Federal Register Vol. 83, No.61,

Background

Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-81, referred to below as the regulations or the fruits and vegetables regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.

Currently, pursuant to 7 CFR 319.56-4(a), fresh cherimoya (Annona cherimola) fruit from Chile may be imported into the United States provided that the shipment has undergone a soapy water and wax treatment (T102-b) in accordance with the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual to mitigate against infestation by the false red mite (Brevipalpus chilensis), is accompanied by a permit, and subjected to inspection and shipping procedures.

On April 4, 2016, we published in the Federal Register (81 FR 19060-19063, Docket No. APHIS-2015-0015) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations to also allow for the importation of fresh cherimoya fruit from Chile into the continental United States provided that fruit is produced in accordance with a systems approach, as an alternative to the currently required treatment.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending June 3, 2016. We received 26 comments by that date. They were from importers, exporters, distributors, organizations, private citizens, and representatives of State and foreign governments. Of these, 17 were supportive of the proposed action. The remainder are discussed below, by topic.

An issue of concern to several commenters was the potential introduction of the false red mite into the United States via infested fresh cherimoya fruit from Chile. One commenter stated that the post-harvest procedures noted in the pest risk assessment (PRA) of blowing fruit with compressed air to remove dust and insects, along with selection and manual packing of the fruit, would be insufficient to reliably remove pests from the pathway of fresh fruit imported into the continental United States. Another commenter also was concerned about the testing of only two or three fruit samples from each registered production site, wanting to ensure that sample sizes would be large enough to prevent pest-infested fruit from entering citrus and grape production areas in the United States. This commenter suggested incorporating an additional checkpoint test for false red mite on random fruit samples in the packaging sites prior to clearance for export.

We note that the mitigations mentioned by the first commenter are standard industry practices, not the mitigations for false red mite (though the standard industry practices may remove some mites from the pathway). Chile will be allowed to export fresh cherimoya fruit to the United States subject to either a soapy water and wax treatment (as currently allowed), or through a systems approach based on low pest prevalence. Orchard and packinghouse inspections will be required to verify and maintain place of production freedom from false red mite. Chile is currently using the same systems approach for a number of other commodities (e.g. citrus, baby kiwi, pomegranate, and kiwi) with a high success rate, and there have been almost no findings of false red mite associated with the importation of susceptible commodities from Chile at U.S. ports of entry. Chile will be taking 100 samples from each production site to verify low prevalence; these samples will undergo pest detection and evaluation using a washing method where the fruit will be placed in a 20-mesh sieve on top of a 200-mesh sieve, sprinkled with a liquid soap and water solution, washed with water at high pressure, and washed with water at low pressure. The process will then be repeated. Then the sieve contents will undergo microscopic analysis to detect the presence of false red mite. Each shipment of fruit destined for the United States also will be sampled for false red mite, usually amounting to 150 fruit, using the same washing method. Contrary to the second commenter's assertion, many more than two or three samples will be taken to verify that false red mite is not present. The sampling will be done in Chile under the supervision of APHIS preclearance employees. The sampling rate for the fruit is designed to detect a 2 percent or greater infestation rate with 95 percent confidence.

One commenter questioned why the alternative conditions for the importation of cherimoyas was being proposed and asked if it was a reflection of cost, stating that cost-saving measures alone should not be adopted if they increase the potential for greater phytosanitary risk.

The original soapy water and wax treatment for cherimoya is older than the systems approach. Chile requested the systems approach as an option for fresh cherimoya fruit being exported to the continental United States, and we have determined that it provides an equivalent level of phytosanitary security.

One commenter expressed support for the proposed rule with the caveat that any treatments conducted be equivalent to those required domestically, and that any imported fruit not meeting proper standards upon arrival in the United States receive additional treatment so as not to waste the fruit.

The Tripartite Agreement on Phytosanitary Cooperation between USDA, Chilean Association of Fresh Fruit Exporters, and the Agriculture and Livestock Service of the Chilean Ministry of Agriculture has been in operation since 1982. This agreement requires that all fruit exported to the United States be shipped from Chile with the required phytosanitary certification (preclearance program). Under the preclearance program, the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Chile must provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO of Chile will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to comply with our regulations governing the import or export of a specific commodity. Operational workplans establish procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs, specify how phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country, and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. APHIS and the NPPO of Chile have an existing operational workplan for commodities imported into the United States pursuant to a systems approach; this current operational workplan will be revised to reflect the contents of this final rule. USDA offices in Chile make possible the supervision of all phytosanitary aspects of each export shipment, whether fumigated, treated with soapy water and wax, or inspected, thus providing the necessary quarantine assurances to the U.S. market. All activities related to implementation of system approaches for export are directly supervised by USDA personnel. There is sufficient oversight for all treatment of fruit bound for export from Chile to the United States.

If a commodity arrives in the United States and is found to be infested with a quarantine pest, treatment will be offered only if there is an APHIS-approved treatment available. For fresh cherimoya fruit from Chile, the only approved treatment for false red mite is the soapy water and wax treatment, which must be performed in the country of origin. As there is no APHIS-approved treatment option for infested fresh cherimoya fruit at U.S. ports of entry at this time, consignments found to be infested with quarantine pests would have to be re-exported or destroyed.

Another commenter requested that fresh cherimoya fruit produced under this systems approach not be shipped into certain States due to the exotic pest-conducive environments in the Chilean production area, which in turn would place a high risk of infestation on the States' broad range of fruit and vegetable crops.

We do not agree with this commenter. Though not unprecedented, taking this kind of action for such a minor commodity would be unusual. APHIS believes that the proposed systems approach mitigations are sufficient to provide phytosanitary protection. As previously indicated, the systems approach currently is being used for citrus, baby kiwi, pomegranate, and kiwi with a high success rate, with almost no interceptions of false red mite at U.S. ports of entry. Furthermore, from 1984 to 2013 there have been no interceptions of Brevipalpus chilensis on cherimoya from Chile.2

Following post-harvest processing, fresh cherimoya fruit must undergo inspection and sampling to check for the presence of false red mites. Two commenters stated that checking for the pest presence in fruit should be done only in the final stages of the process during the preclearance program inspection. One of these commenters also expressed concern regarding the use of biometric sampling instead of the 2 percent currently used for phytosanitary inspections of fresh cherimoya fruit. The commenter stated that this represented a larger number of fruit and therefore would result in a greater loss of boxes from commercial batches if sampled fruit is to be discarded.

During the preclearance program inspection in Chile, any consignments containing false red mite will be rejected and the production sites will be removed from the program for the rest of that harvest season. Production sites will have to requalify as low prevalence before they can ship in the next season. With respect to the issue of biometric sampling, the proposed method is not destructive sampling. Once the biometric sample is drawn from each consignment of fruit, the fruit will be visually inspected for quarantine pests and a portion of the biometric sample must be washed with soapy water. The collected filtrate after washing must then be microscopically examined for the presence of false red mite. Fruit samples that do not contain false red mite can simply be washed and placed back into their boxes. APHIS will select the sampling rate based on the hypergeometric distribution; normally to find a 2 percent pest population, 150 fruits will be inspected. Except for very small shipments, a 2 percent straight sample will require sampling more fruit than the hypergeometric distribution would require. Again, we note that this is not destructive sampling, but merely a wash for mite, after which, uninfested fruits would be returned to their boxes.

One commenter expressed concern that the proposed regulation does not provide a monetary assessment or a prediction of how the regulation would impact the price of fruit.

We do not have information on whether the systems approach allowed by this rule will lower the cost of exporting fresh cherimoya fruit from Chile to the United States, in comparison to the current soapy water and wax treatment for false red mite, or on the extent to which any cost savings may be passed on to U.S. importers. We expect cost savings due to this rule will be minimal. We also expect any increase in the quantity of fresh cherimoya fruit imported from Chile because of this rule to be limited, given that over 80 percent of Chile's fresh cherimoya fruit exports are already destined for the United States. If modest price or quantity effects for fresh cherimoya fruit imports from Chile do occur, impacts for U.S. producers will be slight because of different marketing seasons. As reported by the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center,3 the marketing season for fresh California cherimoya fruit usually starts in January and lasts until May. Fresh cherimoya fruit imports from South America (mainly from Chile) are usually in the fall.

We have made minor, nonsubstantive changes to clarify a few provisions in the regulatory text. These editorial changes do not substantively affect the import requirements.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this final rule is not significant, it is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov website (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Over 80 percent of Chile's fresh cherimoya fruit exports are to the United States. Any economic impact of this rule for U.S. entities will be minor because the volume of fresh cherimoya fruit imported from Chile is not expected to change significantly. Any effect on fresh cherimoya fruit prices received by U.S. producers will be all the more muted because of the difference in marketing seasons. As previously indicated, the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center reports that the season for fresh California cherimoya fruit usually starts in January and lasts until May. Fresh cherimoya fruit from South America (mainly from Chile) usually is imported in the fall.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule allows fresh cherimoya fruit to be imported into the continental United States from Chile under a systems approach. State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh cherimoya fruit imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection requirements included in this final rule, which were filed under control number 0579-0444, have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision, if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Part 906 (referred to as the “Order”), is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of oranges and grapefruit operating within the production area.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained, in 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 rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the provisions of the Order now in effect, Texas orange and grapefruit handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate will be applicable to all assessable oranges and grapefruit beginning on August 1, 2017, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

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

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

This rule decreases the assessment rate from $0.09, the rate that was established for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods, to $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit handled for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods. The decrease reflects a reduction in expenses of more than $595,000 from not funding the Mexican fruit fly control program.

The Committee met on August 8, 2017, and unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $152,920 and an assessment rate of $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. The assessment rate of $0.02 is $0.07 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reflect that they would not be funding the Mexican fruit fly control program, reducing their budget by more than $595,000. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

Of the total $152,920 budgeted for the 2017-18 fiscal period, major expenditures recommended by the Committee include $79,220 for management, $50,000 for compliance, and $23,700 for operating expenses. Compared to the previous fiscal year's budget of $751,148, budgeted expenses for these items in 2016-17 were $77,200, $50,000, and $23,700, respectively.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected shipments, and the amount of funds available in the authorized reserve. Income derived from handler assessments calculated at $150,000 (7.5 million 7/10-bushel cartons assessed at $0.02 per carton), along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses of $152,920. Funds in the reserve (currently $282,572) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the Order (approximately one fiscal period's expenses as stated in § 906.35).

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

Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2017-18 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

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

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

There are approximately 170 producers of oranges and grapefruit in the production area and 13 handlers subject to regulation under the Order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to Committee data, the average price for Texas citrus during the 2015-16 season was approximately $17.48 per box and total shipments were 7.5 million boxes. Using the average price and shipment information, the number of handlers (13), and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers would have average annual receipts of greater than $7,500,000. Thus, the majority of Texas citrus handlers may be classified as large business entities.

In addition, based on information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the weighted grower price for Texas citrus during the 2015-16 season was approximately $14.64 per box. Using the weighted average price and shipment information, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers would have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Thus, the majority of Texas citrus producers may be classified as small business entities.

This rule decreases the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.09 to $0.02 per 7/10-weight bushel carton or equivalent of Texas citrus. The Committee unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $152,920 and an assessment rate of $0.02 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent handled. The assessment rate of $0.02 is $0.07 lower than the 2016-17 rate. The quantity of assessable oranges and grapefruit for the 2017-18 fiscal period is estimated at 7.5 million 7/10-bushel cartons. Thus, the $0.02 rate should provide $150,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 year include $79,220 for management, $50,000 for compliance, and $23,700 for operating expenses. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2016-17 were $77,200, $50,000, and $23,700, respectively.

The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reflect that it would not be funding the Mexican fruit fly control program, reducing its budget by more than $595,000.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Personnel Committee, and the Research Committee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these committees who reviewed the relative value of various activities to the Texas citrus industry. These committees determined that all program activities were adequately funded and essential to the functionality of the Order, thus no alternate expenditure levels were deemed appropriate. Additionally, alternate assessment rates of $0.01 and $0.015 per 7/10 bushel-carton were discussed. However, it was determined that these lower assessment rates would draw too heavily from reserves, roughly $78,000 and $43,000, respectively. The proposed rate of $0.02 per 7/10 bushel-carton would draw an anticipated $2,800 from reserves, thereby leaving reserves intact for future needs.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the average grower price for the 2017-18 season should be approximately $15.50 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2017-18 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue would be about 0.1 percent.

This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers.

The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 8, 2017, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas orange and grapefruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

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

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2017 (82 FR 57164). Copies of the proposed rule were also mailed or sent via facsimile to all Texas citrus handlers. Finally, the proposal was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending January 3, 2018, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. Two comments were received, one in support of the change, and one comment outside the scope of this action. One commenter in support of the action stated that the reduced rate is fair and continues to allow the Committee to pay its expenses. Administrative revisions to the subpart headings were included in the proposed rule. No comments were received on those changes. Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed, based on the comments received.

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

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

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 906 is amended as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2013-16-14, Amendment 39-17552 (78 FR 54383, September 4, 2013), and add a new AD. AD 2013-16-14 applied to Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (now Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH) Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters with a certain serial-numbered main transmission FS108 housing upper part (upper part), part number (P/N) 4649 301 034. AD 2013-16-14 required installing a corrugated washer in the upper part filter housing and modifying each affected upper part by machining the oil filter bypass inlet.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2017 (82 FR 51175). The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2017-0002, dated January 9, 2017 (AD 2017-0002), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model EC 135 and EC635 helicopters. EASA advises that some affected upper parts have been re-identified with P/N 4649 301 067 or P/N 4649 301 088 without changing the serial number. EASA further advises that Airbus Helicopters has extended the compliance time to retrofit the housing to 5,150 hours to coincide with the extended interval between transmission overhauls.

Accordingly, the NPRM proposed to retain the requirement to install a corrugated washer and modify the upper part and also proposed adding Airbus Helicopters Deutschland Model EC135P3 and Model EC135T3 helicopters and upper part P/N 4649 301 067 and P/N 4649 301 088 to the applicability and extending the compliance time for machining the upper part to 5,150 hours TIS.

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

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

We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) EC135-63A-017, Revision 2, dated December 5, 2016 (ASB EC135-63A-017), for Model EC135 T1, T2, T2+, T3, P1, P2, P2+, P3, and 635 T1, T2+, T3, P2+, and P3 helicopters. This service information specifies removing the oil filter element and installing a corrugated washer. ASB EC135-63A-017 also specifies reworking the affected upper part at the next repair or overhaul of the main transmission, no later than 5,150 flight hours after receipt of the service bulletin. EASA classified this ASB as mandatory and issued AD 2017-0002 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

We also reviewed ZF Luftfahrttechnik GmbH Service Instruction No. EC135FS108-1659-1009, dated September 14, 2010, which specifies procedures for repairing the main transmission upper housing, and includes dimensions and tolerances for machining the upper part.

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

We reviewed Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-63A-017, Revision 0, dated October 11, 2010, for Model EC135 T1, T2, T2+, P1, P2, P2+, and 635 T1, T2+, and P2+ helicopters. This service information specifies the same Accomplishment Instructions as ASB EC135-63A-017, Revision 2, except with a shorter compliance time to rework the affected upper part.

We estimate that this AD will affect 236 helicopters of U.S. Registry. At an average labor rate of $85 per work hour, we estimate that operators will incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Installing the corrugated washer requires about .5 work hour, and required parts cost about $10, for a cost per helicopter of about $53, and a cost to the U.S. operator fleet of $12,508. Machining the housing upper part requires about 5 work hours and required parts cost about $73, for a cost per helicopter of $498, and a total cost to U.S. operators of $117,528. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to be $130,036 for the U.S. operator fleet or $551 per helicopter.

According to Airbus Helicopters' service information some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected persons. We do not control warranty coverage by Airbus Helicopters. Accordingly, 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.

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that a regulatory distinction is required, and

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

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

Discussion

We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Textron Aviation Inc. Models A36TC, B36TC, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2017 (82 FR 51782).

We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2017 (82 FR 17594). The NPRM proposed to add a life limit to the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (clamp) and, if the coupling is removed for any reason before the life limit is reached, require an inspection of the v-band coupling before reinstalling. The NPRM was prompted by a fatal accident where the exhaust tailpipe fell off during takeoff.

The SNPRM proposed to add to the applicability of the AD, add a life limit to the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (clamp) that attaches the exhaust tailpipe to the turbocharger, and require an annual visual inspection of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling (clamp). We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

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

Michelle Prengle agrees with the AD action. She states, “I am the daughter of the pilot from which this AD is prompted. My brothers and I lost our father and stepmother in this accident. I want people to know that my father loved to fly and believed that flying was the safest form of transportation. I wish that this AD be implemented to honor what my father truly believed, that flying is the safest form of transportation. I believe it will provide one more measure that will save lives in the future.”

Paul Gryko recommended removal of multi-segment couplings from all airplanes and replace with one-piece couplings. The commenter discussed other airplane models that have the multi-segment coupling installed and other AD actions affecting exhaust tailpipe v-band couplings. The commenter discussed that multi-segment couplings may have different part numbers on different airplanes with different torque values. Having one one-piece coupling with the same torque value for use on all airplanes would benefit the industry. The commenter discussed the possibility of expanding the scope of this AD or issuing a different AD action.

We do not agree with this comment. The FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on certain Models A36TC, B36TC, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes. This AD addresses the unsafe condition on those specific airplanes. Including the actions of this AD on other airplane models that may have the affected exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling installed goes beyond the scope of this AD. However, the FAA is looking at the possibility of this unsafe condition affecting other airplanes.

We have not changed this AD based on this comment.

Dustin Todd requested we expand the AD to all Textron airplanes equipped with TSIO-520 engines and to require inspection of all areas of the turbocharger exhaust pipe. During a 50-hour oil change, he found a crack in the turbocharger exhaust pipe. The crack appeared to have originated beneath the coupling. Removal of the coupling is not required during 100-hour or annual inspections, so the crack could go undetected for hours or years.

We disagree with this comment. The FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on certain Models A36TC, B36TC, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes. This AD requires a life limit replacement and inspection of the exhaust tailpipe v-band couplings as installed on those affected airplanes. To include all Textron airplanes equipped with Continental TSIO-520 engines and to require inspection of all areas of the turbocharger exhaust pipe would be beyond the scope of this AD. However, the FAA is looking at the possibility of this unsafe condition affecting other airplanes.

We have not changed this AD based on this comment.

David Cort commented the proposed AD is an overreaction to address one airplane affected out of 731 airplanes. The commenter believes over torqueing and the additional stress of heat expansion on the coupling caused the fatigue cracks. The commenter also noted the difficulty in accessing the coupling and applying the correct amount of torque. The commenter believes removing and reinstalling couplings by inexperienced mechanics could add to the problem. We infer the commenter wants the SNPRM withdrawn. If the FAA proceeds with the AD action, the commenter believes the compliance time should be no less than 1,000 hours time-in-service (TIS).

We disagree with this comment. The FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on certain Models A36TC, B36TC, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes. This AD describes procedures for the correct amount of torque and the actions required by this AD must be done by an appropriately certified mechanic. The accident/incident failure data and existing AD actions demonstrate that a 500-hour life limit is appropriate for this type of multi-segment coupling.

We have not changed this AD based on this comment.

Textron Aviation, Inc. requested we withdraw the SNPRM. The commenter stated there are no unique aspects to the engine installation on the affected airplanes or the v-band coupling installation that would justify a need for an AD specific to the affected airplanes. The commenter states an appliance specific AD would be a more appropriate approach to addressing the unsafe condition identified by the FAA for all airplanes.

We disagree with this comment. The FAA has determined an unsafe condition exists on the specific airplanes affected by this AD. This AD will address the unsafe condition on the specific airplanes this AD affects. However, the FAA is looking at the possibility of this unsafe condition affecting other airplanes.

We have not changed this AD based on this comment.

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

• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

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

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

We estimate that this AD affects 731 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary inspection that would require removal and reinstallation of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this inspection:

We estimate the following costs for the installation of part number N1000897-40 exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling on Models S35, V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes equipped with the Continental TSIO-520-D engine with AiResearch turbocharger during manufacture. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may do this installation:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2004-03-07, Amendment 39-13451 (69 FR 5907, February 9, 2004) (“AD 2004-03-07”). AD 2004-03-07 applied to certain Airbus Model A320-111, -211, -212, and -231 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2017 (82 FR 46729). The NPRM was prompted by fatigue tests which revealed cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at FR 36, adjacent to the longitudinal beams on the left and right sides of the airplane, and by the discovery of additional cracks under the longitudinal beams at locations that are not included in the inspection area required by AD 2004-03-07. The NPRM proposed to continue to require certain requirements of AD 2004-03-07. The NPRM also proposed to expand the applicability and require an inspection of the fastener holes on the pressure panel between FR 35 and FR 36 under the longitudinal beam and modification or repair as applicable. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around the fasteners attaching the pressure panel to the flexible bracket at the FR 36 adjacent to the longitudinal beams, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and possible rapid decompression of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0206, dated October 13, 2016; corrected October 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318 and Model A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131,-211, -21-, 213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0902.

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.

United Airlines (UAL) requested that we omit paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD, which would require operators to report any findings of cracking that exceeded the limits specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, from the proposed AD. UAL stated that paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD is confusing and unjustified because there is no explanation for why it is required when it was not included in EASA AD 2016-0206. UAL stated the requirement to report findings in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) is redundant with the actions of paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD. UAL noted that for the crack repair specified in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD, the findings would be reported. UAL suggested the paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD required using an unconventional means to report findings that might require additional procedures and training specific to the proposed AD. UAL also stated that restricting reporting to a website may cause issues if the sender does not have access and that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, lists alternative options for reporting, like email, fax, or mail.

We agree to remove the reporting requirement specified in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD from this AD. Neither Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, nor the MCAI specifically includes reporting to a website as specified in paragraph (k)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD. We note that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, does include reporting within the required for compliance (RC) procedure for the repair, which indicates that reporting would be required regardless of whether reporting was called out in the MCAI. We also verified with EASA that reporting should be done as defined in the service information. However, we have determined that a specific reporting requirement is not necessary. As stated by the commenter, operators will report findings to obtain the repair, which is specified in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD. We have removed paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (k)(2)(ii) from this AD and revised paragraph (k)(2) of this AD to include the information that was in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD. We have also added paragraph (n) to this AD to specify that reporting is not required for this AD and redesignated the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Two commenters requested that we refer to the latest service information. UAL requested that we update paragraph (k) of the proposed AD to use Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, which corrects an error with the fastener lengths for part number (P/N) EN6115K3. We infer that UAL intended to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, because there is no Revision 02 for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, and because P/N EN6115K3 is referenced in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017. Airbus requested that we refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, in the proposed AD.

We agree to refer to the latest service information in this AD. In addition to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, we have also reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated December 6, 2017, which updates kit information and figures among other minor changes. We have revised paragraph (k)(1) of this AD accordingly. We have also provided credit for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016; in paragraphs (o)(3)(ii) and (o)(3)(iv) of this AD, respectively.

Airbus requested that Model A320-215 and Model A320-216 airplanes be in included in the applicability of the proposed AD. The commenter noted that these airplane models are included in the MCAI.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. We have not certified Model A320-215 airplanes for operation in the U.S., and therefore, we did not include that model in the applicability of this AD. We did not include Model A320-216 airplanes in the applicability of this AD because the MCAI was already added to the required airworthiness action list (RAAL) for Model A320-216 airplanes. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Airbus stated that the proposed AD identifies the means of inspection, i.e., rototest inspection, using three different wordings in the descriptions of the service bulletins specified in the Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51 paragraph in the preamble of the NPRM. Airbus also stated that Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, no longer contains a rototest inspection requirement. In addition, Airbus noted that Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, does not contain repair instructions. We infer the commenter is requesting that we revise the service bulletin descriptions in the Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51 paragraph in the preamble of the NPRM.

We acknowledge the description of the rototest inspection is different for each service bulletin specified in the Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51 paragraph in the preamble of the NPRM. In the NPRM, we matched the description of the inspection as given in each service bulletin specified in the Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51 paragraph. We have revised the description of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, to remove the reference to an inspection and repair.

Airbus requested that we revise paragraph (e) of the proposed AD to clarify that the proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracking in an additional area. Airbus stated that paragraph (e) of the proposed AD describes only the fatigue test results that prompted AD 2004-03-07.

We agree to revise paragraph (e) of this AD for clarity. This AD was prompted by the original report of cracking and the additional report. We have revised paragraph (e) of this AD to include the additional cracking that prompted the issuance of this AD.

Airbus requested that we revise the language in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD, which specifies to repair any cracking in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016. Airbus stated that this service information does not provide direct repair instructions and instead specifies to contact Airbus.

We agree to clarify the language in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD (which corresponds with paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD). Paragraph (k)(2) of this AD also specifies that where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), operators must request approval of repair instructions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD, and accomplish the repair accordingly within the compliance time specified in those instructions. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Airbus requested that we revise paragraph (m)(1)(iii) of the proposed AD. Airbus stated the wording is similar to paragraph (9) of the MCAI except that the important wording “in accordance with Airbus approved instructions that identify the repair as technically equivalent to the accomplishment of Airbus SB A320-53-1240 or SB A320-53-1263” is omitted.

We disagree with the commenter's request. The intent of paragraph (m)(1)(iii) of this AD is to obtain corrective actions from the manufacturer that are approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). These approved instructions will provide an equivalent level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

We reviewed the available data, including 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 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.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1029, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated April 29, 2002. The service information describes procedures for repairing cracking.

Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016; and A320-53-1240, Revision 02, dated March 14, 2017, which describe procedures for modifying the pressure panel above the left and right longitudinal beams, by cold working the attachment holes under the longitudinal beam at FR 36 for airplanes on which no cracking was found. Service Bulletin A320-53-1240, Revision 01, dated April 4, 2016 also includes related investigative action (e.g., high frequency eddy current (rototest) inspection of all the removed fastener holes) and corrective actions (e.g., repair). These documents are distinct since they are different revision levels.

Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1263, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016; and A320-53-1263, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated December 6, 2017, which describe procedures for modifying the pressure panel above the left and right longitudinal beams, including related investigative actions (e.g., eddy current rotating probe inspection of the fastener holes) and corrective actions (e.g., repair), by adding a doubler and a filler, and cold expansion of the holes under the longitudinal beam at FR 36 for airplanes on which cracking was found. These documents are distinct because they are different revision levels.

Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1264, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 4, 2016. The service information describes procedures for a special detailed inspection (rotating probe) for cracking of the fastener holes on the pressure panel between FR 35 and FR 36 under the longitudinal beam and repair of any crack.

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 737 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition repairs 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 is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Comments Invited

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.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD No. 2017-0176-E, dated September 14, 2017, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.A. (previously Agusta) Model A109E, A109LUH, A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters. EASA advises of an in-flight loss of an MRB tip cap on an AW109SP helicopter where the pilot was able to safely land the helicopter. EASA further advises that an investigation determined the cause as incorrect bonding procedures used between specific dates and identified the affected MRBs by part number and serial number. According to EASA, this condition could result in loss of an MRB tip cap, increased pilot workload, and reduced control of the helicopter. To address this unsafe condition, the EASA AD requires repetitive inspections of the MRB tip caps and replacing certain part-numbered MRBs.

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

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

Leonardo Helicopters has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 109EP-157 for Model A109E helicopters, EASB No. 109S-077 for Model A109S helicopters, and EASB No. 109SP-116 for Model AW109SP helicopters, all dated September 8, 2017. Leonardo Helicopters has also issued EASB No. 119-085, Revision A, dated September 11, 2017, for Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters. This service information identifies certain part-numbered and serial-numbered MRBs for applicability and describes procedures for tap inspecting the tip cap for disbonding.

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.

For helicopters with an MRB part number 709-0104-01-111 with serial number 1307, 1320, 1346, 1365, 1372, 1380, 1414, 1426, 1436, 1475, or 1485 installed, this AD requires, within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 5 hours TIS, tap inspecting the MRB tip cap for disbonding and, if there is disbonding, removing the MRB from service before further flight. If there is no disbonding on any of the inspections, this AD requires removing the MRB from service within 25 hours TIS. After the effective date of this AD, this AD prohibits installing these serial-numbered MRBs on any helicopter.

For all other helicopters, this AD requires, within 25 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 25 hours TIS, tap inspecting the MRB tip cap for disbonding. If there is any disbonding, this AD requires removing the MRB from service before further flight. The repetitive inspections required for these MRBs would no longer be required after the MRB accumulates 400 hours TIS.

The EASA AD applies to Model A109LUH helicopters, while this AD does not as that model helicopter is not type-certificated in the U.S. The EASA AD requires that you contact Leonardo Helicopters, and this AD does not.

We estimate that this AD affects 130 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, we estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Tap inspecting the MRB tip caps will require 1 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85 and a cost of $11,050 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. If required, replacing one MRB will require 4 work-hours and required parts will cost $89,179, for a cost per helicopter of $89,519.

According to Leonardo Helicopters' service information, 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 by Leonardo Helicopters. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the corrective actions required by this AD must be accomplished within 5 hours TIS and 25 hours TIS.

Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reasons stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2017 (82 FR 34888). The NPRM was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking found in a certain fuselage frame, which severed the inner chord and web. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the fuselage frame for existing repairs, repetitive inspections, and applicable repairs. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fuselage frame at station (STA) 1640, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

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

Aviation Partners Boeing concurs with the content of the NPRM.

Boeing asked that we clarify the service information exceptions in paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD by noting that Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017, is subject to this exception only if applicable (if winglets are installed on the airplane). Boeing also stated that paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD should put the required compliance time “after the effective date of this AD” in quotations to designate the content being substituted for the quoted service information compliance time statements.

We agree with the commenter's request. We have separated the exceptions for the referenced service information for clarification. We have removed the reference to the APB Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017, from paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. We have also added paragraph (h)(3) to this AD to specify the exception for the APB service bulletin. Paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this AD specify exceptions to the referenced service information instructions, and are intended to be used to determine compliance, relative to the effective date of this AD instead of the issue date of the service information. We have also included the requested quotations in paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this AD.

United Airlines (UAL) asked that the actions identified in Figures 5 and 6, Note (a), of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, be clarified. UAL stated that while Figures 5 and 6 correctly depict the required inspection areas, the task associated with circle action “2” for each figure specifies a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection, which cannot be done around the fasteners common to the inner chord strap. UAL asked that this discrepancy be addressed in the AD in order to avoid the need for approval of requests for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).

We agree with the commenter's request, for the reason provided. We have added paragraph (h)(4) to the exceptions in this AD to clarify that an HFEC inspection of the two fasteners located below the lower edge of the intercostal strap at the locations specified in Figures 5 and 6, Note (a), of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, is not required by this AD.

Delta Airlines (DAL) asked that we clarify the language used in paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD. DAL stated that the phrase “after the original issue of this service bulletin” should be clarified by inserting the word “date” after “issue” to match the compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016.

We agree with the commenter's request to include the word “date” in the phrase “after the original issue of this service bulletin” as corrected in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, because it was inadvertently omitted in the proposed AD. The same language is included in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD.

DAL asked that a new paragraph be added to paragraph (h) of this AD to clarify using the phrase “at the original issue date of this service bulletin” to determine airplane configuration, and to provide credit for inspections done before the effective date of the AD. DAL added that these changes would avoid the need for operators to request AMOCs.

We agree to clarify. We have revised paragraph (h)(2) of this AD and included similar language in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to clarify that the exceptions apply to both compliance times and airplane configurations. In addition, paragraph (f) of this AD requires compliance with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Therefore, paragraph (f) of this AD already gives credit for inspections done before the effective date of this AD.

FedEx Express (FedEx) and VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering (VT MAE) asked that we revise the proposed AD to specify the inspections, methods, and compliance times given in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, but under a different group designation for the FedEx fleet of Model 757-200 airplanes. The commenters stated that these airplanes were converted by VT MAE supplemental type certificate (STC) ST03562AT to a configuration similar to that of Model 757-200SF airplanes (identified as Groups 2 and 5), and that FedEx's fleet is therefore no longer configured as passenger airplanes. FedEx stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, identifies the FedEx Model 757-200 fleet as Groups 1 and 4, and that the inspection areas defined for these groups have been modified in accordance with the STC and are no longer applicable.

We agree with the commenters' requests. The VT MAE STC modification to the STA 1640 frame is identical to the modification of Boeing 757-200 special freighter airplanes; the inspections specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, as listed under different airplane groups should be used for the FedEx fleet. We have added paragraph (g)(3) to this AD to clarify the requirements for those airplanes.

Boeing asserted that AD 2006-11-11, Amendment 39-14615 (71 FR 30278; May 26, 2006) (“AD 2006-11-11”), would affect the actions of the proposed AD and asked that we add that AD to paragraph (b) of this AD (“Affected ADs”). Boeing added that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, was approved as an AMOC to AD 2006-11-11 for the inspections of the inboard chord and inboard chord strap in the area around stringer 14, which is common to part of 53-60-15 listed in Section 9 of the Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) document.

We acknowledge the commenter's rationale for including AD 2006-11-11 in paragraph (b) of this AD. However, paragraph (b), “Affected ADs,” is intended to include other affected ADs, but not all related ADs. It is primarily used to reference superseded ADs and other ADs that are terminated, in whole or in part, by requirements in a given AD. Therefore, we have made no change to this AD in this regard.

FedEx asked that repetitive inspections of a repair done for a crack finding be required only based on the original equipment manufacturer/STC holder/FAA requirements for that repair. FedEx also asked that the repetitive inspections be terminated for the portion of the inspection area covered by the repair.

We do not agree with the commenter's requests. This AD requires repairing cracks using a method approved by the FAA or Boeing Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), and any relief or required follow-on actions will be included in those approved instructions. Therefore, we have made no change to 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 final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

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

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016. This service information describes procedures for an inspection of the fuselage frame for existing frame repairs, repetitive high frequency eddy current and low frequency eddy current inspections for cracking in specified areas with no existing frame repair, and repair of any cracking.

We also reviewed APB Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017. This service information provides compliance times for accomplishing the procedures identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, for airplanes on which APB blended or scimitar blended winglets are installed.

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

We have received no definitive data that enables us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repair 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 is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We received reports of unannunciated asymmetric braking during landing deceleration on several Honda Aircraft Company LLC Model HA-420 airplanes. Investigation revealed that the power brake valve (PBV) housing design drawing dimension for a bore diameter, which serves as an O-ring gland outer diameter, is oversized from Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) specification guidelines for O-ring gland dimensions. The oversized bore allows back-up ring extrusion damage during normal operating hydraulic pressure in the valve, O-ring deformation/damage, and internal leakage of hydraulic pressure within the PBV from the master cylinder brake lines. The damage to the back-up ring and O-ring worsens during operation and causes the internal leakage rate of the PBV brake master cylinder lines to increase over time. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the PBV, which could cause degraded braking performance and reduced directional control during ground operations and landing deceleration. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

We reviewed Honda Aircraft Company Temporary Revision TR 01.1, dated February 16, 2018, to the Honda Aircraft Company HA-420 Airplane Flight Manual and Service Bulletin SB-420-32-001, dated January 8, 2018. Temporary Revision TR 01.1, dated February 16, 2018, to the HA-420 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) describes procedures for performing pilot checks of the braking system during ground operations before every flight and before every landing and includes instructions for corrective actions if any indication of a leaking PBV is found. Service Bulletin SB-420-32-001, dated January 8, 2018, describes procedures for replacing a defective PBV with an improved design PBV. 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 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 design.

This AD requires inserting a temporary revision into the AFM, which may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the airplane records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439. This AD also requires replacing the installed PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-005 or P/N HJ1-13243-101-007, with an improved PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-009, if a defective PBV is detected during the required pilot checks as specified in the temporary revision. In addition, this AD provides an optional terminating action for the temporary revision into the AFM by replacing the installed PBV with the improved PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-009.

We consider this AD interim action. We are currently considering requiring replacement of the installed PBV, P/N HJ1-13243-101-005 or P/N HJ1-13243-101-007, with an improved part, which will constitute terminating action for the temporary revision to the AFM. However, the planned compliance time for the replacement of the PBV would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior comment on the merit of the replacement.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because failure of the PBV could cause degraded braking performance and reduced directional control during ground operations and landing deceleration. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2018-0223 and Product Identifier 2018-CE-007-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the pilot check of the braking system during ground operations before every flight and before every landing. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these replacements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2016-9555 (82 FR 11859; February 27, 2017). The NPRM proposed to amend and remove multiple VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways in northcentral United States to reflect and accommodate route changes being made as part of the FAA's Cleveland/Detroit Metroplex Project airspace redesign effort. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA initiated a project for decommissioning the Tiverton, OH, VOR/DME due to the land-lease for the navigation aid expiring and not being renewed. With the planned decommissioning of the Tiverton VOR/DME, several of the Federal airways proposed for amendment in the NPRM were impacted and required additional amendment. Additionally, NAV CANADA amended one of the Federal airways proposed for amendment in the NPRM that crosses into Canada's airspace. That NAV CANADA amendment required the FAA to adjust the proposed amendment to the airway. Lastly, the FAA reviewed the airway amendments proposed in the NPRM and the Cleveland/Detroit Metroplex project redesign and determined the two activities were in fact independent of each other and not connected. The airway amendments proposed in the NPRM support the FAA's NextGen efforts to safely improve the overall efficiency of the NAS.

Since several airway amendments proposed in the NPRM required further amendment due to the decommissioning of Tiverton VOR/DME and NAV CANADA's amendment to one of the airways, and the NPRM characterization required clarification that the airway amendments proposed in the NPRM in fact supported the FAA's NextGen efforts independent from the FAA's Cleveland/Detroit Metroplex project activities, the FAA determined it was necessary to supplement the proposal and reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.

The FAA therefore published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) in the Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2016-9555 (82 FR 35918; August 2, 2017). The SNPRM proposed to amend three VOR Federal airways in northcentral United States to reflect additional amendments required by the planned decommissioning of the Tiverton VOR/DME navigation aid and amend one VOR Federal airway to reflect NAV CANADA's additional amendment to the airway within Canada's airspace. The remaining VOR Federal airway amendments and removals proposed in the NPRM published in the Federal Register (82 FR 11859, February 27, 2017) were unchanged. The SNPRM also clarified the FAA was undertaking this action in support of its NextGen efforts to safely improve the overall efficiency of the NAS. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. One comment was received.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) contended that, for those VOR NAVAIDs that are to be decommissioned, and for those airways that are correspondingly removed, the FAA should create an RNAV waypoint at the previous NAVAID location and retain all fixes and intersections along that route by amending their definition to that of an RNAV waypoint. Their concern was that with the removal of much of the route structure and their defining fixes, there would be a gap in how pilots could navigate through the area and how they communicate their planned route of flight to air traffic control unless a waypoint system remained.

As addressed in the NPRM, and supported in AOPA's comment, the FAA is retaining the current fixes contained within the airspace area affected by this action and converting them into RNAV waypoints that will remain in place to assist pilots and air traffic controllers already familiar with them, for navigation purposes. Additionally, the FAA is establishing a waypoint within the immediate vicinity of the Tiverton VOR/DME location (60 feet) to further assist pilots navigating through the airspace affected by the Tiverton VOR/DME being decommissioned.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The amendment to V-14 is revised to remove the airway segment between the Flag City, OH, VORTAC and the Erie, PA, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and Dunkirk, NY, VOR/DME that was proposed to be removed, and the airway segment between the Dunkirk, NY, VOR/DME and Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME that was proposed to be retained, were removed in a separate rulemaking action (16-AEA-11) published in the Federal Register (82 FR 26987, June 13, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0107.

The amendment to V-464 is revised to remove the airway in its entirety. The airway segment between the Aylmer, ON, Canada, VOR/DME and Geneseo, NY, VOR/DME that was proposed to be retained, was removed in a separate rulemaking action (16-AEA-11) published in the Federal Register (82 FR 26987, June 13, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0107.

The amendment to V-522 remains to remove the airway in its entirety. However, the airway was amended in a separate rulemaking action (16-AEA-11) published in the Federal Register (82 FR 26987, June 13, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0107. The existing airway to be removed extends between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and Erie, PA, VORTAC.

Lastly, minor editorial corrections have been made to a few of the airway descriptions for standardization. These corrections include removing the word “via” when used between the first and second airway points listed and changing punctuation (commas to semi-colons) between airway points contained in the descriptions. With the exception of the above noted changes and minor editorial corrections, this rule is the same as that published in the NPRM and SNPRM.

The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify VOR Federal airways V-2, V-5, V-6, V-8, V-10, V-11, V-14, V-26, V-30, V-38, V-43, V-45, V-47, V-59, V-75, V-84, V-92, V-96, V-103, V-116, V-126, V-133, V-170, V-188, V-210, V-221, V-232, V-233, V-450, V-493, and V-542. Additionally, this action removes VOR Federal airways V-40, V-98, V-176, V-297, V-353, V-383, V-396, V-406, V-416, V-418, V-426, V-435, V-443, V-464, V-467, V-486, V-522, V-523, V-525, and V-584. These VOR Federal airway amendments and removals support the FAA's ongoing NextGen efforts and planned decommissioning of the Tiverton, OH, VOR/DME, and are outlined below.

V-2: V-2 extends between the Seattle, WA, VORTAC and Gardner, MA, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Lansing, MI, VORTAC and Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-5: V-5 extends between the Pecan, GA, VOR/DME and London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-6: V-6 extends between the Oakland, CA, VORTAC and DuPage, IL, VOR/DME; between the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° and Gipper, MI, VORTAC 271° radials (NILES fix) and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and La Guardia, NY, VOR/DME; excluding the airspace within restricted areas R-4803, R-4813A, and R-4813B when active. This rule removes the airway segments between the intersection of the Gipper, MI, VORTAC 092° and Litchfield, MI, VOR/DME 196° radials (MODEM fix) and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and Clarion, PA, VOR/DME. Additionally, this rule removes the exclusion statement for the airspace within restricted areas R-4803, R-4813A, and R-4813B. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-8: V-8 extends between the intersection of the Seal Beach, CA, VORTAC 266° and Ventura, CA, VOR/DME 144° radials (DOYLE fix) and the Washington, DC, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the Flag City, OH, VORTAC and Briggs, OH, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-10: V-10 extends between the Pueblo, CO, VORTAC and the intersection of the Bradford, IL, VORTAC 058° and Joliet, IL, VORTAC 287° radials (PLANO fix); and between the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° and Gipper, MI, VORTAC 271° radials (NILES fix) and the Lancaster, PA, VOR/DME; excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Litchfield, MI, VOR/DME and Youngstown, OH, VORTAC, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-11: V-11 extends between the Brookley, AL, VORTAC and the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 038° and Carleton, MI, VORTAC 262° radials (CRUXX fix). This rule removes the airway segment between the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, 038° and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME 273° radials (EDGEE fix) and the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 038° and Carleton, MI, VORTAC 262° radials (CRUXX fix). The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-14: V-14 extends between the Chisum, NM, VORTAC and Erie, PA, VORTAC; and between the Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME and Norwich, CT, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the Flag City, OH, VORTAC and Erie, PA, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-26: V-26 extends between the Blue Mesa, CO, VOR/DME and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Lansing, MI, VORTAC and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-30: V-30 extends between the Badger, WI, VORTAC and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and Solberg, NJ, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segments between the Litchfield, MI, VOR/DME and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and Clarion, PA, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-38: V-38 extends between the Moline, IL, VORTAC and Cape Charles, VA, VORTAC. This rule removes the airway segment between the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 091° and Rosewood, OH, VORTAC 334° radials (WINES fix) and the Appleton, OH, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-40: V-40 extends between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and the intersection of the Briggs, OH, VOR/DME 077° and Youngstown, OH, VORTAC 177° radials (CUTTA fix). V-40 is removed in its entirety.

V-43: V-43 extends between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segments between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and Youngstown, OH, VORTAC; and between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME. The unaffected portion of the existing airway remains unchanged.

V-45: V-45 extends between the New Bern, NC, VOR/DME and Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within restricted areas R-5502A and R-5502B. This rule removes the airway segment between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and the Saginaw, MI, VOR/DME. Additionally, this proposal removes the exclusion statement for the airspace within restricted areas R-5502A and R-5502B. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-47: V-47 extends between the Pine Bluff, AR, VOR/DME and Pocket City, IN, VORTAC; and between the Cincinnati, KY, VORTAC and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the Flag City, OH, VORTAC and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME, and corrects the state location of the Cincinnati VORTAC to reflect “Kentucky”. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-59: V-59 extends between the Pulaski, VA, VORTAC and Briggs, OH, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME and Briggs, OH, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-75: V-75 extends between the Morgantown, WV, VORTAC and the intersection of the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME 325° and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME 062° radials (LLEEO fix), excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Briggs, OH, VOR/DME and the intersection of the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME 325° and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME 062° radials (LLEEO fix), and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-84: V-84 extends between the Northbrook, IL, VOR/DME and Flint, MI, VORTAC; and between the Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME and Syracuse, NY, VORTAC. This rule removes the airway segment between the Lansing, MI, VORTAC and Flint, MI, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-92: V-92 extends between the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° and Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME 127° radials (BEBEE fix) and the Armel, VA, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segments between the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° and Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME 127° radials (BEBEE fix) and the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC; and between the Goshen, IN, VORTAC and Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-96: V-96 extends between the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC and Detroit, MI, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 071° and Flag City, OH, VORTAC 289° radials (TWERP fix) and the Detroit, MI, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-98: V-98 extends between the Dayton, OH, VOR/DME and the intersection of the Carleton, MI, VORTAC 243° and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME 321° radials (MIZAR fix). V-98 is removed in its entirety.

V-103: V-103 extends between the Chesterfield, SC, VOR/DME and Lansing, MI, VORTAC, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Akron, OH, VOR/DME and Lansing, MI, VORTAC, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-116: V-116 extends between the intersection of the Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME 092° and Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 013° radials (WILLA fix) and the Sparta, NJ, VORTAC, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the intersection of the Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME 092° and Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 013° radials (WILLA fix) and the Erie, PA, VORTAC, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-126: V-126 currently extends between the intersection of the Peotone, IL, VORTAC 053° and Knox, IN, VOR/DME 297° radials (BEARZ fix) and the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and Stonyfork, PA, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the intersection of the Goshen, IN, VORTAC 092° and Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 016° radials (ILTON fix) and the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and Erie, PA, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-133: V-133 extends between the intersection of the Charlotte, NC, VOR/DME 305° and Barretts Mountain, NC, VOR/DME 197° radials (LINCO fix) and the Mansfield, OH, VORTAC; and between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and Red Lake, ON, Canada, VOR/DME; excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Zanesville, OH, VOR/DME and Mansfield, OH, VORTAC; and between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and Saginaw, MI, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada remain unchanged.

V-170: V-170 extends between the Devils Lake, ND, VOR/DME and Salem, MI, VORTAC; and between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and the intersection of the Andrews, MD, VORTAC 060° and Baltimore, MD, VORTAC 165° radials (POLLA fix); excluding the airspace within restricted area R-5802 when active. This rule removes the airway segment between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and Bradford, PA, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway and the exclusion statement for restricted area R-5802 remain unchanged.

V-176: V-176 extends between the Carleton, MI, VORTAC and the intersection of the Chardon, OH, VOR/DME 294° and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME 357° radials (HIMEZ fix), excluding the airspace within Canada. V-176 is removed in its entirety.

V-188: V-188 extends between the Carleton, MI, VORTAC and Groton, CT, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Carleton, MI, VORTAC and Tidioute, PA, VORTAC, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-210: V-210 extends between the Los Angeles, CA, VORTAC and Okmulgee, OK, VOR/DME; and between the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC and Yardley, PA, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and Revloc, PA, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-221: V-221 extends between the Bible Grove, IL, VORTAC and Erie, PA, VORTAC, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the intersection of the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 016° and Goshen, IN, VORTAC 092° radials (ILTON fix) and the Erie, PA, VORTAC, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-232: V-232 extends between the Chardon, OH, VOR/DME and Colts Neck, NJ, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segment between the Chardon, OH, VOR/DME and Keating, PA, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-233: V-233 extends between the Spinner, IL, VORTAC and Pellston, MI, VORTAC. This rule removes the airway segment between the Litchfield, MI, VOR/DME and Mount Pleasant, MI, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-297: V-297 extends between the Johnstown, PA, VORTAC and the intersection of the Akron, OH, VOR/DME 305° and Waterville, OH, VOR/DME 062° radials (LLEEO fix), excluding the airspace within Canada. V-297 is removed in its entirety.

V-353: V-353 extends between the Jackson, MI, VOR/DME and Flint, MI, VORTAC. V-353 is removed in its entirety.

V-383: V-383 extends between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and Detroit, MI, VOR/DME. V-383 is removed in its entirety.

V-396: V-396 extends between the Windsor, ON, Canada, VOR/DME and Chardon, OH, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. V-396 is removed in its entirety.

V-406: V-406 extends between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. V-406 is removed in its entirety.

V-416: V-416 extends between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and the intersection of the Mansfield, OH, VORTAC 045° and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME 123° radials (JAKEE fix). V-416 is removed in its entirety.

V-418: V-418 extends between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and Jamestown, NY, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. V-418 is removed in its entirety.

V-426: V-426 extends between the Carleton, MI, VORTAC and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. V-426 is removed in its entirety.

V-435: V-435 extends between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. V-435 is removed in its entirety.

V-443: V-443 extends between the intersection of the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME 099° and Bellaire, OH, VOR/DME 044° radials (WISKE fix) and the Aylmer, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. V-443 is removed in its entirety.

V-450: V-450 extends between the Escanaba, MI, VOR/DME and London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. This rule removes the airway segment between the Flint, MI, VORTAC and London, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, and the exclusion statement for the airspace within Canada. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-464: V-464 extends between the Salem, MI, VORTAC and Aylmer, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. V-464 is removed in its entirety.

V-467: V-467 extends between the Richmond, IN, VORTAC and Detroit, MI, VOR/DME. V-467 is removed in its entirety.

V-486: V-486 extends between the intersection of the Akron, OH, VOR/DME 316° and Chardon, OH, VOR/DME 260° radials (LEBRN fix) and the Jamestown, NY, VOR/DME. V-486 is removed in its entirety.

V-493: V-493 extends between the Livingston, TN, VORTAC and Carleton, MI, VORTAC; and between the Menominee, MI, VOR/DME and Rhinelander, WI, VORTAC. This rule removes the airway segment between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and Carleton, MI, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-522: V-522 extends between the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME and Erie, PA, VORTAC. V-522 is removed in its entirety.

V-523: V-523 extends between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and Erie, PA, VORTAC. V-523 is removed in its entirety.

V-525: V-525 extends between the Appleton, OH, VORTAC and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. V-525 is removed in its entirety.

V-542: V-542 extends between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and Lebanon, NH, VORTAC. This rule removes the airway segment between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and Tidioute, PA, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain unchanged.

V-584: V-584 extends between the Waterville, OH, VOR/DME and Dryer, OH, VOR/DME. V-584 is removed in its entirety.

All radials in the route descriptions are stated in True degrees.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

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

The FAA has determined that this action amending and removing multiple VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways in northcentral United States qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its agency-specific implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” regarding categorical exclusions for procedural actions at paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points. Therefore, this airspace action is not expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption Without Prior Notice

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking.

Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act requires that agencies publish a rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.

This document revises § 93.343(a) of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) by updating the organization responsible for processing IFR and FRZ flight plans from/to College Park, Potomac Airfield, and Washington Executive/Hyde Field airports. This revision will not impose any additional restrictions on the persons affected by these regulations. Furthermore, any additional delay in revising the regulations would be contrary to the public interest because it would create confusion among pilots operating in the DC SFRA including the DC FRZ. Accordingly, the FAA finds that (i) public comment on this change prior to promulgation is unnecessary and contrary to public interest, and (ii) good cause exists to make this rule effective in less than 30 days.

Currently, § 93.343(a) requires pilots to file IFR, DC FRZ, or DC SFRA flight plans with the Washington Hub FSS for each departure and arrival from/to College Park, Potomac Airfield, and Washington Executive/Hyde Field Airports, whether or not the aircraft makes an immediate stop.

An objective of the Administrator's Flight Service National Airspace System (NAS) Efficient Streamlined Services Initiative is to realign activities through more efficient delivery of services. As part of this initiative, the FAA is transferring the responsibility for processing IFR and DC FRZ flight plans within the Washington DC Flight Restricted Zone from the Washington Hub FSS to the Flight Data Unit (FDU) at Washington ARTCC. This transition will occur on March 29, 2018. As a result, the FAA is updating § 93.343(a) to reflect the change in responsibility.1

Also as a result of the transition, the FAA is removing from §§ 93.341(d) and 93.343(a)(2) the references to the DC SFRA flight plan. Both regulations govern flight operations within the DC FRZ, which require a DC FRZ flight plan. Because a single entity was responsible for processing both DC SFRA and DC FRZ flight plans, the FAA has effectively construed any request for a DC SFRA flight plan to/from a location within the DC FRZ as a DC FRZ flight plan. Once the responsibilities for processing DC SFRA and DC FRZ flight plans are divided between two entities, however, the FAA will no longer be able to re-characterize a DC SFRA flight plan as a DC FRZ flight plan. The FAA is, therefore, removing the references to the DC SFRA from §§ 93.341(d) and 93.343(a)(2) to make clear that a pilot must file either an IFR or DC FRZ flight plan when operating to or from the DC FRZ.

Furthermore, the FAA notes that it has communicated with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) about a corresponding technical amendment that must be made to 49 CFR 1562.3(g)(1) to include the new organization responsible for processing IFR and DC FRZ flight plans.

In this technical amendment, the FAA is revising § 93.343(a)(2) and (3) by removing the references to the Washington Hub FSS. In their place, the FAA is inserting references to the Washington ARTCC, which is the new organization responsible for processing the flight plans. Furthermore, the FAA is revising §§ 93.341(d) and 93.343(a)(2) by removing the references to the DC SFRA flight plan.

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

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

FDA is amending 21 CFR 10.115(f)(3), good guidance regulations, by adding language on how the public can electronically submit drafts of proposed guidance documents to participate in the development and issuance of guidance documents. The amendment provides an option for submitting the draft of a proposed guidance to the Agency electronically through https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610.

Publication of this document constitutes final action on the change under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). This technical amendment is nonsubstantive. FDA therefore, for good cause, has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Further, this rule places no burden on affected parties for which such parties would need a reasonable time to prepare for the effective date of the rule. Accordingly, FDA, for good cause, has determined this technical amendment to be exempt under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) and that the rule can become effective upon publication.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 10 is amended as follows:

The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

This is a summary of the Public Notice (MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice), WC Docket No. 10-90, WT Docket No. 10-208, DA 18-186, adopted on February 27, 2018, and released on February 27, 2018. The MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice includes as attachments the following appendices: Appendix A, Generating Initial Eligible Areas Map; Appendix B, Validating Challenge Evidence; Appendix C, Applying Subsidy Data; Appendix D, File Specifications and File Formats; Appendix E, Relational Mapping of Form 477 Filers to Providers; and Appendix F, Challenge Data Certification Form. The complete text of the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice, including all attachments, is available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is also available on the Commission's website at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-18-186A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

1. In the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice, the Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force (Task Force), with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Wireline Competition Bureau (the Bureaus), establishes the parameters and procedures to implement the Mobility Fund Phase II (MF-II) challenge process.

2. In the MF-II Challenge Process Order, 82 FR 42473, September 8, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) directed the Bureaus to provide more details regarding the procedures for generating the initial map of presumptively eligible areas and the procedures for the challenge process. In the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice, 82 FR 51180, November 3, 2017, the Task Force and Bureaus proposed and sought comment on the procedures for processing the coverage and subsidy data and creating the initial eligible areas map, the specific parameters for the data that challengers and respondents will submit as part of the challenge process, and a process for validating challenges. The Bureaus now resolve these issues and describe the filing requirements and procedures related to the challenge process.

3. The Bureaus adopt the proposed methodology for generating the initial map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support, i.e., those areas lacking unsubsidized qualifying coverage by any provider. In this multi-step approach, Commission staff first determines the unsubsidized coverage for each provider based on its submitted standardized coverage data of qualified 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE), and then aggregates these data across all providers; this aggregate area of unsubsidized coverage is then removed from the rest of the land area within each state to determine the presumptively eligible areas. This approach is consistent with the Commission's decision that areas lacking unsubsidized, qualifying 4G LTE service will be eligible for the auction, as well as its decision to create the map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support using a combination of the new 4G LTE coverage data and subsidy data from USAC. Specifically, the methodology the Bureaus adopt produces a map of unsubsidized qualified 4G LTE coverage for each provider by removing from that provider's submitted coverage any areas that the USAC subsidy data show are subsidized. The resulting maps of unsubsidized coverage are then merged across all providers to determine the areas ineligible for MF-II support. The initial eligible areas map shows all areas that are not ineligible for MF-II support.

4. To generate a map of unsubsidized qualified 4G LTE coverage for each provider, Commission staff: (1) Removes any subsidized areas from the provider's coverage map; (2) removes any water-only areas; (3) overlays a uniform grid with cells of one square kilometer (1 km by 1 km) on the provider's coverage map; and (4) removes grid cells with coverage of less than the minimum area that could be covered by a single speed test measurement when buffered. The term “water-only area” is defined as a water-only census block (that is, a census block for which the entire area is categorized by the U.S. Census Bureau as water).

5. Using the maps that result from steps 1-4 of this process, staff then generates the map of presumptively eligible areas for each state (or state equivalent) by: (5) Merging the maps of unsubsidized coverage for all providers; (6) removing the merged unsubsidized coverage generated in step 5 (the ineligible areas) from the state's boundary to produce the eligible areas; and (7) removing any water-only areas from the eligible areas. Since the Bureaus waived the deadline for mobile wireless providers in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to submit information regarding 4G LTE coverage, the map of presumptively eligible areas does not include Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

6. The Bureaus define a uniform grid with cells of equal area (1 km by 1 km) across the continental United States, and separate uniform grids with cells of equal area (1 km by 1 km) for overseas territories and Hawaii. These grids are defined using an “equal area” map projection so that the same number of speed tests will be required to challenge the cell regardless of the location of the grid cell. The USAC portal system will use the uniform grid system to validate and process data submitted during the challenge process.

7. Commission staff is making available to the public the resulting map of presumptively eligible areas (overlaid with the uniform grid) for each state or state equivalent. The maps of unsubsidized coverage for specific providers will only be made available to a challenger through USAC's online challenge portal (the USAC portal) after the challenger agrees to keep such maps confidential.

8. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to make public the map of areas presumptively eligible for MF-II support no earlier than four weeks after the deadline for submission of the new, one-time 4G LTE provider coverage data. The challenge process window will open no sooner than 30 days after the release of the map. Contemporaneously with the release of the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice, the Bureaus released the MF-II Challenge Process Initial Eligible Areas Map Public Notice, DA 18-187, on February 27, 2018, announcing the publication of the initial eligible areas map and that the challenge window will open 30 days later, on March 29, 2018. Once the challenge window opens, an eligible party will be able to access the USAC portal and download the provider-specific confidential data necessary to begin conducting speed tests. If a consumer, organization, or business believes that its interests cannot be met through its state, local, or Tribal government entity and wishes to participate in the process as a challenger, the individual or entity may file a petition with the Commission requesting a waiver for good cause shown. The challenge window will close 150 days later, consistent with the procedures adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Order. Although challengers will be able to submit speed test data until the close of the challenge window, the Commission determined that only those challenges to areas that are certified by a challenger at the close of the window will proceed. Since a challenger will not be able to certify a challenge until the submitted speed test data has been validated, the Bureaus strongly encourage challengers to submit data in advance of the closing date to allow ample time for validation processing. Each challenger is responsible for ensuring timely certification of its challenges.

9. The Bureaus are providing 30 days' notice of the opening of the USAC portal and commencement of the challenge window.

10. Under the challenge process framework adopted by the Commission, a challenger must use the USAC portal to access the confidential provider-specific information that is pertinent to a challenge, as well as to submit its challenge, including all supporting evidence and required certifications. A challenger must log into the USAC portal using the account created pursuant to the procedures in the MF-II Handset and USAC Portal Access Public Notice, 83 FR 254, January 3, 2018, and the MF-II Challenge Process Portal Access Request Form is Available Public Notice, DA 18-142, February 14, 2018.

11. The Bureaus remind parties participating in the challenge process that it is each party's responsibility to ensure the security of its computer systems, user IDs, and passwords, and to ensure that only authorized persons access, download, or upload data into the challenge process portal on the party's behalf. The Commission assumes no responsibility or liability for these matters. To the extent a technical or security issue arises with the USAC portal, Commission staff will take all appropriate measures to resolve such issues quickly and equitably. Should an issue arise that is outside the USAC portal or attributable to a challenge process participant—including, but not limited to, a participant's hardware, software, or internet access problem—and which prevents the participant from accessing provider-specific data or submitting a challenge prior to the close of the challenge window, the Commission shall have no obligation to resolve or remediate such an issue on behalf of the participant.

12. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to make available in a downloadable format through the USAC portal the provider-specific data underlying the map of presumptively eligible areas. Among other geographic data, a challenger will be able to access the following data in shapefile format on a state-by-state basis: (a) The boundaries of the state (or state equivalent) overlaid with the uniform grid; (b) the confidential coverage maps submitted by providers for the one-time 4G LTE data collection; and (c) the map of initial eligible areas. In addition, as proposed, challengers will be able to access, for each state, the confidential provider-specific data on the list of pre-approved handsets and the clutter information submitted for the one-time 4G LTE data collection. These data will be available for download in a tabular comma-separated value (CSV) format. A challenger will not have access to confidential provider-specific information unless and until it agrees to treat the data as confidential. Specifically, a challenger must agree to only use confidential provider-specific information for the purpose of submitting an MF-II challenge in the USAC portal before a challenger may download these data.

13. In the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the Commission decided that a challenger must submit detailed proof of lack of unsubsidized, qualified 4G LTE coverage in support of its challenge in the form of actual outdoor speed test data showing measured download throughput. A challenger must submit speed data from hardware- or software-based drive tests or application-based tests that overlap the challenged area. Each speed test must be conducted between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight) local time, and the date of the test must be after the publication of the initial eligibility map but not more than six months before the scheduled close of the challenge window. Speed test data must be certified under penalty of perjury by a qualified engineer or government official.

14. When collecting speed data, a challenger must use at least one of the three handsets identified by each provider whose coverage is the subject of the specific challenge. A challenger must purchase an appropriate service plan from each unsubsidized service provider in the challenged area. The Commission explained in the MF-II Challenge Process Order that “[a]n appropriate service plan would allow for speed tests of full network performance, e.g., an unlimited high-speed data plan.” A challenger should be cognizant of the limitations under the service plan(s) it purchases and that respondents have the ability to respond to challenger speed tests with evidence of speed reductions. Depending on the size of the area being challenged and the terms of the plans offered by a challenged provider, a challenger may determine that it should purchase more than one service plan for the handset(s) it uses to test a provider's coverage in the challenged area. The Bureaus are not requiring a challenger to purchase multiple service plans from a challenged carrier; it is a challenger's decision what type of service plan and how many plans to purchase in order to collect speed test data that support a challenge.

15. The Commission decided in the MF-II Challenge Process Order that a challenger must submit actual outdoor speed test measurements with sufficient density to reflect actual consumer experience throughout the entire challenged area. Specifically, the Commission adopted a requirement that a challenger must take measurements that: (1) Are no more than a fixed distance apart from one another in each challenged area; and (2) substantially cover the entire area.

16. The density of submitted speed points will be validated as part of a multi-step geospatial-data-processing approach. Consistent with the Commission's decision in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the Bureaus will determine whether a challenger's speed test points substantially cover a challenged area (i.e., cover at least 75 percent of the challenged area) by buffering each speed test point that reports a downstream speed less than 5 Mbps, calculating the buffered area, and then comparing the area of the buffered points to the challengeable area within a 1 km by 1 km grid cell. The Commission determined in the MF-II Challenge Process Order that the radius of the buffer will equal “half of the maximum distance parameter.” Under this validation process, if a challenger submits speed test measurements that are further apart than the maximum distance parameter in a challenged area, its evidence may be insufficient to cover at least 75 percent of the challengeable area within a cell, and its challenge would presumptively fail.

17. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to use kilometers instead of miles to be consistent with the de minimis challenge size adopted by the Commission, as well as to be consistent with the units used for the “equal area” map projection that we will use when processing geospatial data. Consistent with the Commission's direction to adopt a maximum distance value, the Bureaus adopt the proposal that speed test measurements must be no more than one-half of one kilometer apart from one another. As a result, the buffer radius will equal one-quarter of one kilometer. The Bureaus also adopt the proposal to require a challenger to submit data for at least one speed test within the challengeable area of a grid cell in order to challenge an area within the grid cell. The requirement that measurements be taken no more than one-half of one kilometer apart from one another serves as an upper bound (i.e., maximum distance apart), and a challenger will be free to and, in some circumstances, may be required to submit measurements taken more densely in order to sufficiently prove its challenge.

18. Under the challenge process framework that the Commission adopted, all ineligible areas may be challenged and challengers have the option to conduct speed tests that cover the areas they wish to challenge. Similarly, responding providers have the option to submit speed tests that demonstrate their coverage. These options will not be diminished or otherwise modified by the relative accessibility of an area.

19. In addition to the general requirements for speed tests, the Commission directed the Bureaus to implement any additional parameters to ensure that speed tests accurately reflect the consumer experience in the challenged area. Consistent with this direction, the Bureaus adopt the proposal to require a challenger to submit all speed test measurements collected during the relevant time frame, including those that show speeds greater than or equal to 5 Mbps. While a challenger is able to delete speed tests from the USAC portal, this function should only be used to correct errors in submissions or add information to previous submissions. The Commission will have the ability to review all submitted data, including deleted submissions and speed test data points that show speeds equal to or greater than 5 Mbps.

20. In addition, the Bureaus adopt the proposal to require a challenger to provide data that is commonly collected by speed test software and speed test apps. Specifically, a challenger must provide: Signal strength and latency; the service provider's identity; the make and model of the device used (which must be from that provider's list of pre-approved handsets); the international mobile equipment identity (IMEI) of the tested device; the method of the test (i.e., hardware- or software-based drive test or non-drive test app-based test); and, if an app was used to conduct the measurement, the identity and version of the app. The Bureaus will not allow a challenger to submit speed test data of its own network.

21. The Bureaus also adopt a requirement that a challenger report information about the server used for speed and latency testing. Specifically, a challenger is required to submit the identity and location of the server used for speed and latency testing.

22. The complete list of data required for a challenge may be found in Appendix D.

23. The Bureaus adopt the proposal that a challenger must submit speed test data in CSV format matching the respective file specifications. A challenger is required to submit a CSV file that contains entries for each speed test run by the challenger to provide evidence in support of its challenge. A challenger can create this file using a template provided in the USAC portal.

24. The Bureaus require a challenger to report information about the server used for speed and latency testing. As a result, the Bureaus have modified the speed test data template proposed in the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice to include the identity and location of the server used for testing.

25. Additional details about the file formats required for challengers may be found in Appendix D.

26. The Bureaus adopt and explain the detailed procedures for implementing system validation of evidence submitted by a challenger, as directed by the Commission in the MF-II Challenge Process Order. Consistent with the Bureaus' decision to use the uniform grid system to validate and process data submitted by a challenger, the USAC system will use a uniform grid of one square kilometer cells to perform geospatial analysis of a challenger's speed test data. The first step in the validation process requires the USAC system to determine whether a particular challenged area meets the de minimis threshold of one square kilometer. For each grid cell containing a speed test measurement submitted by a challenger, the challenged area will equal the challengeable portion of the grid cell (i.e., the ineligible area, or any area that is neither eligible nor water-only). The USAC system will superimpose each challenged area onto the initial eligibility map and remove any portions that overlap eligible areas. Since the USAC portal will use a uniform grid of one square kilometer cells to perform geospatial analysis, a challenge for a grid cell that is entirely challengeable will inherently meet the de minimis size threshold. In areas where the challengeable portion of the grid cell is less than this threshold, the Bureaus adopt the proposal to have the system validate that the sum of all areas challenged by a challenger in a state is greater than or equal to one square kilometer. If a challenge does not meet the de minimis area threshold, the challenge would fail step one of the validation process. If a challenge meets the de minimis area threshold, the USAC system will proceed to the second step of the validation process.

27. In the second step of the system validation process, the USAC system will analyze each speed test record to ensure it meets all standard parameters, other than the maximum distance and substantial coverage requirement. Consistent with the Bureau's proposal, a challenger must submit speed test data in a standard format on a state-by-state basis. If the challenge speed test data meet all standard parameters, the USAC system, as proposed, will determine the set of grid cells in which at least one counted speed test is contained (the challenged grid cells) and will proceed to the third step of the validation process.

28. In step three, the USAC system creates a buffer (i.e., draws a circle of fixed size) around each counted speed test (i.e., each speed test point that passes steps one and two) using a radius of one quarter of one kilometer, which is equal to half of the maximum distance allowed between tests. For each challenged grid cell, the system will then determine how much of the total buffered area overlaps with the coverage map of the challenged provider for whose network the speed test measurement was recorded; this overlapping portion is the measured area. Since a challenger has the burden of showing insufficient coverage by each provider of unsubsidized, qualified 4G LTE service, the system will also determine the unmeasured area for each such provider, that is, the portion of each provider's coverage in the grid cell falling outside of the buffered area.

29. In the last step of the validation process, the USAC system determines whether the buffered area of all counted speed tests covers at least 75 percent of the challengeable area in a grid cell. The system will merge the unmeasured area of all providers in a grid cell to determine the aggregated unmeasured area where the challenger has not submitted sufficient speed test evidence for every provider. If the calculated size of the aggregated unmeasured area in the grid cell is greater than 25 percent of the total challengeable area of the grid cell (i.e., the total area of the grid cell minus any water-only areas and any eligible areas), the challenge will be presumptively unsuccessful because it failed the requirement to include speed test measurements of sufficient density for all providers. The system will provide a warning to the challenger for any grid cells that fail this step. The system will consider all certified challenges in a particular grid cell across all challengers at the close of the challenge window.

30. The Commission decided in the MF-II Challenge Process Order that all submitted speed tests must be substantiated by the certification of a qualified engineer or government official to be considered during the adjudication phase of the challenge process. The Bureaus clarify that a qualified engineer may be an employee of the challenger or a third-party vendor, so long as the individual: (1) Possesses a sufficient degree of technical knowledge and experience to validate the accuracy of submitted speed test data; and (2) has actual knowledge of the accuracy of the submitted data. For purposes of certification, a qualified engineer need not meet state professional licensing requirements, such as may be required for a licensed Professional Engineer, so long as the individual possesses the requisite technical knowledge, engineering training, and relevant experience to validate the accuracy of the submitted data. Using the Challenge Data Certification form in Attachment F, the qualified engineer or government official shall certify under penalty of perjury that: (a) He/she has examined the information prepared for submission; and (b) all data and statements contained therein were generated in accordance with the parameters specified by the Commission and are true, accurate, and complete to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief. The challenger must possess an executed Challenge Data Certification form in order to have all of the information it needs to certify a challenge. Persons making willful false statements in any part of a speed data submission may be subject to punishment by fine or imprisonment.

31. A challenger must certify its challenge(s) before the challenge window closes in order for the challenge to proceed. Through the USAC portal, a challenger will be able to electronically certify its counted speed test measurements on a grid cell by grid cell basis, since the system will consider each challenged grid cell as a separate challenge, or to certify some or all of its challenged grid cells on an aggregated basis. To certify a challenged grid cell, an authorized representative of the challenger must: (1) Provide the name and title of the certifying engineer or government official who substantiated the speed test data; and (2) certify under penalty of perjury that: (a) The qualified engineer or government official has examined the information submitted; and (b) the qualified engineer or government official has certified that all data and statements contained in the submission were generated in accordance with the parameters specified by the Commission and are true, accurate, and complete to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief. The Bureaus will not require a challenger to submit an executed Challenge Data Certification form when it certifies a challenge, though the Bureaus reserve the right to request a copy of the executed form. The Bureaus caution challengers that they will not be legally capable of making the required challenge certification in the USAC portal unless a qualified engineer or government official has substantiated the challenge speed test data by executing the Challenge Data Certification form.

32. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to allow a challenger to certify a presumptively unsuccessful challenge in a grid cell that fails validation solely because the challenger did not include speed test measurements of sufficient density for all providers. This will allow the system to consider all certified challenges in a particular grid cell across all challengers at the close of the challenge window, even if the individual challenges would fail the density requirement on their own.

33. During the challenge window, each challenger will be able to review its certified challenges on a grid cell by grid cell basis and may modify data submitted in support of a challenge after certifying (e.g., to correct or submit additional data). A challenger will be required to re-certify any challenges for which it submits additional or modified data; however, any new or modified data must also be substantiated by the certification of a qualified engineer or government official. At the close of the challenge window, only those challenges that are certified will proceed to adjudication; however, all data entered into the USAC portal may be considered in determining the weight of the evidence.

34. Following the close of the challenge window, the USAC portal system will process the data submitted by challengers. The type of processing that occurs after the challenge window closes is different from the automatic validation processing that takes place before the window closes. Specifically, once the challenge window closes, the system will aggregate all certified challenges and recalculate density for each challenged grid cell to determine whether the combined challenges cover at least 75 percent of the challenged area. Only those challenges that are certified at the close of the challenge window will undergo this post-window processing; any challenges that have not completed automatic validation processing and/or have not been certified by the close of the challenge window will not proceed. The Bureaus will provide challenged parties 30 days to review challenges and supporting data in the USAC portal prior to opening the response window. The response window will open no sooner than 30 days after the USAC system finishes processing the data submitted by challengers.

35. Once opened, the response window will close 30 days later. Although a challenged party will have an opportunity to submit additional data via the USAC portal in response to a certified challenge for the entire duration of the response window, challenged parties are encouraged to file in advance of the deadline. A challenged party will not have an opportunity to submit additional data for the Commission's consideration after the response window closes.

36. A challenged provider must use the USAC portal if it chooses to: (1) access and review the data submitted by the challenger with respect to a challenge within the provider's service area; and/or (2) submit additional data/information to oppose the challenge (i.e., demonstrate that the challenger's speed test data are invalid or do not accurately reflect network performance). A challenged provider must log into the USAC portal using the account created pursuant to the procedures in the MF-II Handset and USAC Portal Public Notice.

37. The Bureaus again remind parties participating in the challenge process that it is each party's responsibility to ensure the security of its computer systems, user IDs, and passwords, and to ensure that only authorized persons access, download, or upload data into the challenge process portal on the party's behalf. The Commission assumes no responsibility or liability for these matters. To the extent a technical or security issue arises with the USAC portal, Commission staff will take all appropriate measures to resolve such issues quickly and equitably. Should an issue arise that is outside the USAC portal or attributable to a challenge process participant—including, but not limited to, a participant's hardware, software, or internet access problem—and which prevents the participant from accessing challenge information or submitting response data prior to the close of the response window, the Commission shall have no obligation to resolve or remediate such an issue on behalf of the participant.

38. Each challenged provider will be able to access and download through the USAC portal all speed test data associated with certified challenges on that provider's network. Specifically, after the USAC system finishes processing challenger data, a challenged party will be able to view and download the counted speed test data associated with a certified challenge that disputes the challenged party's coverage, i.e., counted speed tests conducted by a challenger on the challenged party's network. In addition, each challenged provider will be able to view and download speed test measurements that failed validation solely because the measurement was greater than or equal to 5 Mbps. USAC will not make available to a challenged party any speed tests that receive error codes other than for being above the 5 Mbps download speed threshold (e.g., tests that failed because they were not conducted during the required time period). The Bureaus note that, since the USAC system will not fully process the failed speed test data, these data will only be available in a downloadable format. Also, the Bureaus remind parties that challenger speed test data for speed tests above 5 Mbps are not certified to, as they did not make it all the way through the challenger validation process.

39. A challenged party is not required to respond to a challenge within its service area. If a challenged provider chooses to respond to a challenge, the Commission will accept as response data certain technical information that is probative regarding the validity of a challenger's speed tests, including speed test data, information regarding speed reductions that affected specific challenger speed tests, and other device-specific data collected from transmitter monitoring software. If a challenged party submits its own speed test data, the data must conform to the same standards and requirements adopted for the challengers, except for the recency of the submitted data. Parties submitting technical data other than speed tests, including data from transmitter monitoring software, are required to include “geolocated, device-specific throughput measurements and other device-specific information (rather than generalized key performance indicator statistics for a cell-site).” Only data collected after the publication of the initial eligibility map and within six months of the scheduled close of the response window will be accepted from challenged parties. Response data must be reliable and credible to be useful during the adjudication process. Any evidence submitted by a challenged party in response to a challenge must be substantiated by the certification of a qualified engineer or official under penalty of perjury.

40. Consistent with the Commission's decision in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, if a challenged party chooses to submit its own speed test data, the data must conform to the same additional parameters adopted for challengers, except for the requirement to identify the service provider. A challenged party may only provide speed tests of its own network in response to a challenge. In addition to the parameters adopted by the Commission in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, a challenged party's speed data must include: Signal strength and latency; the device used (which must be from that provider's list of pre-approved handsets); the IMEI of the tested device; the method of the test (i.e., hardware or software-based drive test or non-drive test app-based test); if an app was used to conduct the measurement, the identity and version of the app; and the identity and location of the server used for testing. As with challenger data, a challenged party's speed test measurements may be no further than one-half kilometer apart from one another. While the system will not validate a challenged party's response data, response speed tests must record a download speed of at least 5 Mbps and meet all other standard parameters. A challenged party must submit all speed test measurements collected during the relevant time frame, including those that show speeds less than or equal to 5 Mbps. The complete file specification for respondent speed tests is detailed in Appendix D.

41. While data submitted by a challenged party will not be subject to the identical system validation process used for challenger speed test data, the system will process any submitted speed data using a similar approach. The USAC system will analyze each speed test record to ensure it meets all standard parameters and apply a buffer with a fixed radius to each counted speed measurement.

42. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to allow a challenged party to submit data identifying a particular device that a challenger used to conduct its speed tests as having been subjected to reduced speeds, along with the precise date and time the speed reductions were in effect on the challenger's device (speed reduction data). As the Commission explained in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the Bureaus expect that speed test data will be particularly persuasive evidence to rebut a challenge. The Bureaus do not expect a challenged provider to submit challenger speed tests as part of its rebuttal because the challenged provider would need actual knowledge of the conditions under which the challenger speed tests were conducted to be able to certify to the accuracy of the challenger's speed tests.

43. The Bureaus acknowledge that a provider may reduce data speed for various reasons, and expect that evidence of user-specific speed reductions will be more probative and given more weight during adjudication than evidence of common network practices affecting all subscribers independent of the service plan used. Speed reduction data will be most probative of the validity of challenger speed tests when those data show that specific test results were caused by the challenger's chosen rate plan or the challenger's data usage in the relevant billing period. While the Bureaus will not require a challenger and challenged party to coordinate before speed test data are recorded, interested parties will not be prohibited from coordinating with one another regarding speed tests if they choose to do so.

44. Under the MF-II challenge process framework adopted by the Commission, a challenged party may submit device-specific data collected from transmitter monitoring software in responding to a challenge. As stated in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, these data “should include geolocated, device-specific throughput measurements or other device-specific information (rather than generalized key performance indicator statistics for a cell-site) in order to help refute a challenge.” The Bureaus adopt the proposal to allow challenged parties to submit transmitter monitoring software data that is substantially similar in form and content to speed test data in order to facilitate comparison of such data during the adjudication process. In particular, challenged parties wishing to submit such data must include: The latitude and longitude to at least five decimals of the measured device; the date and time of the measurement; and signal strength, latency, and recorded speeds. The Bureaus will not require challenged parties submitting data from transmitter monitoring software to provide the measured distance between the device and transmitter.

45. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to require that measurements from submitted transmitter monitoring software data conform to the standard parameters and requirements adopted by the Commission for speed test data submitted by a challenged party. The Bureaus will require that such measurements reflect device usage between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight) local time and be collected after the publication of the initial eligibility map and within six months of the scheduled close of the response window. The Bureaus will not require challenged parties to submit all transmitter monitoring software data collected over the relevant time period due to the potential massive volume of data that could be collected over six months. The complete file specifications for respondent transmitter monitoring software data is detailed in Appendix D. The Bureaus caution that triangulated data with large inaccuracies may not be precise enough to constitute device-specific geolocated measurements because an engineer would not be able to certify to the accuracy of a particular speed test occurring at a particular location.

46. The Bureaus adopt the proposal that challenged parties submit speed test data in CSV format matching the respective file specifications. Challenged parties are required to submit a CSV file that contains entries for each speed test run by the challenged party to provide evidence in support of its response. A challenged party can create this file using a template provided in the USAC portal. The Bureaus will also require that data from transmitter monitoring software be submitted using this same template. A challenged party may leave the device IMEI and device ID fields blank when submitting data from transmitter monitoring software.

47. The Bureaus also adopt the proposal to require challenged parties that file speed reduction data to file the data in CSV format matching the respective file specifications. This file can be created using a template provided in the USAC portal. The Bureaus will permit challenged parties to leave the device download speed data field blank if that provider's plan does not reduce speeds to a fixed value. In order to be useful when evaluating challenges, the Bureaus conclude that the data captured in the speed reduction data template must reflect when a particular device was known to have actually experienced reduced speeds.

48. The Bureaus expect that speed reduction data would need to show that a specific speed test result was affected by a speed reduction—not merely that the challenger was eligible for (i.e., potentially subject to) reduced speeds sometimes under the terms of its service plan (because of the amount of recent data usage or not). Accordingly, the Bureaus expect that, for speed data submitted by challengers that chose appropriate rate plans (those that allowed for testing of full network performance), a challenged party's data showing that a specific speed reduction occurred over a very limited time period, such as a few minutes, would be more probative of the validity of challenger speed tests taken during that time than data alleging that a speed reduction occurred over several hours or several days. If, however, the challenger chose an inappropriate rate plan or the challenger's data usage triggered a constant and extended speed reduction, for example by the challenger going over a high-speed data allotment in a billing period, the Bureaus expect that a challenged party's speed reduction data would be useful if it showed the entire period that challenger speed tests were taken under such conditions.

49. The Bureaus' decision to require that response speed test data, transmitter monitoring software data, and speed reduction data be submitted in a certain format is consistent with the Commission's direction that the Bureaus implement “any additional requirements that may be necessary or appropriate for data submitted by a challenged party in response to a challenge.” To the extent response data requires further explanation that does not fit into the templates, a challenged party may additionally provide a descriptive narrative in a text box accessible via the USAC portal; however, speed test data, transmitter monitoring data, or speed reduction data submitted by challenged parties must otherwise conform to the required templates in order to be considered.

50. Additional details about the attributes and the file formats that we will require for respondents may be found in Appendix D.

51. The Commission decided in the MF-II Challenge Process Order that all response evidence must be certified by a qualified engineer to be considered during the adjudication phase of the challenge process. The Bureaus again clarify that a qualified engineer may be an employee of the challenged party or a third-party vendor so long as the individual: (1) Possesses a sufficient degree of technical knowledge and experience to validate the accuracy of submitted data; and (2) has actual knowledge of the accuracy of the submitted data. For purposes of certification, a qualified engineer need not meet state professional licensing requirements, such as may be required for a licensed Professional Engineer, so long as the individual possesses the requisite technical knowledge, engineering training, and relevant experience to validate the accuracy of the submitted data. Using the Challenge Data Certification form in Attachment F, the qualified engineer shall certify under penalty of perjury that: (a) He/she has examined the information prepared for submission; and (b) all data and statements contained therein were generated in accordance with the parameters specified by the Commission and are true, accurate, and complete to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief. The Bureaus will not require a challenged party to submit an executed Challenge Data Certification form when it certifies a response, though the Bureaus reserve the right to request a copy of the form. The Bureaus caution challenged parties that they will not be legally capable of making the required response certification unless a qualified engineer has substantiated the response data by executing the Challenge Data Certification form. The challenged party must possess an executed Challenge Data Certification form in order to have all of the information it needs to certify a response. Persons making willful false statements in any part of a speed data submission may be subject to punishment by fine or imprisonment.

52. Only those responses that have been certified by the close of the response window will be considered during the adjudication phase. A challenged party will be able to electronically certify its submitted response data for each challenged grid cell via the USAC portal. To certify a response, an authorized representative of the challenged party must: (1) Provide the name and title of the certifying engineer that substantiated the data; and (2) certify under penalty of perjury that: (a) The qualified engineer has examined the information submitted; and (b) the qualified engineer has certified that all data and statements contained in the submission were generated in accordance with the parameters specified by the Commission and are true, accurate, and complete to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief.

53. During the response window, a challenged party will also be able to review, modify, and delete any certified response data it no longer wishes to submit, and will be required to re-certify any responses for which it submits additional or modified data or deletes data; however, any new or modified data must also be certified by a qualified engineer. A challenged party will not have an opportunity to amend submitted data, submit additional data, or certify any response after the response window has closed.

54. As the Commission determined in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, the Bureaus will adjudicate the merits of certified challenges based upon a preponderance of the evidence standard of review, and the challenger will bear the burden of persuasion.

55. The Bureaus adopt the proposal to make available to challengers and respondents data about their challenges and responses through the USAC portal after Commission staff have adjudicated all challenges and responses. In particular, the Bureaus will provide to each challenger or respondent for each of the grid cells associated with their certified challenges or certified responses, respectively: (a) The outcome of the adjudication; (b) the evidence submitted and certified by all challengers; and (c) the evidence submitted and certified by all respondents. Additionally, the Bureaus will make public on the Commission's website, concurrent with the publication of the final eligibility map, the outcome of the adjudication for each challenged cell and the non-confidential components of the data submitted by challengers and respondents.

56. The Commission will send a copy of this Public Notice to Congress and the Government Accountability Office, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.

57. The MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice implements the information collection requirements adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Order, 82 FR 42473, September 8, 2017, and does not contain any additional information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The Commission received PRA approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection requirements related to the challenge process, as adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Order. See 83 FR 6562 (Feb. 14, 2018). Because this Public Notice does not adopt any additional information collection requirements beyond those adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Order and approved by OMB, the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice does not implicate the procedural requirements of the PRA or the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198.

58. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission prepared Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFAs) in connection with the USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM (76 FR 78383, December 16, 2011), the 2014 CAF FNPRM (80 FR 4445, January 27, 2015), and the MF-II FNPRM (82 FR 13413, March 13, 2017) (collectively, MF-II FNPRMs). A Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental IRFA) was also filed in the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the MF-II FNPRMs and in the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice, including comments on the IRFAs and Supplemental IRFA. The Commission received three comments in response to the MF-II FNPRM IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the other IRFAs or the Supplemental IRFA. The Commission included Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (FRFAs) in connection with the 2014 CAF Order, the MF-II Order, and the MF-II Challenge Process Order (collectively, the MF-II Orders). This Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental FRFA) supplements the FRFAs in the MF-II Orders to reflect the actions taken in the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice and conforms to the RFA.

59. The MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice establishes the parameters and procedures to implement the MF-II challenge process. Following the release of the MF-II Orders, the Commission released the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice. The MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice proposed and sought comment on specific parameters and procedures to implement the MF-II challenge process.

60. More specifically, the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice establishes the technical procedures for generating the initial eligible areas map and processing challenges or responses submitted by challengers and challenged parties, respectively. The MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice also establishes additional requirements and parameters, including file formats and specifications, for data submitted during the challenge process.

61. Finally, the challenge procedures established in the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice are designed to anticipate the challenges faced by small entities (e.g., governmental entities or small mobile service providers) in complying with the implementation of the Commission's rules and the Bureau's proposals. For example, the Commission will perform all geospatial data analysis on a uniform grid, which will remove the need for a challenger to submit a map of the area(s) it wishes to challenge on top of its evidence, reducing burdens on small entities. Additionally, the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice adopts procedures to allow a challenged entity to submit evidence identifying devices that were subject to data speed regulations, alongside evidence from transmitter monitoring software and speed tests, which would allow for a small entity to more easily respond to a challenge. Challenged parties will also be given 30 days to review challenges and supporting data before the response window opens, further reducing the burden on small entities of responding to a challenge.

62. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the proposed procedures and policies presented in the Supplemental IRFA.

63. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule(s) as a result of those comments.

64. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed procedures in this proceeding.

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

66. FRFAs were incorporated into the MF-II Orders. In those analyses, the Commission described in detail the small entities that might be significantly affected. In the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice, the Bureaus incorporate by reference the descriptions and estimates of the number of small entities from the previous FRFAs in the MF-II Orders.

67. The data, information, and document collection required by the MF-II Orders, as described in the previous FRFAs and the SIRFA in the MF-II Challenge Process Comment Public Notice in this proceeding, are hereby incorporated by reference. The MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice describes certain additional parameters for the data submitted by challengers and challenged parties during the challenge process. Specifically, the Bureaus require a challenger to submit all speed test measurements collected during the relevant time frame, including those that show speeds greater than or equal to 5 Mbps. Each submitted speed test measurement must include: Signal strength and latency; the service provider's identity; the make and model of the device used (which must be from that provider's list of pre-approved handsets); the international mobile equipment identity (IMEI) of the tested device; the method of the test (i.e., hardware- or software-based drive test or non-drive test app-based test); if an app was used to conduct the measurement, the identity and version of the app; and the identity and location of the server used for speed and latency testing.

68. If a challenged party chooses to submit its own speed test data in response to a challenge, the data must conform to the additional parameters that are required for challengers, except for the requirement to identify the service provider. A challenged party may also submit data identifying a particular device that a challenger used to conduct its speed tests as having been subjected to reduced speeds, along with the precise date and time the speed reductions were in effect on the challenger's device. If a challenged party chooses to submit data collected from transmitter monitoring software, the data should include geolocated, device-specific throughput measurements or other device-specific information (rather than generalized key performance indicator statistics for a cell-site). Measurements from submitted transmitter monitoring software data must conform to the standard parameters and requirements for speed test data submitted by a challenged party, and must include: The latitude and longitude to at least five decimals of the measured device; the date and time of the measurement; and signal strength, latency, and recorded speeds. The Bureaus also clarify that such geolocated data be accurate to within 7.8 meters of the actual device location 95 percent of the time.

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

70. The challenge procedures established in the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice are intended to remove the need for a challenger to submit a map of the area(s) it wishes to challenge on top of its evidence by having the Commission perform all geospatial data analysis on a uniform grid, which will benefit small entities. The challenge procedures also allow a challenged entity to submit evidence identifying devices that were subject to data speed reductions, alongside evidence from transmitter monitoring software and speed tests, thereby minimizing the significant economic impact on small entities. Challenged parties will also be given 30 days to review challenges and supporting data before the response window opens. In addition, the Bureaus note that the challenge processes and procedures adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice will only apply to small entities who participate in the challenge process. The Bureaus also note that to the extent a challenged party is a small entity, since a challenged party is not required to respond to challenges within their service area(s) the processes and procedures associated with responding to challenges adopted in the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice are only applicable should a small entity choose to submit responsive evidence.

71. The Commission will send a copy of the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice, including this Supplemental FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice, including this Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the MF-II Challenge Process Procedures Public Notice and Supplemental FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes greater amberjack, is managed under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP, and NMFS implements the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Steven Act) through regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

On January 26, 2018, NMFS published a proposed rule for the framework action and requested public comment (83 FR 3670). The proposed rule and the framework action outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the management measures described in the framework action and implemented by this final rule is provided below.

This final rule revises the recreational fishing year and the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack in the Gulf.

This final rule revises the Gulf greater amberjack recreational fishing year to be August 1 through July 31. The current Gulf recreational fishing year for greater amberjack is January 1 through December 31 and was established in the original FMP (49 FR 39548; October 9, 1984). The change implemented through this final rule allows for greater amberjack recreational harvest to occur later in the year and provides an opportunity to harvest greater amberjack when harvest of many other reef fish species is prohibited due to in-season closures as a result of harvest limits. By starting the fishing year in August, when fishing effort is less, NMFS and the Council expect enough recreational quota remaining to allow for harvest during May of the following calendar year.

Consistent with the change in the fishing year, this final rule revises the years associated with the greater amberjack recreational annual catch limits (ACLs) and quotas. Currently, the recreational ACLs and quotas are defined by the calendar year, which is also the fishing year. With the change to the recreational fishing year, the recreational ACLs and quotas apply across calendar years. Therefore, this final rule assigns the recently implemented 2018 ACL and quota to the remainder of the August 1, 2017, through July 31, 2018, recreational fishing year. The 2019 recreational ACL and quota will correspond to the 2018-2019 recreational fishing year, and the recreational ACL and quota for 2020 and beyond will correspond to all subsequent fishing years.

NMFS recently published a final rule that changed the greater amberjack recreational closed season from June through July each year to January through June (82 FR 61485; December 28, 2017) to allow the Council time to further modify the closed season to create two separate recreational fishing seasons.

This final rule modifies the recreational fixed closed season for greater amberjack to be from January 1 through April 30, June 1 through July 31, and November 1 through December 31, each year. This means that recreational harvest would be allowed in May and from August through October each calendar year unless an in-season closure is necessary to constrain harvest to the recreational quota. Because this final rule also changes the recreational fishing year, NMFS expects any in-season quota closure to occur later in the fall or during May of the following year. However, because NMFS expects the recreational fixed closed season to reduce recreational landings NMFS also expects this change to reduce the likelihood of an in-season closure and landings exceeding the recreational ACL. This final rule is also expected to protect greater amberjack during peak spawning months in the majority of the Gulf (March through April), thereby contributing to rebuilding the greater amberjack stock by the end of the designated time period in 2027.

NMFS received a total of 46 comments on the proposed rule for the framework action from individual fishers and two for-hire fishing vessel associations. Several commenters supported the proposed measures for Gulf greater amberjack. Other comments stated that changes to fishing regulations cause confusion, and suggested a tag system to measure harvest of greater amberjack, but those assertions were outside the scope of the proposed rule and therefore are not addressed here.

Specific comments related to the framework action and the proposed rule are grouped by topic and summarized below, followed by NMFS' respective responses.

Comment 1: Greater amberjack is abundant in the Gulf which suggests the stock is healthy; therefore, the greater amberjack stock is not in need of rebuilding, and these additional management measures are not necessary.

Response: NMFS disagrees that the greater amberjack stock is not in need of rebuilding and that the management measures in this final rule are unnecessary. In 2016, a Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) stock assessment for greater amberjack was completed (SEDAR 33) and indicated the Gulf greater amberjack stock remained overfished, was undergoing overfishing, and would not be rebuilt by 2019, as was previously estimated. Therefore, the Council established a new rebuilding time period that ends in 2027 and revised the ACLs and quotas. (82 FR 61485; December 28, 2017). The management measures implemented through this final rule are expected to constrain harvest to the new catch levels and protect the stock during springtime spawning activity in March and April. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that these management measures will help meet rebuilding goals for this stock.

Comment 2: The greater amberjack recreational fishing year should not be changed. Changing the fishing year to start on August 1 will cost money and take time to implement without providing any benefit. It will also shift effort in the eastern Gulf to the western Gulf, changing the dynamics of the fishery. This change will eliminate any recreational spring fishery for greater amberjack in the eastern Gulf because there will be enough of the recreational quota remaining after the fall season.

Response: While NMFS agrees that the change in the fishing year may shift fishery dynamics, this change is expected to provide benefits by reducing the overall recreational harvest of greater amberjack, which will reduce the likelihood of an in-season closure, and allow for harvest in May as well as August through October. The first season is limited to 3 months (August, September, and October) and is during a time of historically low fishing effort. Analysis included in the framework action predicted that the new recreational quota should be sufficient to allow for harvest both in the fall and the spring.

In addition, changing the fishing year to begin on August 1 provides access to greater amberjack later in the calendar year, which is a period when the harvest of other targeted species (e.g., red snapper) is typically unavailable in Federal waters. Opening recreational fishing for greater amberjack later in the calendar year is also expected to improve access to this species because weather tends to be more favorable.

Comment 3: The recreational closed season for greater amberjack should not be changed.

Response: NMFS disagrees that the recreational closed season for greater amberjack should not be changed. The current recreational greater amberjack closed season of January 1 through June 30 was intended to be a temporary measure to allow the Council time to consider alternatives that would allow for harvest in both the spring and fall. If the current closed season were left in place, it would not allow for recreational harvest in the spring, which is a time when many recreational anglers have requested that recreational harvest of greater amberjack occur because this is a time when other targeted species, such as red snapper, are usually unavailable for harvest. The Council considered several options for modifying the closed season to allow harvest in the spring and chose May as the open month to avoid harvest during the peak spawning months of March and April.

Comment 4: A 4-month recreational open season for greater amberjack is too short. Recreational harvest should be allowed year-round or at least also in June and July.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Allowing recreational harvest of greater amberjack during June and July, historically the months of highest recreational fishing effort, or year-round, would likely result in an in-season quota closure, and would increase the likelihood of exceeding the recreational ACL. It would also be inconsistent with the Council's intent to have both fall and spring fishing seasons. Allowing for recreational harvest in May, August, September, and October is expected to increase the opportunity for recreational harvest while still protecting the stock as it rebuilds.

Comment 5: Modifying the recreational bag limits, implementing seasonal split quotas, and modifying the commercial trip limits would be more effective in managing the greater amberjack stock in the Gulf than changing the fishing year and closed season.

Response: The Council did not consider modifying recreational bag limits or establishing recreational seasonal quotas for greater amberjack in the Gulf in this framework action. However, in response to public comments at its October 2017 meeting, the Council began development of another framework action in which it will consider recreational bag limit options and split quotas as well as commercial vessel limits for greater amberjack. NMFS expects the Council to review a draft options paper for this framework in 2018.

The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined that this final rule is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this final rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) during the proposed rule stage that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments from the public or the SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy were received regarding the certification, and NMFS has not received any new information that would affect its determination. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:

Electronic Access

This final rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register website at http://www.federalregister.gov. Background information and documents are available at the NMFS West Coast Region website at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/groundfish/index.html and at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's website at http://www.pcouncil.org.

Since 2004, NMFS has restricted Oregon recreational groundfish fisheries to shallow depths (<20-40 fm) during peak effort to reduce interactions with deeper water species, especially yelloweye rockfish. The recreational groundfish fisheries are an important part of the local economy and social fabric in Oregon's coastal communities. From 2011-2015, anglers fished an average of 84,000 recreational groundfish trips per year in the Federal waters off of the Oregon coast, representing about 44 percent of the total Oregon recreational fishery effort during this period. The implementation of deep-water rockfish closures in 2004 left several Oregon ports without any viable groundfish fishing opportunities.

To increase recreational fishing opportunities in these ports and relieve pressure from nearshore reefs, NMFS issued exempted fishing permits (EFPs) to the Oregon Recreational Fishing Alliance and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) from 2009-2011 to test the viability of long-leader gear. The long-leader gear tested under this EFP test fishing program and authorized for use by this rule has one line with no more than three hooks, a sinker at the bottom, at least 30 feet (9.14 m) between the sinker and the lowest hook, and a non-compressible float above the hooks. This gear limits interaction with deeper water groundfish species that inhabit areas close to the seafloor by suspending the hooks well above the seafloor. In 2005, based in part on favorable EFP test fishing results using midwater long-leader gear on Oregon sport charter fishing vessels, the Council requested that NMFS implement regulations authorizing a midwater long-leader fishery in the Federal waters off the Oregon coast.

This final rule authorizes midwater long-leader recreational groundfish fishing seaward of a line approximating the 40 fathom depth curve exclusively off the coast of Oregon (42°00′ North latitude [N lat.] to 46°18′ N lat.) from April 1 to September 30. NMFS expects this gear configuration will allow recreational anglers to target abundant and healthy midwater species while avoiding or minimizing interactions with overfished rockfish species. When deploying this gear, anglers are authorized to use artificial lures or flies less than or equal to 5 inches (12.7 cm) in length. However, anglers may not use natural bait, or lures or flies greater than 5 inches (12.7 cm) in length, as was the case under the terms and conditions of the EFP. This final rule retains this prohibition on live bait, which was originally part of the EFP test fishing program to limit impacts to canary rockfish that were overfished at that time, because canary has only recently been declared rebuilt and it is prudent to take actions that are precautionary and limit initial impacts on newly rebuilt species. If desired, NMFS and the Council could work towards removing the prohibition in the future.

Under the action, anglers are also prohibited from possessing lingcod. All other existing state and Federal groundfish regulations, such as bag limits and rockfish conservation areas, remain in effect. ODFW will monitor this fishery through its existing Ocean Recreational Boat Survey. The Council approved language in the definition of long-leader gear that included a prohibition on “large lures.” However, the Council did not define this term. After consultation with ODFW, this final rule defines “large lure” as over five inches in length. This definition is based on industry standard lure sizes commonly used in the recreational fishery.

NMFS published a proposed rule for this action on December 12, 2017 (82 FR 60170). We received 67 comments on the proposed rule. We received public comments from 3 recreational fishing organizations, 2 boat owners, 6 charter operators, 1 tackle shop, 3 EFP participants, 32 recreational anglers, and 17 private citizens. These comments are discussed below.

Comment 1: All responsive comments supported creation of the midwater long-leader recreational fishery.

Response: NMFS agrees, and through this rule is promulgating regulations to allow recreational anglers to use midwater long-leader gear seaward of a line approximating the 40 fathom depth curve exclusively off the coast of Oregon (42°00′ N lat. to 46°18′ N lat.) from April 1 to September 30.

Comment 2: NMFS received five comments on the proposed gear configuration. Two recreational fishermen and one EFP participant commented in support of the gear as proposed. One charter operator proposed changes that would make the gear less likely to tangle. One recreational angler asked that the regulations exempt small vessels such as kayaks from the long-leader gear requirements while participating in the fishery.

Response: When the Council was developing this action, Council members discussed the need to develop regulations that reflect the same, or as similar as possible to, the gear configurations used in the EFP to test this fishery. The purpose of this was to ensure that impacts from this fishery would be similar to what occurred under the EFP. Because NMFS did not exempt small vessels, such as kayaks, from the EFP, or test the proposed changes suggested by the commentor in the EFP, it is difficult for NMFS to accurately predict the impacts associated with these suggestions. Therefore, NMFS will not remove or alter the required long-leader gear configuration, or allow exemptions for small vessels such as kayaks, without further Council discussion and consideration of these changes.

Comment 3: NMFS received sixteen comments on the proposed prohibition on natural bait. One charter operator, two EFP participants, and one recreational angler commented in support of the bait prohibition, stating that bait was unnecessary to produce good catches. One boat owner, one recreational fishing organizations, one tackle shop, one charter operator, seven recreational anglers, and one private citizen commented in opposition to the natural bait prohibition. Of these, one charter operator and one recreational angler commented that natural bait was prohibited during the EFP test fishing to avoid bycatch of canary rockfish. Because the canary rockfish stock is rebuilt, and can now be retained, they commented that the bait prohibition is no longer necessary.

Response: As noted above in the background section, NMFS will not remove the prohibition on the use of live bait for this fishery at this time. The prohibition on the use of live bait was included in the terms and conditions of the EFPs used to test this fishery as a means to protect the overfished canary rockfish by reducing interactions with the canary rockfish. Since then, canary rockfish has been declared rebuilt. However, NMFS is maintaining the prohibition because NMFS does not know the impacts to canary rockfish that could occur if this prohibition were removed. Those impacts were not tested or evaluated in the EFP test fishing and associated analysis. Additionally, because canary rockfish has only recently been rebuilt, NMFS believes it is important to take a precautionary approach in developing fisheries that could impact this newly rebuilt species. However, starting that discussion with the Council now would interfere with NMFS's goal to have this rule in place for the 2018 fishing season. April 1 is the start of the fishing season, ensuring that this rule is effective on April 1 will allow fishermen to access areas previously subject to depth restrictions for the entire season. If desired, NMFS and the Council could choose to work towards removing the prohibition in the future.

We adjusted the proposed rule's regulatory text defining lure size to make it clearer and to assist in enforcement. The text “not to exceed 5 inches in length” was changed to “less than or equal to 5 inches in length.”

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1854(b)(1)(A), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

This final rule does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.

Because this rule relieves a restriction, it is not subject to the 30-day delayed effectiveness provision of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)). This final rule allows recreational anglers to target groundfish using midwater long-leader gear, from April 1 to September 30, in waters seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40 fathoms depth contour off the coast of Oregon. These months were previously subject to depth restrictions. Therefore, NMFS is setting the effective date for this rule as April 1, 2018, to match the start of the fishing season and allow recreational anglers the opportunity to use long-leader gear for the duration of the 2018 fishing season.

Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 604, requires federal agencies to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for each final rule. A FRFA was prepared and incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and includes a summary of the analyses completed to support the action are included below. A statement of the need for, and the objectives of, this action is contained in the proposed rule and the preamble to this final rule, and is not repeated here. NMFS also prepared a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for this action. A copy of the RIR/FRFA is available from NMFS (see the Electronic Access section of this preamble). A summary of the FRFA, per the requirements of RFA section 604 follows.

There were no issues raised about the IRFA in the public comments; therefore no changes were made with regard to issues discussed in the IRFA.

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

The SBA defines a small business as one that is:

This final rule impacts recreational fish harvesting entities engaged in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. An estimated 104 recreational charter entities targeted groundfish in Oregon in 2014. Each of these vessels had an estimated average revenue of $35,743 from groundfish, from a total annual average revenue of $116,453, with other significant revenue earned in the salmon, tuna/albacore, and shellfish fisheries.

In 2015 there were 106,504 angler trips in the Oregon recreational groundfish fisheries. This accounted for $14,225,329 in trip-related expenses (excludes durable goods) and 327 jobs in the state of Oregon.

Many charter operations in Oregon earn a majority of their revenue from salmon fishing, however given the natural variability of the salmon fishery year to year, there is a potential for more commercial charter operations to turn to groundfish if the salmon fishery declines.

There are no new reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this rule.

The economic impact of the measures in this rule are discussed in section 3.4 of the final Environmental Assessment (EA) (see the Electronic Access section of this preamble) and are not repeated here. This rule is expected to give recreational charter entities in Oregon increased flexibility to pursue groundfish fishing opportunities, which is expected to provide positive economic impacts. The rule does not limit any existing activity or impose any mandatory new costs on the fleet, so the overall benefit to small entities is expected to be slightly positive, as some or most vessels may not choose to participate in the midwater fishery due to increased fuel costs from the distance required to travel, and because of midwater gear requirements.

The EA analyzed three alternatives in addition to a no action alternative. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) allows private and charter recreational vessels use long-leader gear seaward of the 40 fm depth curve from April to September. The other two alternatives would have allowed the same vessels to use long-leader gear seaward of the 40 fm depth curve from July to September (Alternative 2) or in the month of August (Alternative 3). All of the action alternatives are expected to result in minor beneficial economic impacts, with the preferred alternative providing the largest window of time for the recreational harvest to occur, and thus providing the greatest likely economic benefits. As all of the alternatives would provide positive benefits, there were no alternatives rejected that would have mitigated adverse effects on small entities.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, NMFS will send a small entity compliance guide to interested parties via the groundfish email list server. In addition, copies of this final rule and guides (i.e., information bulletins) are available from NMFS at the following website: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows: