokes Airport, Trinidad, CO, (81 FR 78088) Docket FAA-2015-7115. 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 6002 and 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.

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E surface area airspace at Perry Stokes Airport, Trinidad, CO, to within a 4.6-mile radius of the airport (from a 4.2-mile radius), with a segment extending from the airport 4.6-mile radius to 7.2 miles southwest of the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is modified to within a 7.2-mile radius of the airport (from an 8-mile radius) from the airport 231 ° bearing clockwise to the 056 ° bearing, and within a 4.6-mile radius from the airport 056 ° bearing clockwise to the 231 ° bearing, and with a segment extending from the 4.6-mile radius of the airport to 9.3 miles southwest of the airport. The Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface is removed as this airspace is controlled by the Blue Mesa en route airspace area. Also, the airport's geographic coordinates are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. New RNAV standard instrument approach procedures, due to decommissioning of the Trinidad NDB, have made this action necessary for the safety, efficiency, and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

We published final rules in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5844) titled “Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence.” The final rules amended our rules in 20 CFR parts 404 and 416. That document inadvertently contained technical errors. This document amends and corrects the final rules.

In FR Doc. 2017-00455 appearing on page 5844 in the Federal Register of Wednesday, January 18, 2017, the following corrections are made:

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details of this rowing event was not known to the Coast Guard with sufficient time for the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that the likely combination of recreation vessels, commercial vessels, and an unknown number of spectators in close proximity to a youth rowing regatta along the water pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property. Therefore, the COTP believes a Special Local Regulation around the event location is needed to help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.

This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 7:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on May 6, 2017. In light of the aforementioned hazards, the COTP has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and participants. The special local regulation will encompass the following waterway: All waters of the Detroit River, Trenton Channel between the following two lines going from bank-to-bank: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.0′ N., 083°09.4′ W. (NAD 83); the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.7′ N., 083°08.9′ W. (NAD 83).

An on-scene representative of the COTP or event sponsor representatives may permit vessels to transit the area when no race activity is occurring. The on-scene representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state or local law enforcement vessel assigned to patrol the event. Vessel operators desiring to transit through the regulated area must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

The COTP or his designated on-scene representative will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule by all appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

E.O.s 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it.

As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this special local regulation zone which will impact a small designated area of the Detroit River from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. May 6, 2017. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the special local regulation and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting nine hours that will limit entry to a designated area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 for the San Diego Crew Classic in Mission Bay, CA in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1, Item 3 of that section from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on April 1, 2017 and April 2, 2017. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the event. The Coast Guard's regulation for recurring marine events in the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated entities and area for this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) and 33 CFR 100.1101. In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On December 16, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Detroit River (Trenton Channel), Grosse Ile, MI, in the Federal Register (81 FR 91086). We did not receive any comments on this proposed rule.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 499. The Grosse Ile Toll Bridge (Bridge Road) at mile 8.8, over Trenton Channel at Grosse Ile, MI is a center swing highway bridge that provides a vertical clearance of 10 feet and a horizontal clearance of 126 feet. The bridge provides a crossing between the mainland and Grosse Ile, an island in the Detroit River. The current regulation for Trenton Channel drawbridges (33 CFR 117.631) includes the operating schedules for the Grosse Ile Toll Bridge (Bridge Road) at mile 8.8 and the Wayne County Highway Bridge (Grosse Ile Parkway) Bridge at mile 5.6, both at Grosse Ile, MI. Only the Wayne County Highway Bridge currently has a permanent winter operating schedule that requires 12-hours advance notice from vessels to obtain a bridge opening from December 15 through March 15 each year. A review of the current operating schedule and regulation was requested by the Grosse Ile Bridge Company, owner of the Grosse Ile Toll Bridge (Bridge Road), to allow a permanent winter operating schedule that matches the Wayne County Highway Bridge.

Over the past two winter seasons, the commercial vessel traffic has been reduced significantly and waterway use through Grosse Ile Toll Bridge is equivalent to the volume and type of traffic that passes through the Wayne County Highway Bridge that has had permanent winter hours for approximately 10 years. Mariners will still be able to request bridge openings with 12-hours advance notice during times of light traffic volume on the river due to ice formation that typically prevents most vessel navigation in the channel from December 15 through March 15 each year. Additionally, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District, has granted annual authorization to the owner/operator of the Grosse Ile Toll Bridge to assume the same schedule during the past 10 years under authority granted in 33 CFR 117.35.

The Coast Guard provided a 30 day comment period in the Federal Register and solicited comments through the Ninth Coast Guard Local Notice to Mariners for the same 30 days and we did not receive any comments.

The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule of the Grosse Ile Toll Bridge (Bridge Road) at mile 8.8, over Trenton Channel at Grosse Ile, MI by adding permanent winter hours and 12-hours advance notice requirement to the current regulation for the drawbridge. This rule will make the current regulation easier to understand by aligning the winter operating schedules and requirements for both drawbridges over the waterway from December 15 through March 15 each year. At all times both drawbridges over Trenton Channel will be required to open as soon as possible for public vessels of the United States, State or local government vessels used for public safety, and vessels in distress.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice during the winter when ice typically prevents vessels from transiting the waterway and vessel traffic is at its lowest. Changing the current regulation will align drawbridge operating schedules throughout the waterway harmonizing the regulation and making it easier to understand for the mariners.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard did not receive any comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator because the bridge will open with advance notice.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

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

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

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

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

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

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

The Maryland Transportation Authority, who owns and operates the I695 Bridge across Curtis Creek, mile 1.0, at Baltimore, MD, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.557, to remove, repair, and replace the inner loop locking bar and couplings.

Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. April 10, 2017, to 7 p.m. on April 15, 2017. The drawbridge has two spans, each with double-leaf bascule draws, and both spans have a vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position of 58 feet above mean high water.

The I695 Bridge is used by Military vessels, recreational vessels, tug and barge traffic, fishing vessels, and small commercial vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge spans will not be able to open in case of an emergency and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

The New Jersey Transit, owner and operator of the New Jersey Coast Line's Brielle Viaduct across the Manasquan River, mile 0.9, at Point Pleasant, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to accommodate a routine maintenance and inspection of the rail road tracks. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 3 feet above mean high water (MHW) in the closed position.

The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 2 a.m. until 7 p.m. from April 1, 2017, through April 9, 2017. During the closure periods, the bridge will open on signal if at least 15 minutes notice is given. The bridge will open on signal at all other times.

The Manasquan River is used by a variety of vessels including small commercial vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.

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

On November 30, 2016 (81 FR 86270), the Postal Service published its revised Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations to comply with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (FOIAIA), effective December 27, 2016. In response to public comments, the Postal Service published an additional change to these regulations on January 10, 2017 (82 FR 2896). After further review, the Postal Service published miscellaneous technical corrections to its regulations on March 8, 2017 (82 FR 12921). The Postal Service is now making a further technical correction to these regulations.

Currently, in defining what records are excluded from the requirements of the FOIA, and thus should not be considered responsive to a request for disclosure, § 265.4(a) cites both 5 U.S.C. 552(c) and 39 U.S.C. 410(c). This citation is in error, because section 410(c) is an exempting statute, not an exclusionary one. This amendment corrects that error.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Postal Service amends 39 CFR part 265 as follows:

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

On July 19, 2016, the EPA proposed to approve the source-specific regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision for the Cholla Power Plant (“Cholla SIP Revision”) submitted to the EPA by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).1 The EPA concurrently proposed to withdraw federal implementation plan (FIP) provisions applicable to Cholla and proposed that the FIP withdrawal would constitute the EPA's action on petitions for reconsideration of the FIP.

This section provides a brief overview of the statutory and regulatory background for this action. Please refer to the proposed rule for additional discussion of the visibility protection provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), and the EPA's evaluation of the regional haze SIP revision for Cholla.2

In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program to protect visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA established as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution,” and directed states to evaluate the best available retrofit technology (BART) to address visibility impairment from certain categories of major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 (known as “BART-eligible” sources).3 In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress amended the visibility provisions of the CAA to focus attention on the problem of regional haze, i.e., visibility impairment produced by a multitude of sources and activities located across a broad geographic area.4

In 1999, the EPA promulgated the RHR that required states to, among other things, conduct an analysis to determine BART for each BART-eligible source that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area.5 States must analyze and consider the following five factors as part of each source-specific BART analysis: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of visibility improvement that may reasonably be anticipated to result from use of such technology (collectively known as the “five-factor BART analysis”).6 In determining BART for fossil fuel-fired electric generating plants with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), states must use guidelines promulgated by the EPA.7 In 2005, the EPA published the current version of the “Guidelines for BART determinations under the Regional Haze Rule,” codified at appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (“BART Guidelines”).8

Cholla consists of four coal-fired electric generating units with a total plant-wide generating capacity of 1150 MW. Unit 1 is a 126 MW boiler that is not BART-eligible. Unit 2 (272 MW), Unit 3 (272 MW), and Unit 4 (410 MW) are tangentially-fired dry bottom boilers that are BART-eligible. Units 1, 2, and 3 are owned and operated by Arizona Public Service Company (APS). Unit 4 is owned by PacificCorp and operated by APS.

On February 28, 2011, ADEQ submitted a regional haze SIP under section 308 of the RHR to the EPA (“2011 RH SIP”). This submittal included, among other things, BART analyses and determinations for Cholla Units 2, 3, and 4 for oxides of nitrogen (NOX), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers (PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).9 On December 5, 2012, the EPA took final action that approved in part and disapproved in part the 2011 RH SIP. The EPA found that ADEQ's overall approach in conducting its BART analyses was appropriate, but we also identified significant flaws in the analyses for specific BART factors that warranted disapproval of the NOX BART determination for Cholla. Specifically, the EPA found that ADEQ did not calculate the costs of compliance in accordance with the BART Guidelines, did not appropriately evaluate and consider the visibility benefits, did not provide sufficient explanation and rationale for its final BART determination, and did not include enforceable emission limits in the SIP.10 In the same action, the EPA promulgated a FIP for the disapproved portions of the SIP, including a NOX BART determination for Cholla that established an emission limit of 0.055 pound per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) determined across the three units on a rolling 30-boiler-operating-day average, with a compliance date of December 5, 2017. This limit is achievable with the combination of low-NOX burners with separated over-fire air (LNB+SOFA) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). The FIP also established an SO2 removal efficiency requirement of 95 percent for Units 2, 3, and 4 with a compliance date for Units 3 and 4 of December 5, 2013, and a compliance date for Unit 2 of April 1, 2016. Finally, the FIP also established compliance deadlines, compliance determination methodologies, and requirements for equipment maintenance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for NOX, SO2 and PM10.11 On April 9, 2013, the EPA granted petitions to reconsider the compliance determination methodology for NOX.12

On January 15, 2015, APS and PacifiCorp submitted an “Application for Significant Permit Revision and Five-Factor BART Reassessment for Cholla” to ADEQ. APS and PacifiCorp committed to take specific actions in lieu of the FIP requirements for Cholla and requested that ADEQ conduct a revised BART analysis and determination (“BART Reassessment”) and submit it to the EPA as a revision to the Arizona RH SIP. Specifically, APS and PacifiCorp committed to (1) permanently close Cholla Unit 2 by April 1, 2016, (2) continue to operate LNB+SOFA on Units 3 and 4, and (3) by April 30, 2025, permanently cease burning coal at both units with the option to convert both units to enable combustion of pipeline-quality natural gas by July 31, 2025, with an annual average capacity factor of less than or equal to 20 percent.

On October 22, 2015, ADEQ submitted to the EPA the Cholla SIP Revision that incorporates the Cholla BART Reassessment. The Cholla SIP Revision consists of a revised BART analysis and determination for NOX, an analysis under CAA section 110(l), and revisions to Cholla's operating permit to implement ADEQ's revised BART determination for NOX and the commitments by APS and PacifiCorp related to the retirement and repowering of units.13 ADEQ determined that if APS closed Unit 2 by April 1, 2016, no BART determination for Unit 2 would be necessary because the enforceable closure date is within the 5-year window for compliance with BART. For Units 3 and 4, ADEQ conducted a revised BART analysis in light of the commitments made by APS and PacifiCorp regarding future operation of those units. Based on its re-analysis of the BART factors, ADEQ determined BART for Cholla Units 3 and 4 to be LNB+SOFA when coal is combusted in those units. In the permit revision submitted as part of the Cholla SIP Revision, ADEQ established unit-specific emission limits for Cholla Units 3 and 4 of 0.22 lb/MMBtu, effective until the permanent cessation of coal burning on April 30, 2025, and an emission limit of 0.08 lb/MMBtu, effective May 1, 2025 and thereafter, that would apply if Units 3 or 4 are repowered to natural gas. Although ADEQ's BART determination for Cholla Units 3 and 4 is LNB+SOFA, the permit revision for Cholla sets an emission limitation achievable with this technology, but it does not specify that LNB+SOFA must be used.

The EPA's proposed action on the Cholla SIP Revision includes a comprehensive summary of ADEQ's BART Reassessment for Cholla Units 3 and 4, and the EPA's evaluation of ADEQ's submittal. In this section, we provide a brief summary of the EPA's evaluation of the Cholla SIP Revision. Please see the proposed rule for a detailed discussion of ADEQ's analysis and the EPA's evaluation of it.14

In our evaluation of Cholla Unit 2, we noted that the permanent retirement date of April 1, 2016, in the Cholla SIP Revision coincides with the compliance deadlines for SO2 and PM10 in the FIP and precedes the compliance deadline for NOX by over 1 year. The EPA further noted that Unit 2 permanently closed on October 1, 2015.15 If Unit 2 had not retired, APS would have been required to install additional controls to meet the applicable SO2, PM10, and NOX limits. Because the requirement for the permanent retirement of Unit 2 will become effective and federally enforceable when the Cholla SIP Revision is approved into the SIP and the FIP provisions applicable to Cholla are withdrawn, we proposed approval of the requirement for permanent retirement of Unit 2 as meeting the requirements of the CAA and the RHR.

In our evaluation of Units 3 and 4, we found that ADEQ's BART Reassessment was consistent with the requirements of the CAA, the RHR, and the BART Guidelines and that it addressed the flaws that were the bases for our disapproval of the BART analysis for Cholla. Specifically, in its 2011 RH SIP, ADEQ's cost analysis was flawed because it included certain line item costs that were inconsistent with the EPA Control Cost Manual (CCM). This approach did not comply with the direction in the BART Guidelines to base cost estimates on the CCM. In its BART Reassessment for Cholla, ADEQ relied on the cost estimates, calculated using the CCM methodology, that the EPA developed as part of the FIP for Cholla.

In its 2011 RH SIP, ADEQ considered the visibility benefits of controls on only one unit at a time and overlooked significant benefits at the multiple Class I areas, thereby understating and not giving appropriate consideration to the full visibility benefits of the candidate controls. In its BART Reassessment for Cholla, based on modeling performed by APS and PacifiCorp, ADEQ evaluated the visibility impacts and potential improvements from all units together and also considered potential improvements at all 13 Class I areas within 300 kilometers of Cholla.

As discussed in our proposed rulemaking, the EPA also proposed to find that ADEQ appropriately considered and weighed the five BART factors in determining BART for Cholla. We stated that it was reasonable for ADEQ to conclude that the costs of SCR and selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) were not warranted by the visibility benefits. Specifically, we noted that we were not aware of any instance in which the EPA had determined SCR or SNCR to be BART where the average and incremental cost-effectiveness of those controls equaled or exceeded the average and incremental cost-effectiveness of those controls for Cholla Units 3 and 4. Nor were we aware of any instance in which the EPA disapproved a state's BART determination that rejected SCR or SNCR as BART based on average and incremental cost-effectiveness similar to those for Cholla Units 3 and 4. In addition, although we noted that the visibility benefits of SCR are significant, and the visibility benefits of SNCR are not insignificant, we determined that it was reasonable for ADEQ to determine that the benefits were not warranted given the costs of SCR and SNCR. Moreover, after approximately 8 years, when Units 3 and 4 cease coal combustion permanently and are either closed or converted to natural gas, the benefits of SCR and SNCR would be negligible.

Finally, in our proposed rulemaking, we evaluated the Cholla SIP Revision with respect to certain other requirements of the CAA and proposed to find that it would not interfere with attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. We further noted that the enforceable emission limitations and the requirements for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting promulgated in the FIP for Cholla are included in the operating permit revision for Cholla that ADEQ included with its Cholla SIP Revision. Therefore, these requirements will remain federally enforceable when the Cholla SIP Revision is approved and the FIP provisions are withdrawn. Based on our evaluation of the Cholla SIP Revision, we proposed to approve the SIP revision, withdraw the FIP provisions, and to find that withdrawal of the FIP would constitute our action on the petitions for reconsideration submitted by APS and PacifiCorp.

We received four comment letters from the following organizations prior to the close of the comment period on September 2, 2016: (1) APS, (2) PacifiCorp, (3) Environmental Defense Fund and Western Resource Advocates, and (4) Earthjustice on behalf of National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club.16

Comment 1: One commenter asserted that the BART Reassessment violates the CAA's mandatory 5-year BART compliance deadline and the regulatory requirement to achieve visibility improvement in the first planning period that ends in 2018. In addition, the commenter argued that the BART Guidelines at appendix Y state that in the event a source prefers to shut down to comply with BART, the BART requirement must maintain consistency with the statutory requirement to install BART within 5 years, and the source may not be allowed to operate beyond 5 years without BART controls in place. The commenter further stated that the EPA cannot scrap its existing BART determination for Cholla, which has been in effect for over 3 years, and issue a new BART determination that would restart the 5-year BART compliance clock. One commenter opined that because the EPA's proposal is unlawful, the EPA should leave the existing BART determination for Cholla in place.

Response 1: The EPA disagrees with the comment that the Cholla SIP Revision violates the 5-year compliance deadline for BART, the regulatory requirement to achieve visibility improvement in the first planning period, or the BART Guidelines. As discussed in our proposed rule, in the Cholla SIP Revision, ADEQ determined BART to be LNB+SOFA.17 The emission limit associated with installation and operation of LNB+SOFA while burning coal at Cholla Units 3 and 4 is 0.22 lb/MMBtu. This emission limit is reflected in the Cholla permit revision that is included as Appendix A of the Cholla SIP Revision. The permit conditions will become effective and federally enforceable 30 days following publication of this final rule in the Federal Register, which we anticipate will be prior to the compliance deadline established in the FIP of December 5, 2017. Therefore, although we agree with the commenter that BART emission limitations must be in place within 5 years of approval, we disagree with the commenter that ADEQ has restarted the 5-year BART compliance clock.

In addition to its BART determination for Cholla Units 3 and 4, ADEQ also included a permit revision for Cholla in its SIP submittal. The permit revision includes the 0.22 lb/MMBtu emission limitation that would apply until the permanent cessation of coal combustion in Units 3 and 4, and an emission limitation of 0.08 lb/MMBtu that would apply if the units are converted to natural gas. The commenter appears to have misconstrued these provisions related to future operation in 2025 to be part of ADEQ's BART determination. We consider the permit requirements to cease coal combustion in 2025 and comply with new emission limitations if Units 3 and 4 are converted to natural gas to be measures that strengthen the Cholla SIP Revision. The BART determination for Units 3 and 4 that we are approving is the 0.22 lb/MMBtu emission limit. This is consistent with ADEQ's response to a similar comment, stating: “Although the new proposal includes conversion to natural gas-firing at Units 3 and 4 in 2025, ADEQ did not consider it as a BART control option under the BART determination process because it is beyond the mandatory five-year window.” 18 Furthermore, we note that because Cholla Units 3 and 4 currently cannot combust natural gas, there is no obligation for ADEQ to determine BART for those units if they are repowered to operate on natural gas.19 Therefore, we consider the 0.08 lb/MMBtu emission limit to be a SIP-strengthening measure, and approvable as such, but we do not consider it to be part of the BART determination. In addition, the presence of an emission limit for future operation on natural gas as a SIP requirement is not critical to the withdrawal of the FIP. We are not addressing whether 0.08 lb/MMBtu would be an appropriate BART emission limit for these units if they were currently combusting natural gas. We note that because NOX emissions resulting from natural gas combustion are low, there have been few if any SIPs or FIPs that have included a determination that BART for electric generating units (EGUs) combusting natural gas was a lower NOX level than already being achieved at the source. We are approving the BART determination in the Cholla SIP Revision in light of the enforceable SIP requirement for Units 3 and 4 to cease coal combustion in 2025.

The Cholla SIP Revision also requires Cholla Units 3 and 4 to comply with the BART emission limit prior to the end of the first planning period in 2018. We further note that APS and PacifiCorp have already installed LNB+SOFA on Cholla Units 3 and 4.20 In addition, the regulatory requirement cited by the commenters, to achieve visibility improvements in the first planning period, is associated with alternatives to BART as put forth in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). The Cholla SIP Revision is a re-analysis of BART that is based on new facts since the promulgation of the FIP; it is not an alternative to BART and compliance deadlines associated with alternatives to BART are not relevant to the Cholla SIP Revision.

We also disagree with the commenter's assertion that a BART determination that has been in place for over 3 years cannot be revised when a new material fact has arisen, i.e., that the Cholla units will not continue to combust coal indefinitely, which had been an assumption of the original BART determination in the FIP. In the rule proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the 2011 RH SIP, the EPA encouraged the State to submit a revised SIP to replace our FIP, and we noted that the EPA would work with the State to develop a revised plan.21 We anticipated that ADEQ might develop a SIP to address the flaws we identified in our review of the 2011 RH SIP. APS and PacifiCorp also petitioned the Administrator to reconsider certain aspects of the FIP for Cholla. We granted the petitions based on our intention to reconsider aspects of the compliance determination methodology in the FIP. Therefore, although the FIP for Cholla has been in place for over 3 years, the development of a revised BART analysis for this facility was not unexpected. As discussed elsewhere in this final rule, the compliance deadline for the revised BART emission limit for Cholla remains within the compliance deadline in the FIP of December 5, 2017. Thus, ADEQ did not extend the BART compliance deadline in the Cholla SIP Revision beyond the original compliance date of December 5, 2017.

Finally, as discussed elsewhere in this final rule, we disagree with the comment asserting that our action is unlawful. Based on our evaluation of the Cholla SIP Revision, we have determined that ADEQ conducted a BART analysis for Cholla that meets the requirements of the CAA, the RHR, and the BART Guidelines. Therefore, we disagree that the BART determination promulgated in the FIP should remain in place.

Comment 2: One commenter opined that the EPA's cost analysis for SNCR was flawed because the EPA based the average cost-effectiveness of SNCR on 8 years of operation on coal and 12 years of operation on natural gas. The commenter argued that the operation of SNCR on the units after the switch to gas in 2025 would result in over 12 years of additional interest and operation and maintenance costs with minimal pollution reduction benefits. The commenter asserted that operation of SNCR for the 8 years of coal combustion and then ceasing to operate SNCR when the units switch to natural gas would be more cost-effective. The commenter argued that this would reduce the average cost-effectiveness of SNCR on Units 3 and 4 to $2,234-$2,342 per ton of NOX removed and the incremental cost-effectiveness (relative to LNB/SOFA) to $5,364-$5,458 per ton of NOX removed. The commenter further argued that its approach (to base the remaining useful life of SNCR on the time during which the facility would burn coal) is consistent with how the EPA considered the remaining useful life for other sources transitioning to gas or other fuels, and cited to the 2012 BART determinations for the Centralia and Boardman facilities. The commenter also pointed to the BART determinations for Healy Unit 1 in Alaska and CENC Unit 5 in Colorado, and reasonable progress determinations for the Craig Unit 3 in Colorado, where SNCR was determined to be cost-effective with average cost-effectiveness values that ranged from $3,526-$4,887 per ton of NOX removed and incremental cost-effectiveness values that ranged from $5,445-$9,271 per ton of NOX removed.

Response 2: In reviewing the analysis conducted by ADEQ to assess whether the Cholla SIP Revision is approvable, the EPA's role is to decide whether the SIP meets the requirements of the CAA, the RHR, and the BART Guidelines. In undertaking such a review, the EPA does not usurp a state's authority but ensures that such authority is reasonably exercised. The CAA and the RHR set forth five factors that a state must evaluate to reach a BART determination. However, the CAA and the RHR provide flexibility to the state in deciding how the factors in the analysis are weighed.

We note that this comment does not accurately distinguish between the EPA's cost analysis and the cost analysis by ADEQ. The only cost analysis that the EPA conducted directly was in support of the 2012 FIP establishing a BART emission limit for Cholla achievable with the installation and operation of SCR. The EPA's cost analysis was based on 20 years of operation because, at that time, there was no commitment from the facility owners that Cholla would cease coal combustion in the future. Therefore, although the commenter refers to the cost analysis discussed in the proposed rule as “the EPA's cost analysis,” the comment is actually about ADEQ's cost analysis for SNCR. For purposes of its BART Reassessment, ADEQ adapted the EPA's cost analysis from 2012 but revised the annual cost of controls to account for the planned cessation of coal combustion in 2025. The commenter is suggesting that ADEQ should have considered a control scenario that would require SNCR while combusting coal and would not require SNCR once the units are repowered to natural gas. The commenter asserts that this SNCR scenario would be more cost-effective than the operation of SNCR continuously for 20 years. Based on this consideration of cost-effectiveness, the commenter asserts that ADEQ should have determined SNCR, applied in this way, to be BART and that the EPA should not have proposed to approve the Cholla SIP Revision.

In its response to a similar comment made to ADEQ during the public comment period for the Cholla SIP Revision, ADEQ argued that it appropriately calculated the cost-effectiveness of SNCR based on a 20-year life, with 8 years of operation on coal, and 12 years of operation on natural gas, because it was reasonable to presume that if SNCR were required, the units would be required to operate for 20 years or more to recoup the investment.22 The Cholla SIP Revision established as BART an emission limit of 0.22 lb/MMBtu, achievable with the installation and operation of LNB+SOFA. Although the units must cease coal combustion by April 30, 2025, the Cholla SIP Revision provides the option for those units to be repowered to natural gas with a NOX emission limit of 0.08 lb/MMBtu and a 20 percent annual average capacity factor restriction. Emission rates from tangentially-fired boilers combusting natural gas can be expected to range from an uncontrolled emission rate of 0.16 lb/MMBtu to a rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu when controlled using flue gas recirculation.23 Thus, although Units 3 and 4 could continue to operate well beyond 8 years if they are repowered to natural gas, operation of SNCR would not be required to meet the 0.08 lb/MMBtu emission limitation in the Cholla SIP Revision. Therefore, we agree with the commenter that in this case, for Cholla Units 3 and 4, it is reasonable to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SNCR based on the period of time that SNCR would need to be in operation in order to comply with the applicable emission limitation.24

However, we further note that the assertion in the comment that ADEQ erred because it did not evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SNCR based on an 8-year life is incorrect. In its response to comments on the Cholla BART Reassessment, ADEQ stated that if it calculated the cost-effectiveness of SNCR based on a shorter (i.e., 8-year) life the average cost-effectiveness would be less than $2,500 per ton of NOX removed and the incremental cost effectiveness would be less than $5,700 per ton of NOX removed. ADEQ responded that it would still reject SNCR because the incremental cost-effectiveness recalculated by the commenter, even at less than $5,700 per ton of NOX removed, would not be justified based on the slight incremental visibility improvement. ADEQ evaluated the incremental visibility improvement of SNCR against LNB+SOFA and found that the differences in visibility improvement at the various Class I areas between the two control scenarios were relatively minor in most cases.25 ADEQ noted that the cumulative incremental visibility improvement of SNCR (as compared to LNB+SOFA) for 13 Class I areas was 1.32 deciviews (ranging from 0.01 to 0.28 deciview at individual Class I areas), with an average incremental improvement of 0.1 deciview. ADEQ further noted that the visibility benefits that would be associated with SNCR on Cholla Units 3 and 4 would last only until 2025 because the closure or conversion to natural gas would reduce the visibility benefit of SNCR.26 ADEQ concluded that SNCR would not be cost-effective whether it assumed a useful life of 20 years or 8 years.27

The EPA considered ADEQ's response to the comment and continues to find that ADEQ's BART Reassessment for Cholla Units 3 and 4, even when the cost-effectiveness for SNCR is evaluated for an 8-year period, is consistent with the BART Guidelines and approvable.

The commenter also refers to three facilities, Healy Unit 1, Colorado Energy Nations Company (CENC) Unit 5, and Craig Unit 3, to highlight other average and incremental cost-effectiveness values that have been determined to be reasonable for BART or reasonable progress. We considered whether these comparisons support a conclusion that ADEQ was unreasonable in rejecting SNCR based on the average ($2,234 to $2,342 per ton of NOX removed) and incremental ($5,364 to $5,458 per ton of NOX removed) cost-effectiveness values recalculated by the commenter.

The average cost effectiveness values for the three facilities cited in the comment range from $3,526 to $4,887 per ton of NOX removed and the incremental cost effectiveness values range from $5,445 to $9,271 per ton of NOX removed.28 The commenter correctly notes that SNCR was required for these facilities at average and incremental cost-effectiveness values that exceed both ADEQ's and the commenter's cost-effectiveness values for SNCR at Cholla Units 3 and 4. Although the comment did not cite specifically to the Boardman facility to highlight the cost-effectiveness of SNCR, in that case the state required, and the EPA approved, a final BART determination requiring Boardman to meet an emission limit of 0.23 lb/MMBtu achievable with new LNB and modified overfire air.29 The state rejected SNCR for Boardman, with an average cost effectiveness of $1,816 per ton of NOX removed, based on the small incremental visibility improvement of 0.18 deciview at the Mount Hood Wilderness Area and concerns that excess ammonia from SNCR may result in increased rates of ammonium sulfate formation.30 Thus, although there are examples of states requiring SNCR at higher average and incremental cost-effectiveness values, there are also examples of states rejecting SNCR at even lower cost-effectiveness values than those recalculated by the commenter for SNCR at Cholla. We further note that while the state of Colorado determined BART for CENC Unit 5 to be SNCR (average cost-effectiveness of $4,918 per ton), in the same action, the state concurrently rejected SNCR for CENC Unit 4 (average cost effectiveness of $3,729 per ton) and determined BART for that unit to be LNB+SOFA.31 Therefore, although we agree with the commenter that states have required SNCR at average and incremental cost-effectiveness values that are higher than its recalculated values for SNCR on Cholla Units 3 and 4, there are also examples of states that have rejected SNCR at average and incremental cost-effectiveness values that are similar to, or even lower than, the commenter's recalculated values for SNCR.

Furthermore, BART determinations are emission limitations rather than control technology determinations. For the three units cited by the commenter, the final BART or reasonable progress emission limits achievable with SNCR were 0.20 lb/MMBtu for Healy Unit 1, 0.19 lb/MMBtu for CENC Unit 5, and 0.28 lb/MMBtu for Craig Unit 3.32 The BART emission limitation for Centralia, another facility cited by the commenter (but for other reasons), was 0.21 lb/MMBtu achievable with SNCR.33 The final BART emission limitation put forth by ADEQ for Cholla Units 3 and 4, 0.22 lb/MMBtu achievable with LNB+SOFA, is generally consistent with the emission limits put forth for other facilities based on SNCR.

Although a comparison of cost-effectiveness values from other facilities is generally a useful exercise to assess the reasonableness of particular costs, the examples in the comment do not provide evidence to suggest that ADEQ's weighing of the cost-effectiveness of SNCR on Cholla Units 3 and 4 was unreasonable. In addition, cost-effectiveness is not the only factor in determining BART; each BART determination must be made on a case-by-case basis considering the relevant facts in each case. The CAA and the RHR provide flexibility to states in deciding how the five factors are weighed in determining BART. If the EPA were reassessing BART for Cholla Units 3 and 4 in a FIP action, the EPA might have weighed the factors differently than ADEQ and reached a different conclusion. However, the EPA has evaluated ADEQ's justification for rejecting SNCR based on its consideration of cost-effectiveness and the visibility improvements from SNCR in comparison to LNB+SOFA. We consider ADEQ's BART determination for Cholla Units 3 and 4 to be consistent with the BART Guidelines and a reasonable use of its discretion in weighing the BART factors.

Comment 3: One commenter argued that the EPA inappropriately relied on incremental costs and incremental visibility benefits. The commenter asserted that where a selection of a particular technology as BART is supported by reasonable total costs, incremental costs should not be used to override that choice. The commenter further stated that the EPA only discussed incremental visibility benefits of SNCR relative to LNB and provided no way to assess the net visibility benefit of installing SNCR on Units 3 and 4 against the pre-LNB baseline for those units. The commenter opines that the EPA's lack of analysis of the net visibility improvements of SNCR is inconsistent with the EPA's prior action for Cholla.

Response 3: In this action, the EPA is evaluating the analysis conducted by ADEQ to assess whether the Cholla SIP Revision meets the requirements of the CAA, the RHR, and the BART Guidelines. We disagree with the commenter's assertion that it is inappropriate to rely on incremental costs or incremental visibility benefits. The CAA and the RHR specify that the states or the EPA must consider cost and visibility in the five-factor analysis. With respect to the cost factor, in promulgating the BART Guidelines, the EPA stated, “In addition, the guidelines continue to include both average and incremental costs. We continue to believe that both average and incremental costs provide information useful for making control determinations.” 34 Section IV.4.e.1 of the BART Guidelines specifies that states should consider incremental cost-effectiveness in combination with the average cost-effectiveness. The commenter did not cite any regulatory language that would preclude incremental cost-effectiveness in considering the cost of compliance. With respect to using incremental visibility improvement, we acknowledge that the BART Guidelines do not explicitly address the issue of considering overall versus incremental visibility benefits. However, the EPA's response to comments when promulgating the BART Guidelines stated:

The EPA's regulations allow states to compare incremental cost-effectiveness and incremental visibility improvements between different technologies. The incremental visibility benefit is one way to compare the visibility improvements from various controls. Other states and the EPA have considered incremental visibility improvements in many BART determinations. For this BART determination, ADEQ weighed the small incremental visibility improvement against the incremental cost-effectiveness. Based on its weighing of these factors, ADEQ provided a reasoned justification for selecting LNB+SOFA as BART for Cholla Units 3 and 4, and properly exercised its discretion in its process for weighing the small visibility improvement against the cost-effectiveness to reject SCR and SNCR.

Comment 4: One commenter asserted that the EPA's analysis was flawed because it evaluated BART controls as if there was no existing BART determination in place for Units 3 and 4. The commenters opined that the EPA failed to analyze how various pollution controls and other measures would improve the BART Reassessment by eliminating any backsliding. The commenter recommended that the EPA evaluate installing SNCR in the next 18 months to improve the performance of the BART Reassessment beginning in 2018, and recommended four additional control strategies to reduce NOX emissions between 2018 and 2025: (1) Setting an earlier deadline for Units 3 and 4 to shut down or switch to natural gas, (2) restricting Units 3 and 4 to the lowest capacity factor necessary between 2018 and 2025, (3) requiring the use of hybrid NOX reduction measures, e.g., SNCR in combination with in-duct SCR catalysts, which the commenter said can be installed at far lower cost and more quickly than conventional SCR, and (4) a combination of the listed measures with SNCR. The commenter opined that if this analysis had been done, it would have shown that SNCR and other measures would significantly improve the BART reassessment by cost-effectively reducing NOX emissions from Units 3 and 4 prior to 2025.

Response 4: The EPA's role is to evaluate whether a state considered the appropriate factors and acted reasonably in doing so. In undertaking such a review, the EPA does not usurp a state's authority but ensures that such authority is reasonably exercised.

The commenter suggests that the EPA should have evaluated other NOX control measures that would result in greater emission reductions from the Cholla SIP Revision and be more comparable to the emission reductions that would have been achieved under the FIP for Cholla. As with Comment 2, we note that the commenter has not accurately described whether it was ADEQ or the EPA that performed (or would perform) specific analyses. In this action, the EPA is reviewing the Cholla SIP Revision that was submitted for approval or disapproval. In that context, the issue is not whether the EPA should or will undertake the types of analysis recommended by the commenter, but whether ADEQ's failure to do so means that its BART determination cannot be approved. We have reviewed ADEQ's BART SIP for Cholla to determine whether it meets the requirements of the five-factor BART analysis, as outlined by the CAA, the RHR, and the BART Guidelines. ADEQ did not put forth a “better-than-BART” BART alternative pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), which would have required a comparison of emission reductions under BART and the BART alternative.36 ADEQ properly evaluated the new commitments by APS and PacifiCorp related to future operation of Cholla Units 3 and 4 in determining BART for those units. For the purposes of its 110(l) analysis, ADEQ compared emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM10 between its 2011 RH SIP and the Cholla SIP Revision, and also compared emissions of NOX between the FIP and the Cholla SIP Revision.37 ADEQ appropriately concluded that the differences in emissions were not inconsistent with CAA section 110(l). Nothing in 110(l) of the CAA, RHR, or the BART Guidelines requires ADEQ to ensure that the emission reductions from the Cholla SIP Revision would be numerically equivalent to the reductions that would have been achieved under the previously applicable plan (i.e., the FIP). Comments on ADEQ's 110(l) analysis, and the EPA's responses to those comments, are provided in Section II.C, below.

The commenter also suggests that the EPA (again, the commenter mistakenly refers to the EPA rather than ADEQ) should have evaluated additional operational restrictions on Cholla Units 3 and 4, e.g., an earlier date for retirement or repowering to natural gas, or capacity restrictions between 2018 and 2025. Although an earlier retirement date or capacity restrictions would reduce emissions, in general, states and the EPA would not impose a retirement or capacity restriction unless it is requested by the facility operator, because capacity and retirement are not “retrofit technolog[ies]” (the term used in the CAA) or “system[s] of continuous emissions reductions” (the term used in the RHR definition of BART). The BART Guidelines state that potentially applicable retrofit control alternatives typically prevent the formation of pollutants (e.g., LNB) or control or reduce emissions of pollutants after they are formed (e.g., SNCR or SCR), or are a combination of these processes.38 The BART Guidelines go on to say that “we do not consider BART as a requirement to redesign the source,” or to “direct States to switch fuel forms, e.g., from coal to gas.” 39 Therefore, consideration of earlier retirement, repowering, or capacity restrictions that were not put forth by the facility operator, is not required by the BART Guidelines.

The commenter also suggests that the EPA (again, the commenter mistakenly refers to the EPA rather than ADEQ) should have evaluated SNCR with in-duct SCR catalysts, or a combination of SNCR with earlier retirement, repowering, or capacity restrictions. ADEQ was not required to consider earlier retirement, repowering, or capacity restrictions to be consistent with the BART Guidelines, and the combination of SNCR with those measures does not change our determination. Regarding SNCR combined with in-duct SCR catalysts, the commenter stated that in-duct SCR catalysts can be installed at lower cost than conventional SCR. Although the EPA is aware that the technologies for hybrid SNCR combined with in-duct SCR systems have been around since the 1990s, we are not aware of the widespread use of these hybrid systems on comparably-sized boilers, and the commenter did not provide any supporting data or information of sufficient specificity to indicate that this technology should have been considered under BART or that it would have changed ADEQ's BART determination.40 Therefore, we continue to consider ADEQ's BART determination for Cholla Units 3 and 4 to be consistent with the BART Guidelines, including its evaluation of LNB+SOFA, SNCR, and SCR.

Comment 5: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's statement that a BART reassessment for Cholla is necessary based on new facts that have arisen since the EPA's final BART determination in 2012. The commenter further opined that even if new facts could be used to justify extending the BART compliance deadline, the new facts at issue here would not be sufficient justification. The commenter also stated that a business decision by the facility operator to close Unit 2 in advance of the 2017 BART compliance deadline for that unit should not justify allowing Units 3 and 4 to delay compliance past 5 years. The commenter argued that no statutory or regulatory provisions, related guidance, or prior BART determinations allow, let alone recognize, a utility's lowest cost option to govern the outcome of a BART determination.

Response 5: We disagree with the assertions in this comment and generally find that the commenter has misunderstood our proposed action and the Cholla SIP Revision. The EPA did not state that a BART reassessment is necessary, but we did indicate that ADEQ has discretion to reassess BART in light of new information and to seek approval from the EPA for a SIP revision to replace the FIP. As stated elsewhere in this final rule, the Cholla SIP Revision does not extend the BART compliance deadline. It replaces the compliance requirements in the FIP with different requirements and earlier compliance dates. The 0.22 lb/MMBtu emission limitation for NOX that ADEQ determined to be BART will be effective upon the effective date of this final rule and, therefore, earlier than the FIP's BART deadline of December 5, 2017.

In the Cholla SIP Revision, ADEQ conducted a BART Reassessment based on the new facts that arose following the EPA's FIP for Cholla. In 2015, APS and PacifiCorp committed to several operational changes at Cholla that affect specific factors in the five-factor BART analysis, namely, the remaining useful life of the facility and its corresponding effects on the cost-effectiveness of controls. Based on the commitments from APS and PacifiCorp to close Unit 2 by April 1, 2016, continue operation of Units 3 and 4 with LNB+SOFA and permanently cease coal combustion in those units by April 30, 2025 with the option to convert to natural gas combustion by July 31, 2025 at a 20 percent or less average annual capacity factor, ADEQ conducted a revised BART analysis for Cholla Units 2, 3, and 4. ADEQ did not rely on the closure of Unit 2 to justify changes to the BART determination for Units 3 and 4. Rather, ADEQ reasonably determined that the enforceable closure of Unit 2 prior to December 5, 2017, satisfies the requirements of the RHR and the CAA for this unit. ADEQ then conducted a re-analysis of BART for Units 3 and 4 that considered the remaining useful life of potential control technologies in light of the commitments made by APS and PacifiCorp related to those units. Based on the changes to the cost effectiveness of controls, ADEQ reasonably rejected SNCR and SCR as too costly in comparison to the small additional visibility benefits, and concluded that the visibility benefits of SNCR or SCR controls after 2025, when coal combustion ceases and assuming those units are repowered to natural gas, would be negligible. ADEQ's final BART determination for Cholla Units 3 and 4 is an emission limitation of 0.22 lb/MMBtu that will be effective upon the effective date of this final rule. Therefore, we disagree that our proposal to approve the Cholla SIP Revision extends any BART compliance deadlines, and we also disagree with the commenter that the new facts do not warrant a revised assessment of BART for Cholla.

Although we agree with the commenter that the RHR and BART Guidelines do not require BART determinations to align with a utility's lowest-cost option, we also note that this action is not based on the SIP revision's being the lowest-cost approach. If the FIP were to remain in place, APS would be free (with respect to CAA requirements) to cease coal combustion as a way to comply with the SCR-based BART emission limit, based on its own considerations.41 In this case, APS and PacifiCorp have committed to cease coal combustion in Units 3 and 4 in 2025. Although the motivation for this commitment is irrelevant for purposes of the RHR, the state has discretion to reassess a BART determination for Cholla that takes into account the shorter period of coal combustion because of the potential effect this has on the five BART factors.

Comment 6: One commenter stated that the BART Reassessment will result in significant public health and environmental benefits, including very significant near-term and ongoing reductions in climate-disturbing pollution, toxic mercury, and particulate matter, and that the complete closure of Unit 2 has already resulted in some near-term benefits. The commenter described similar multi-pollutant BART approaches finalized elsewhere in the Southwest. The commenter cited to the Cholla SIP Revision to provide estimates of emission reductions from the BART Reassessment compared to the 2011 RH SIP: By 2046, the BART Reassessment will reduce cumulative SO2 emissions by about 170,000 tons and cumulative PM10 emissions by 15,000 tons compared to the 2011 RH SIP. In addition, the commenter estimates that when fully implemented (after 2026), the BART Reassessment will reduce CO2 emissions by 90 percent from current annual emissions and reduce mercury emissions from 430 pounds to three pounds per year.

Response 6: We agree with the commenter that the Cholla SIP Revision will result in significant near-term and ongoing environmental benefits. Although the BART Reassessment for Cholla focused on NOX reductions, emission reductions of other pollutants, as described by the commenter, also have occurred as a result of the closure of Unit 2 in 2015 and will occur after the closure or repowering to natural gas of Units 3 and 4 in 2025. In addition, we agree with the commenter that similar multi-pollutant approaches have been taken elsewhere, and we also note that approaches consisting of interim emission limitations combined with commitments to retire early or repower to natural gas are common, e.g., a SIP revision (to replace a FIP) that put forth a revised BART determination for the four units at the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico involving closure of two units by the end of 2017 and an emission limit of 0.23 lb/MMBtu, achievable with SNCR, on the remaining two units; a SIP revision (to replace a FIP) that put forth a revised SO2 BART determination for two units at the Northeastern Power Station in Oklahoma involving closure of one unit in 2016 and interim emission limits and capacity restrictions leading to closure of the second unit by the end of 2026; a SIP revision (to replace a FIP) that put forth a BART alternative for two units at the Apache Generating Station in Arizona that involved conversion of one unit to natural gas and SNCR on the remaining coal-fired unit; as well as the EPA actions on the RH SIPs for Oregon and Washington approving the BART determinations for Boardman and Centralia involving interim emission limitations similar to those imposed on Cholla, and retirements around 2020 or 2025.42

Comment 7: One commenter noted that the BART Reassessment will result in higher NOX emissions and visibility impacts from 2018 to 2025 and therefore urged the EPA to examine whether those impacts could be mitigated through a lower continuous emission limit for SO2 or other measures. The commenter noted that the current permitted SO2 emission rates at Cholla do not reflect recent operating levels for SO2.

Response 7: In this action, we are reviewing the Cholla SIP Revision that was submitted for approval or disapproval. In that context, the issue is not whether the EPA should examine the types of mitigation measures recommended by the commenter, but whether ADEQ's failure to do so means that its BART determination cannot be approved. The EPA must evaluate whether a state considered the appropriate factors and acted reasonably in doing so. In undertaking such a review, the EPA does not usurp a state's authority but ensures that such authority is reasonably exercised.

The EPA agrees that NOX emissions and visibility impacts will differ between the Cholla SIP Revision and the provisions of the FIP that are being withdrawn, and that NOX emissions from Units 3 and 4 between 2018 and 2025 under the Cholla SIP Revision will be greater than emissions from those units under the Cholla FIP. However, after April 30, 2025, when APS and PacifiCorp permanently cease coal combustion in Units 3 and 4 with the option to convert to natural gas (at a 20 percent annual average capacity factor), emissions from the Cholla SIP Revision will be substantially lower than emissions from those units under the FIP. However, we acknowledge that in determining whether the BART Reassessment can be approved, we may not take into account these greater emission reductions in 2025 and thereafter.

Although a lower SO2 emission limitation before 2025 would certainly be environmentally beneficial, we note that we have previously approved the SO2 BART emission limits for Cholla.43 ADEQ's new BART determination was for NOX, and we must approve it if it meets the requirements of the five-factor BART analysis, as outlined by the CAA, the RHR, and the BART Guidelines. ADEQ did not put forth a BART alternative pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), which would have required a comparison of emission reductions under BART and the BART alternative. ADEQ properly evaluated the new commitments by APS and PacifiCorp related to future operation of Cholla Units 3 and 4 in determining BART for those units. For the purposes of its 110(l) analysis, ADEQ did compare emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM10 between its 2011 RH SIP and the Cholla SIP Revision, and compared emissions of NOX between the FIP and the Cholla SIP Revision.44 ADEQ appropriately concluded that the differences in emissions that it found would not conflict with CAA section 110(l). Nothing in 110(l) of the CAA, the RHR, or the BART Guidelines required ADEQ to ensure that the numerical emission reductions from the Cholla SIP Revision would be equivalent to the reductions that would have been achieved under the FIP. Comments and the EPA's responses on ADEQ's 110(l) analysis are provided elsewhere in Section II.C.

Comment 8: One commenter noted that although it does not agree with every reason cited by the EPA in the proposed action, it urges the EPA to more forward to issue a final approval for the BART Reassessment.

Response 8: We are taking final action in this document to approve the Cholla SIP Revision and withdraw the provisions of the FIP that applied to Cholla.

Comment 9: One commenter stated that it supports the EPA's proposed approval of the BART Reassessment for the following reasons: (1) The SIP revision includes enforceable emission limits, (2) the EPA's proposal is based on its own analysis of Arizona's SIP and the five-factor BART analysis, (3) the EPA appropriately considered Unit 1 as not BART-eligible, but included Unit 1 in the visibility modeling because the Cholla SIP Revision also requires that Unit 1 cease burning coal by April 30, 2025 with the option to repower to natural gas at a 20 percent capacity factor, (4) the BART Reassessment will provide for greater reasonable progress toward the final goal of natural conditions earlier than the original FIP, and (5) the EPA's analysis demonstrates that additional controls would provide only a small visibility improvement at a cost that is beyond what the EPA has required of any other BART-eligible EGU.

Response 9: We are taking final action in this document to approve the Cholla SIP Revision and withdraw the provisions of the FIP that applied to Cholla. However, we note that the commenter attributed to the EPA the analyses and conclusion that should actually be attributed to ADEQ.

Comment 10: One commenter expressed concern that visibility benefits of installing various levels of NOX control on Units 3 and 4 were underestimated because the modeling included emissions from Unit 1 (at the same level in each NOX control scenario for Units 3 and 4), even though there is no enforceable commitment to retire Unit 1. The commenter cited to a discussion in the preamble to the BART Guidelines related to the effect of using existing conditions versus natural visibility conditions as the baseline for single source visibility impact determinations. The commenter argued that the inclusion of Unit 1 in the visibility modeling for Units 3 and 4 resulted in a decrease in the modeled benefit of installing controls on those units.

Response 10: We agree with the commenter that including Unit 1 in the modeling reduces the estimate of the visibility benefit of controls on Units 3 and 4. We also agree that if Unit 1 were part of some source other than Cholla, it should have been excluded from the modeling. However, the EPA does not agree that this procedure is incorrect given the fact that Unit 1 is part of the single source that is Cholla. While Unit 1 is, in some sense, “an existing condition” for purposes of evaluating the impacts of Units 3 and 4, it is very different than the “existing conditions” in the EPA statement cited by the commenter.45 The BART Guidelines describe the ambient conditions to use in assessing the visibility impact of a source; consistent with the ultimate goal of the RHR, the visibility impact is assessed relative to natural conditions. The preamble to the BART Guidelines explains why a meaningful measure of visibility impacts and potential benefits for a single source requires the use of pristine natural background rather than existing conditions, which would reflect the impact of hundreds of existing sources.46 This is not directly relevant to the issue of whether to include a single additional unit at the source being evaluated for BART. In practice, for modeling, source impacts are computed as delta deciviews, which is the difference in deciviews between the visibility due to the source combined with the natural background, and the visibility due to the natural background alone. In other words, all of the visibility impacts modeled with CALPUFF for the Cholla SIP Revision are relative to natural conditions, for the baseline and all control scenarios. The commenter seems to imply that including the emissions from Unit 1 is equivalent to assuming Unit 1 is part of natural conditions, which is not the case.

In modeling for the Cholla SIP Revision, ADEQ had to choose whether to include the non-BART-eligible Unit 1 emissions that do not vary across the control scenarios for Units 3 and 4. This choice is not addressed by the BART Guidelines. Some BART analyses modeled individual units separately, whereas other BART analyses modeled all units together. Unit 1 is not part of the natural background, but it is part of the facility's emissions. The overall BART determination encompasses an understanding of the visibility impacts, including the particular procedures followed in modeling them. Several considerations suggest that including all units in an analysis is a reasonable choice. Including Unit 1 in the modeling provides a more realistic estimate of overall visibility impacts for the facility as a whole, and more realistically accounts for the chemistry that Units 3 and 4 plumes experience. The Unit 1 emissions may potentially shift the chemistry and may affect the formation of visibility-affecting particulate matter from Unit 3 and 4 emissions, for example as the NOX-derived nitrates in the three plumes compete for available ammonia in forming particulate ammonium nitrate. Another consideration, as stated by the commenter, is that including Unit 1 would tend to make the estimate of the benefit of controls on Units 3 and 4 smaller when the delta deciviews (relative to natural visibility conditions) are compared between control scenarios. This effect is expected to be small because the effect of including Unit 1 in the modeling would tend to be cancelled out when computing the benefit of controls. The benefit of controls is calculated by subtracting the visibility impacts (with controls applied) from the baseline impact; therefore, the effect of including Unit 1 in the modeling is captured in both terms. The EPA also examined this quantitatively by using the change in total emissions from excluding Unit 1 to scale the modeled estimates of visibility, and then recalculating the deciview impacts and benefits of controls. The estimated visibility benefits at Petrified Forest National Park (the Class I area most affected by emissions from Cholla) from the use of SCR or SNCR on Units 3 and 4 increased by approximately 5 percent when Unit 1 was excluded.47 We would not consider a 5 percent increase in the visibility benefits of SCR or SNCR to justify disapproving the Cholla SIP Revision. Moreover, the modeled benefits of LNB+SOFA on Units 3 and 4 would also be higher if Unit 1 were excluded from the modeling, so the change in the incremental benefit of SCR or SNCR would be small.

In summary, although we agree with the comment that inclusion of Unit 1 in the visibility modeling decreases the modeled visibility benefits of controls on Units 3 and 4, the effect on the estimated visibility benefits of controls is small, and the BART Guidelines do not speak directly to this question. Therefore, the EPA has determined that ADEQ has reasonably exercised its discretion to include Unit 1 in its modeling analysis.

Comment 11: One commenter recommended that the EPA consider the net (not incremental) benefit of installing SNCR on Units 3 and 4. The commenter noted that even the incremental visibility benefit of SNCR of 0.28 deciview at the Class I area most affected by Cholla (Petrified Forest National Park) compares well with the net visibility benefits of other BART determinations made by the EPA in FIPs, which ranged from 0.18-0.32 deciview.

Response 11: As discussed elsewhere in this final rule, with regard to incremental visibility improvement, the EPA's response to comments for promulgating the BART Guidelines stated:

The EPA's regulations allow states to compare incremental visibility improvements between different technologies. The incremental visibility benefit is one way to compare the visibility improvements from various controls. For this BART determination, ADEQ weighed the small incremental visibility improvement against the incremental cost-effectiveness, as well as the timing and short duration of this benefit. Based on its weighing of these factors, ADEQ provided a reasoned justification for selecting LNB+SOFA as BART for Cholla Units 3 and 4. We have concluded that ADEQ properly exercised its discretion in its process for weighing the small visibility improvement against the cost-effectiveness to reject SCR and SNCR.

The commenter notes that even the incremental benefit of SNCR relative to LNB/SOFA is comparable to benefits seen in previous BART assessments, at least for the Class I area with the greatest impact. Visibility is only one of the five factors in a BART assessment, and in particular must be considered together with the anticipated costs of controls. As stated previously, the EPA's role is to decide whether the state's SIP is approvable by evaluating if the Cholla SIP Revision meets the requirements of the CAA, the RHR, and the BART Guidelines. In undertaking such a review, the EPA does not usurp a state's authority but ensures that such authority is reasonably exercised. The CAA and the RHR provide flexibility to the state in deciding how the factors in the analysis are weighed. We have concluded that ADEQ properly exercised its discretion in its process for weighing the small visibility improvement against the cost-effectiveness to reject SCR and SNCR.

Comment 12: One commenter asserted that the EPA's proposal violates CAA section 110(l) anti-backsliding requirements because it weakens the existing BART determination for Cholla. The commenter argued that the BART Reassessment is inconsistent with the EPA's long-standing interpretation of section 110(l) of the CAA as preventing implementation plan revisions that would increase overall air pollution or worsen air quality. The commenter stated that the effect of the BART Assessment would be to allow Units 3 and 4 to emit an additional 4,161 tons of NOX per year every year between 2018 and 2024, and would result in worse visibility conditions than the existing BART determination. The commenter went on to assert that the EPA's conclusions that the BART Reassessment complies with 110(l) are not justified because the EPA inappropriately discounted the timing of pollution reductions and the importance of promptly reducing pollution and improving visibility. The commenter argued that it is contrary to the purposes of the regional haze program and 110(l) to trade worse air quality and increased air pollution in the short term for potential benefits that may arise years from now. The commenter expressed concern that the EPA's BART Reassessment, if finalized, would set troubling precedent for the Coronado Generating Station BART Reassessment put forth for public comment by ADEQ in July 2016.

The commenter argued that the EPA's proposed approval of the Cholla SIP Revision is contrary to the requirements of CAA section 110(l). The commenter cited to case law (identified in our response below) to support its interpretation that additional air emissions or less stringent requirements occurring as a result of a SIP revision per se constitute a violation of CAA section 110(l). Specifically, the commenter argued that CAA section 110(l) prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP revision that is less stringent than the FIP it is replacing, stating, “This section prohibits states and EPA from revising an implementation plan if the revision would weaken the existing plan's requirements.” The commenter supported its assertion that the SIP revision weakens the requirements of the existing FIP by noting that the SIP revision will allow Cholla to emit 4,161 tons per year more NOX between 2018 and 2025 than would have been allowed pursuant to the FIP. The commenter characterized the EPA's proposed approval of the SIP revision as relying on two factors for demonstrating compliance with section 110(l), stating:

Response 12: As discussed in more detail below, the EPA disagrees with the commenter's legal interpretation that CAA section 110(l) is violated per se by any SIP revision that allows an increase in actual air emissions relative to the existing implementation plan. The EPA also disagrees with the characterization of our proposed section 110(l) analysis as relying only on the two factors quoted above.

The CAA section 110(l) states in relevant part: “The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title), and any other applicable requirement of this chapter.” This language does not prohibit every SIP revision that weakens the existing plan's requirements.49 The statutory language of section 110(l) does not support the commenter's interpretation that additional air emissions or less stringent requirements occurring as a result of a SIP revision per se constitutes a violation of CAA section 110(l), and neither does the case law cited by the commenter.

The cases cited by the commenter fail to support the commenter's view. In El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. U.S. EPA, the Ninth Circuit was addressing a different issue—whether the EPA reasonably determined the level of emission reductions resulting from a particular SIP Revision. The court was not considering a SIP revision that allowed increased emissions.50 There, the EPA had consistently determined that a SIP provision required a 12 percent decrease in emissions despite the petitioner's contrary interpretation that the provision required a 20 percent reduction. The court deferred to the EPA's reasonable interpretation, and concluded “that the EPA did not arbitrarily and capriciously fail to consider whether the SIP Revision violated § 110(l) of the Act, because it reasonably interpreted the Pesticide Element as committing to a 12 percent reduction in VOC emissions from 1990 levels by 1999 in the San Joaquin Valley.” 51 The case does not support the commenter's interpretation of section 110(l).

The other cases cited by the commenter also fail to support the commenter's interpretation. In Kentucky Resource Council v. EPA, the court upheld the EPA's approval of a SIP revision that moved a vehicle inspection and maintenance program from the SIP to a contingency measure.52 The court examined the EPA's analysis that the SIP revision would not “interfere” with attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP). As an initial matter, the court rejected an expansive reading of section 110(l), stating:

In Kentucky Resource Council, the SIP substituted other emissions reductions to make up for the increased emissions from moving the vehicle inspection and maintenance program to a contingency measure. The issue was whether the EPA could approve this change without requiring an attainment demonstration and the court upheld the EPA's decision that a new attainment demonstration was not required in order to show that the SIP revision would not interfere pursuant to section 110(l). Thus, the examination of whether the SIP revision would “worsen air quality” was based on whether the area—which, unlike Navajo County, was designated as a nonattainment area for the relevant NAAQS—would have more difficulty in attaining and maintaining the NAAQS with the SIP revision—not, as the commenter argues here, whether the SIP revision would simply result in increased emissions.54

The critical question under section 110(l) is not whether the SIP revision will cause an increase in actual emissions, it is whether that increase in actual emissions will interfere with attainment of the NAAQS or RFP, or if the SIP revision interferes with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The fact that actual emissions will increase means that the EPA's analysis must include an evaluation of how that emissions increase affects attainment and RFP and other applicable requirements of the CAA.

The EPA analyzed the requirements of section 110(l) in proposing to approve the Cholla SIP revision.55 The commenter fails to acknowledge much of the EPA's analysis. The commenter is incorrect that the EPA's proposal only relied on different facts and greater long term visibility benefits after 2026 to support approval. Rather, our proposal considered that fact that Navajo County, where the facility is located, is attaining the NAAQS for all pollutants.56 In addition, the proposal relied on the fact that the Cholla SIP revision will result in substantially lower SO2 and PM10 emissions than would have been allowed by the FIP. Finally, for NOX emissions, the EPA's proposal stated, “While the Cholla SIP Revision will require fewer NOX reductions than the FIP between 2018 and 2025, it will ensure that NO X emissions remain at or below current levels . . . until 2025 . . .” (emphasis added).57 Based on these facts, the EPA's proposal stated:

The comment letter does not appear to challenge the EPA's analysis that the SIP revision does not interfere with attainment or RFP for the reasons discussed above, but rather simply asserts that any increase in emissions automatically violates section 110(l).58

The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the Regional Administrator to adjust the possession and trip limits for common pool vessels in order to help prevent the overharvest or underharvest of the common pool quotas.

On March 16, 2017, the common pool Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod and haddock trip limits were increased (82 FR 14478, March 21, 2017). In this action, we incorrectly stated that the small vessel category trip limit of GOM cod was unchanged. However, this trip limit should have increased from 25 lb (11.34 kg) per trip to 100 lb (45.36 kg) per trip. To correct this error and allow the common pool fishery to catch more of its quota for GOM cod, effective March 22, 2017, the trip limit of GOM cod for the small vessel category is increased to 100 lb (45.36 kg) per trip. Vessels in the small vessel category are still held to the combined 300-lb (136.1 kg) trip limit for cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder. Common pool groundfish vessels that have declared their trip through the vessel monitoring system (VMS) or interactive voice response system, and crossed the VMS demarcation line prior to March 22, 2017, may land the new trip limit for that trip.

Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery can be found on our Web site at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/MultiMonReports.htm. We will continue to monitor common pool catch through vessel trip reports, dealer-reported landings, VMS catch reports, and other available information and, if necessary, we will make additional adjustments to common pool management measures.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effectiveness period because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the Regional Administrator to adjust the Northeast multispecies possession and trip limits for common pool vessels in order to help prevent the overharvest or underharvest of the pertinent common pool quotas. The error in a recent inseason action to increase the GOM cod and haddock trip limits was only recently discovered. As a result, the time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, would prevent NMFS from implementing the necessary trip limit correction in a timely manner, which could prevent the fishery from achieving the OY, and cause negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery.

The Council adopted Framework 28 on November 17, 2016, and submitted a draft of the framework to NMFS on December 21, 2016, that presented Council recommended measures, rationale, impacts for review, and a draft EA. NMFS published a proposed rule, including a reference on how to obtain the framework and the draft final EA, for approving and implementing Framework 28 on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 6472). The proposed rule included a 15-day public comment period that closed on February 7, 2017. The Council submitted a final EA to NMFS on March 10, 2017, for approval. This annual action includes catch, effort, and quota allocations and adjustments to the rotational area management program for fishing year 2017. Framework 28 specifies measures for fishing year 2017, and includes fishing year 2018 measures that will go into place as a default should the next specifications-setting framework be delayed beyond the start of fishing year 2018. NMFS has approved all of the measures recommended by the Council and described below. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) permits NMFS to approve, partially approve, or disapprove measures proposed by the Council based only on whether the measures are consistent with the fishery management plan, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. We must defer to the Council's policy choices unless there is a clear inconsistency with the law or the FMP. Details concerning the development of these measures were contained in the preamble of the proposed rule and are not repeated here.

Table 1 outlines the scallop fishery catch limits derived from the ABC values and the projected landings of the fleet.

This action deducts 1.25 million lb (567 mt) of scallops annually for 2017 and 2018 from the ABC and sets it aside as the Scallop RSA to fund scallop research and to compensate participating vessels through the sale of scallops harvested under RSA projects. As of March 1, 2017, this set-aside has been available for harvest by RSA-funded project in the open area. Framework 28 allows RSA to be harvested from the Mid-Atlantic Access Area (MAAA), but would prevent RSA harvesting from access areas under 2018 default measures. Framework 28 also clarifies that RSA cannot be harvested from the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) management area. Of this 1.25 million lb (567 mt) allocation, NMFS has already allocated 63,204 lb (28.7 mt) to previously-funded multi-year projects as part of the 2016 RSA awards process. NMFS reviewed proposals submitted for consideration of 2017 RSA awards and announced project selections on March 17, 2017. Details on the 2017 RSA awards can be found on our Web site here: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/coopresearch/news/scallop-rsa-2017-18/.

This action also sets aside 1 percent of the ABC for the industry-funded observer program to help defray the cost to scallop vessels that carry an observer. The observer set-asides for fishing years 2017 and 2018 are 467 mt and 431 mt, respectively. In fishing year 2017, the compensation rates for limited access vessels in open areas fishing under days-at-sea (DAS) is 0.12 DAS per DAS fished. For access area trips, the compensation rate is 200 lb (91 kg), in addition to the vessel's possession limit for the trip for each day or part of a day an observer is onboard. LAGC IFQ vessels may possess an additional 200 lb (91 kg) per trip in open areas when carrying an observer. NMFS may adjust the compensation rate throughout the fishing year, depending on how quickly the fleets are using the set aside. The Council may adjust the 2018 observer set-aside through its development non-default measures for 2018.

This action implements vessel-specific DAS allocations for each of the three limited access scallop DAS permit categories (i.e., full-time, part-time, and occasional) for 2017 and 2018 (Table 2). Framework 28 sets 2018 DAS allocations at 75 percent of fishing year 2017 DAS allocations as a precautionary measure. This is to avoid over-allocating DAS to the fleet in the event that the 2018 specifications action, if delayed past the start of the 2018 fishing year, estimates that DAS should be less than currently projected. The allocations in Table 2 exclude any DAS deductions that are required if the limited access scallop fleet exceeded its 2016 sub-ACL. In addition, these DAS values take into account a 0.14-DAS reduction necessary to compensate for a measure implemented in Framework Adjustment 26 to the FMP (80 FR 22119; April 21, 2015) that allows vessels to transit to ports south of 39° N. lat. while not on DAS. The DAS also include a 4.7 percent increase because the 2017 fishing year will be 13 months long to account for the change in the start of the fishing year (from March 1 to April 1) implemented through Amendment 19 to the Scallop FMP (81 FR 76516; November 3, 2016).

The reader can find regulations governing fishing activity in the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) Scallop Management Area in 50 CFR 648.54 and § 648.62. These regulations authorize vessels issued a valid Federal scallop permit to fish in the NGOM Scallop Management Area under specific conditions, including a total allowable catch (TAC) of 70,000 lb (30.6 mt) set under Scallop Framework Adjustment 27 default measures for the start of the 2017 fishing year, and a State Waters Exemption Program for the State of Maine. Section 648.62(b)(2) requires the NGOM Scallop Management Area to be closed to federally permitted scallop vessels for the remainder of the fishing year once the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator determines that the default TAC for fishing year 2017 is projected to be harvested. Any vessel that holds a Federal NGOM permit (category LAGC B) may continue to fish in the Maine state waters portion of the NGOM Scallop Management Area under the State Waters Exemption Program found in § 648.54 provided they have a valid Maine state scallop permit and fish in state waters only.

Based on trip declarations by federally permitted scallop vessels fishing in the NGOM Scallop Management Area, an analysis of fishing effort, and other information, we project that the 2017 default TAC will be harvested as of March 23, 2017. Therefore, in accordance with § 648.62(b)(2), the NGOM Scallop Management Area is closed to all federally permitted scallop vessels as of March 23, 2017. No vessel issued a Federal scallop permit may fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from the NGOM Scallop Management Area after 0001 local time, March 23, 2017, unless the vessel is fishing exclusively in state waters and is participating in an approved state waters exemption program as specified in § 648.54. Any federally permitted scallop vessel that has declared into the NGOM Scallop Management Area, complied with all trip notification and observer requirements, and crossed the VMS demarcation line on the way to the area before 0001, March 23, 2017, may complete its trip. All limited access scallop vessels fishing on a day-at-sea must exit the NGOM Scallop Management Area before 0001 hr local time, March 23, 2017. This closure is in effect through February 28, 2018.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. The NGOM Scallop Management Area opened for the 2017 fishing year on March 1, 2017, under default measures implemented under Framework 27 (May 4, 2016, 81 FR 26727). The regulations at § 648.60(b)(2) require this closure to ensure that federally permitted scallop vessels do not harvest more than the allocated TAC for the NGOM Scallop Management Area. The projections of the date on which the NGOM Scallop Management Area TAC will be harvested become apparent only as trips into the area occur on a real-time basis and as activity trends begin to appear. As a result, an accurate projection only can be made very close in time to when the TAC is harvested. In addition, proposing a closure would likely increase activity, triggering an earlier closure than predicted. To allow federally permitted scallop vessels to continue to take trips in the NGOM Scallop Management Area during the period necessary to publish and receive comments on a proposed rule would likely result in vessels over-harvesting the 2017 default TAC for the NGOM Scallop Management Area. Over-harvest from the NGOM Scallop Management Area would result in excessive fishing effort in the area, where effort controls are critical, thereby undermining conservation objectives of the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan and requiring more restrictive future management measures. Also, the public had prior notice and full opportunity to comment on this closure process when we put these provisions in place. NMFS further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above.

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

The B season allowance of the 2017 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 2,232 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017).

NMFS closed directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on March 12, 2017 (82 FR 13777, March 15, 2017).

As of March 17, 2017, NMFS has determined that approximately 1,874 metric tons of pollock remain in the B season directed fishing allowance for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the B season allowance of the 2017 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA, effective 1200 hours, A.l.t., March 23, 2017.

The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the B season allowance of the 2017 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA will be reached on March 27, 2017. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 2,132 mt and is setting aside the remaining 100 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 will be reached on March 27, 2017. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA on March 27, 2017.

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 opening of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 17, 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.

Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until April 6, 2017.

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