Background

On September 16, 2019, Airbus applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. A28NM to include the new Model A321neo XLR airplane. These airplanes are twin-engine, transport-category airplanes with seating for 244 passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 222,000 pounds.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Airbus must show that the Model A321neo XLR airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A28NM, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Airbus Model A321neo XLR airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Airbus Model A321neo XLR airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

The Airbus Model A321neo XLR airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

An electronic flight-control system that provides flight envelope protections.

Many new transport-category airplanes use advanced electronic flight-control systems (EFCS), which incorporate flight-envelope protection (limiting) designed to prevent the pilot from inadvertently or intentionally exceeding any number of flight-envelope parameters. Depending on a particular EFCS design, these limiting features may or may not be active in all normal and alternate flight-control modes, and may or may not be capable of being overridden by the pilot.

The FAA currently applies 14 CFR 25.143 to airplanes incorporating EFCS. The purpose of §  25.143 is to verify that operational maneuvers conducted within the operational envelope can be accomplished smoothly with average piloting skill, and without encountering a stall warning or other characteristics that might interfere with normal maneuvering, or without exceeding structural limits. The airplane response to control input should be predictable to the pilot. However, § 25.143 does not adequately ensure that airplanes incorporating EFCS with flight-envelope protections will have a level of safety equivalent to that of existing standards.

Envelope-protection functions are intended to reduce the likelihood of excursions, either commanded or uncommanded, to unintended or potentially hazardous airplane operating states. As a consequence of preventing excursions, these functions can also restrict aircraft maneuverability, and may introduce non-traditional behavior. The special conditions will ensure that flight-envelope protection functions support safe operation, and do not interfere with required maneuvering in normal and emergency operations, and in forseeable atmospheric conditions.

The FAA previously issued separate special conditions for general limiting, normal load-factor limiting, high-speed limiting, and pitch and roll limiting for airplanes incorporating flight-envelope protection features. However, the FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) in April 2014 (79 FR 20295) to develop recommended standards for fly-by-wire flight controls for general flight-envelope protection (limiting) similar to those provided for conventional control functions in 14 CFR 25.143. The ARAC recommended, 2 among other things, performance-based requirements that would encompass general limiting, normal load-factor limiting, high-speed limiting, and pitch and roll limiting which the FAA previously issued as separate special conditions. These proposed special conditions are based on that ARAC recommendation.

These special conditions provide the same level of safety as the prescriptive, design-specific special conditions the FAA has issued in the past for general limiting, normal load-factor limiting, high-speed limiting, and pitch and roll limiting, thus the FAA need not issue separate special conditions to address each of these areas.

These special conditions are in addition to the requirements of § 25.143.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

The FAA issued notice of proposed Special Conditions No. 25-22-05-SC for the Airbus Model A321neo XLR airplane, which was published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2022 (87 FR 68942).

The FAA received one response from the Air Line Pilots Association supporting the special conditions. The special conditions are adopted as proposed.

As discussed above, these special conditions apply to Airbus Model A321neo XLR airplanes. Should Airbus apply later for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Airbus Model A321neo XLR airplanes equipped with EFCS.

In addition to § 25.143, the following requirements apply:

(a) Envelope protection functions must not unduly limit the maneuvering capability of the airplane, nor interfere with its ability to perform maneuvers required for normal and emergency operations.

(b) Onset characteristics of each flight-envelope protection function must be appropriate to the phase of flight and type of maneuver, and must not conflict with the ability of the pilot to satisfactorily control the airplane flight path, speed, and attitude.

(c) Excursions of a limited flight parameter beyond its nominal design-limit value due to dynamic maneuvering, airframe and system tolerances, and non-steady atmospheric conditions must not result in unsafe flight characteristics or conditions.

(d) Operation of flight-envelope protection functions must not adversely affect aircraft control during expected levels of atmospheric disturbances, nor impede the application of recovery procedures in case of wind shear.

(e) Simultaneous action of flight-envelope protection functions must not result in adverse coupling or adverse priority.

(f) In case of abnormal attitude or excursion of flight parameters outside the protected boundaries, operation of flight-envelope protection functions must not hinder airplane recovery.

The substance of these special conditions has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. Therefore, the FAA finds that, pursuant to § 11.38(b), new comments are unlikely, and notice and comment prior to this publication are unnecessary.

The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the comments received.

On July 1, 2012, Dassault Aviation applied for a type certificate for its new Model Falcon 5X airplane. However, Dassault has decided not to release an airplane under the model designation Falcon 5X, instead choosing to change that model designation to Falcon 6X.

In February of 2018, due to engine supplier issues, Dassault extended the type certificate application date for its Model Falcon 5X airplane under new Model Falcon 6X. This airplane is a twin-engine business jet with seating for 19 passengers, and has a maximum takeoff weight of 77,460 pounds.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Dassault must show that the Model Falcon 6X airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by amendments 25-1 through 25-146.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

An electronic flight-control system installation that establishes the criticality of the electrical power generation and distribution systems, such that the loss of all electrical power may be catastrophic to the airplane.

The Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 6X airplane will have a fly-by-wire control system that requires a continuous source of electrical power to maintain an operable flight-control system. Section 25.1351(d), “Operation without normal electrical power,” requires safe operation for at least five minutes, in visual flight rules (VFR), with normal power inoperative. This rule was structured around a traditional design, with mechanical control cables for flight control, while flightcrew considered the electrical failures, attempted to start engines(s) if necessary, and attempted to re-establish some of the electrical-power-generation capability.

Changes in technology have produced advanced electrical and electronic airplane systems that requires a continuous source of electrical power to maintain an operable flight-control system. The Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane design must not be time-limited in its operation, including being without the normal source of electrical power generated from engine generators or auxiliary power unit (APU), to maintain the same level of safety associated with traditional designs.

Airplane service experience has shown that the loss of all electrical power, as generated by the airplane's engine generators or APU, is not extremely improbable. Therefore, the applicant must demonstrate that the airplane maintains safe flight and landing, including steering and braking on the ground with the use of airplane emergency electrical-power systems. These emergency electrical-power systems must be able to provide power to loads required for continued safe flight and landing.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane. Should Dassault apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 6X airplanes.

In lieu of the requirements of 14 CFR 25.1351(d), the following special conditions apply:

(a) The applicant must show, by test or a combination of test and analysis, that the airplane is capable of continued safe flight and landing with all normal electrical power sources inoperative, as prescribed by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) below. For purposes of this special condition, normal sources of electrical-power generation do not include alternate power sources such as a battery, ram-air turbine, or independent power systems such as a flight-control permanent-magnet generating system.

(b) The airplane is demonstrated to be capable of continued safe flight and landing by ensuring the performance of the systems capability, effects on crew workload and operating conditions, and the physiological needs of the flightcrew and passengers meet the requirements for the longest diversion time for which approval is sought.

(1) Common-cause failures, cascading failures, and zonal physical threats must be considered in showing compliance with this requirement.

(2) The ability to restore operation of portions of the electrical-power generation and distribution system may be considered if it can be shown that unrecoverable loss of those portions of the system is extremely improbable. An alternative source of electrical power must be provided for the time required to restore the minimum electrical-power-generation capability required for safe flight and landing. Unrecoverable loss of all engines may be excluded when showing that unrecoverable loss of critical portions of the electrical system is extremely improbable. Unrecoverable loss of all engines is covered in special condition (c), below, and thus may be excluded when showing compliance with this requirement.

(c) Regardless of any electrical-generation and distribution-system recovery capability shown under special condition (a), above, sufficient electrical-system capability must be provided to:

(1) Allow time to descend, with all engines inoperative, at the speed that provides the best glide distance, from the maximum operating altitude to the altitude at the top of the engine restart envelope, and

(2) Subsequently allow multiple start attempts of the engines and APU. This capability must be provided in addition to the electrical capability required by existing part 25 requirements related to operation with all engines inoperative.

(d) The airplane emergency electrical-power system must be designed to supply electrical power required for:

(1) Immediate safety, which must continue to operate without the need for flightcrew action following the loss of the normal electrical power, for a duration sufficient to allow reconfiguration to provide a non-time-limited source of electrical power.

(2) Continued safe flight and landing for the maximum diversion time.

(e) If APU-generated electrical power is used in satisfying the requirements of these special conditions, and if reaching a suitable runway upon which to land is beyond the capacity of the battery systems, then the APU must be able to be started under any foreseeable flight condition prior to the depletion of the battery or the restoration of normal electrical power, which ever occurs first. Flight tests must demonstrate this capability at the most critical condition.

(1) The applicant must show that the APU will provide adequate electrical power for continued safe flight and landing.

(2) The Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) must incorporate non-normal procedures that direct the pilot to take appropriate actions to activate the APU after loss of normal engine-generated electrical power.

(f) As a part of showing compliance with these special conditions, the tests by which loss of all normal electrical power is demonstrated must also take into account the following:

(1) The failure condition should be assumed to occur during night instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), at the most critical phase of the flight, relative to the worst possible electrical-power distribution and equipment-loads-demand condition.

(2) After the un-restorable loss of normal engine-generated electrical power, the airplane-engine-restart capability must be provided and operations continued in IMC.

(3) The applicant must demonstrate that the aircraft is capable of continued safe flight and landing. The length of time must be computed based on the maximum diversion-time capability for which the airplane is being certified. Consideration for airspeed reductions resulting from the associated failure or failures must be made.

(4) The airplane must provide adequate indication of loss of normal electrical power to direct the pilot to the non-normal procedures, and the AFM must incorporate non-normal procedures that will direct the pilot to take appropriate actions.

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2022 (87 FR 72419). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2022-17, dated April 13, 2022, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that certain fasteners attaching the fuselage skin to stringer 19 between fuselage station (FS) FS945.75 and FS961.45 may be missing. The affected area of the fuselage is a build-up of skin, stringers, and frames, and is identified as a principal structural element for which missing fasteners could significantly reduce safety margins.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting for missing fasteners and damage, including cracking, of the affected area, and repair or installation of fasteners if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address missing fasteners, which may subject the skin to inter-rivet buckling under compressive load. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could create a hazard of permanent deformation and/or cracking of the skin.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1485.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA has revised paragraph (g) of this AD to clarify that, if any damage or missing fasteners are found, the damage must be repaired or the fasteners installed before further flight. In the NPRM, the FAA inadvertently left out the compliance time for this action. However, as stated in the NPRM, the affected area is identified as a principal structural element for which missing fasteners could significantly reduce safety margins. Further, missing fasteners may create a hazard of permanent deformation and/or cracking of the skin. Therefore, damage needs to be repaired and missing fasteners need to be installed before further flight to address the identified unsafe condition.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-53-7547, dated July 21, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for inspecting the affected area of the fuselage skin attached to stringer 19 between FS945.75 and FS961.45 for missing fasteners and associated damage, and for installing missing fasteners and repairing any damage. 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.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 11 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-20-09, Amendment 39-21747 (86 FR 64805, November 19, 2021) (AD 2021-20-09). AD 2021-20-09 applied to certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes. AD 2021-20-09 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2021-20-09 to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2022 (87 FR 74538). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0201, dated September 26, 2022, issued by EASA (EASA AD 2022-0201) (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that the manufacturer updated the time limits document to introduce new or more restrictive tasks and limitations.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1245.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2021-20-09 and require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive tasks and airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0201. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking and damage in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA revised paragraph (c) of this AD to apply to airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before September 21, 2022 (the issuance date of the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0201). Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after September 21, 2022, must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. In the NPRM, the FAA inadvertently specified a date of February 3, 2022, which is the issuance date of a prior revision of the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0201. The FAA has confirmed no affected airplanes were added to the U.S. Registry between February 3, 2022 and September 21, 2022.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2022-0201 describes new or more restrictive tasks, airworthiness limitations for airplane structures, and safe life limits.

This AD also requires EASA AD 2021-0020, dated January 15, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0020), which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of December 27, 2021 (86 FR 64805, November 19, 2021).

This material 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.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 23 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2021-20-09 to be $7,650 (90 workhours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 workhours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2022 (87 FR 72414). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0093, dated May 25, 2022, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2022-0093) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that an interference was detected between the installed nut and the foot radius of FR 96, between stringer 6 and stringer 7, on the right-hand side. Further investigation showed that the minimum distances for nut installation were not fulfilled, and some airplanes were damaged in the FR 96 foot radius area. Damage at the FR 96 foot radius area, if not addressed, may affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require removing the affected fasteners and inspecting the affected area for damage, and applicable corrective actions if necessary, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0093. The FAA is issuing this AD to address possible damage at the FR 96 foot radius area. This condition, if not addressed, may affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1487.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2022-0093 specifies procedures for removing the affected fasteners and doing detailed, high frequency eddy current, and rototest inspections for damage (either superficial, limited to the paint, e.g., discoloration to the paint or protective layer; or non-superficial, e.g., dents, cracks, bends, nicks, and discoloration to the metal) of the fastener hole, fillet radius, and collar areas at FR96, stringers 6 and 7 on the right-hand side, and applicable corrective actions. Corrective actions include installing new fasteners and nuts with adapted aluminum washers and repair. This material 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.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the 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.

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

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

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

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

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

(3) 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

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2023-0174; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00063-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dat Le, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 516-228-7317; email dat.v.le@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2023-0011, dated January 17, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0011) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The MCAI states that longitudinal sealing tape in the forward and aft cargo compartments had migrated from its original position, possibly due to relative movement between the cargo floor panels and the cargo loading system, combined with compression of the tape. One function of the cargo floor panel sealing is as a contributor to the tightness of the lower cargo compartment floor panels, which provide an enclosed area to maintain halon concentration in the event of a fire. This condition, if not addressed, could affect the fire extinguishing system efficiency in the cargo compartments, possibly resulting in failure of the system to contain a cargo compartment fire or permanently extinguish the fire.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0174.

EASA AD 2023-0011 specifies procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of the affected parts ( i.e., cargo sealing tapes installed between the cargo floor panels and the cargo loading system in longitudinal direction, in the forward and aft cargo compartment area) for complete or partial migration of the cargo sealing tape and to determine if there are any repairs on the tape; for partially migrated tape, measuring the maximum migration of the tape; for repaired tape, inspecting for incorrect seating/condition of the tape and incorrect sealant condition; and applicable corrective action if any discrepancies are found ( i.e., any cargo sealing tape that has migrated more than 11 millimeters, complete migration of the tape, incorrect seating/condition of the tape in repaired areas, and incorrect sealant condition in repaired areas). Corrective actions include repairing the tape and sealant. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI described above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2023-0011 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, EASA AD 2023-0011 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2023-0011 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2023-0011 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2023-0011. Service information required by EASA AD 2023-0011 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0174 after this AD is published.

The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

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 providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

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 forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because migration of the sealing tape can affect the tightness of the cargo compartment floor panels, which provide an enclosed area to maintain halon concentration in the event of a fire. Migration of the sealing tape in the forward and aft cargo compartments could affect the fire extinguishing system efficiency in the cargo compartments and possibly result in failure of the system to contain a cargo compartment fire or permanently extinguish the fire. In addition, the compliance time for the required action is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 31 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

Background

Part 1212 establishes procedures for individuals to access their Privacy Act records and to request amendment of information in records concerning them. This rule was last published as a direct final rule in the Federal Register at 77 FR 60620, October 4, 2012, to make non-substantive changes to NASA rules governing implementation of the Privacy Act by updating statute citations, position titles, terminology, and adjusting appellate responsibility for records held by the NASA Office of the Inspector General. However, correction to these amendments were published in the Federal Register at 78 FR 8963, February 7, 2013, to add the responsibility of NASA's Freedom of Information Act Office that processes request for individual records. NASA is currently amending the rule to make changes to provide for electronic access to records. Furthermore, NASA is exempting its system of records (SOR) for Harassment Report Case Files/NASA 10RCF, under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) (k)(5) from the following subsections of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a:

• Subsection (c)(3) relating to access to the disclosure accounting.

• Subsection (d) relating to access to the records.

• Subsection (e)(1) relating to the type of information maintained in the records.

• Subsections (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I) relating to publishing in the annual system notice information as to agency procedures for access and correction and information as to the categories of sources of records.

• Subsection (f) relating to developing agency rules for gaining access and making corrections.

The determination to exempt these records was made because it is necessary for NASA to continue to investigate violations of law, regulation, and policy and also to determine continue suitability for Federal employment. In accordance with Federal anti-discrimination laws, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requires that all Federal agencies have an Antiharassment policy and program. NASA's specific policy prohibits harassment by all employees, provides an avenue for individuals to report allegations of harassment, and a process by which NASA fact-finders conduct inquiries/investigations. Furthermore, NASA's policy prohibits retaliation against individuals for raising allegations of harassment or participating in the process. In order for NASA to promptly address and resolve potential violations of law, regulation, or NASA policy, individuals who are participating in this process must be assured that their statements will be kept confidential consistent with law. Some investigations have been hindered by witnesses' lack of willingness to come forward fearful that their statements or identities would be revealed. Other agencies, including the EEOC, have exempted these records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.

This SORN relies on multiple legal authorities to support exempting these records under 5 U.S.C. 552a(K)(2) and (K)(5), including, NASA's Antiharassment Policy, which states that NASA has an affirmative obligation to maintain a harassment-free workplace and to take prompt and effective action when allegations arise. NASA's policy encourages all employees to report concerns and for NASA to address such conduct before it becomes “severe or pervasive” within the meaning of the anti-discrimination laws. Additional authoritative sources include the EEOC, anti-discrimination laws, and Supreme Court precedent that require agencies to take prompt and effective action if an individual is alleging harassment by a NASA employee. Additionally, the investigatory material compiled by this system of records may be used to determine a putative harasser's suitability for continued NASA employment and such records would be exempt from release under certain provisions of the Privacy Act but only in cases where the disclosure of such information would reveal the identity of a source who provided information to NASA under the condition of anonymity.

Non-substantive changes will also be made to correct typos and titles and provide clarity.

NASA has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves two substantive changes, one to address electronic access to records as required by Creating Advanced Streamlined Electronic Services for Constituents Act of 2019; the second to add an exemption for an Agency system of records. No opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments are expected. However, if the Agency receives a significant adverse comment, it will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register . A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, NASA will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

The National Aeronautics and Space Act (the Space Act), 51 U.S.C. 20101(a), authorizes the NASA Administrator to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing the manner of its operations and the exercise of the powers vested in it by law.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated as “administrative” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to be published at the time the proposed rule is published. This requirement does not apply if the agency “certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (5 U.S.C. 603). This rule does not have any economic impact on small entities.

This direct final rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), requires regulations be reviewed for federalism effects on the institutional interest of states and local governments, and, if the effects are sufficiently substantial, preparation of the Federal assessment is required to assist senior policy makers. The amendments will not have any direct effects on state and local governments within the meaning of the Executive order. Therefore, no federalism assessment is required.

For reasons discussed in the preamble, NASA amends 14 CFR part 1212 as follows:

I. Background

In response to Russia's February 2022 further invasion of Ukraine, BIS imposed extensive export controls on Russia under the EAR (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) as part of the final rule Implementation of Sanctions Against Russia Under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (the Russia Sanctions Rule), effective on February 24, 2022, and published on March 3, 2022 (87 FR 12226). Since the publication of the Russia Sanctions Rule, BIS has published several other final rules imposing stringent export controls on Russia. The new restrictions included two new Russia (and Belarus)-specific Foreign-Direct Product rules. See § 734.9(f)(1)(i) and (ii). U.S. allies have implemented substantially similar measures against Russia. The BIS actions reflect the U.S. Government's position that Russia's further invasion of Ukraine and Belarus' complicity in such invasion flagrantly violated international law, is contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, and undermines global order, peace, and security.

Consistent with the U.S. Government's and its allies' commitment to further strengthening the impact of export control measures in response to Russia's aggression, this rule amends the EAR to impose new controls to address the use of Iranian UAVs in ways that are contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, specifically, by Russia against Ukraine. Iran has been supplying Iranian UAVs to Russia to enhance Russia's defense industrial base in the country's ongoing military assault in Ukraine. BIS and U.S. Government allies and partners have taken additional actions to restrict Iran's ability to obtain “items” required to manufacture UAVs, such as the blocking restrictions put in place by the European Union (EU) on identified Iranian drone companies and export restrictions on relevant low-level items where there is knowledge the items are ultimately destined to Russia. On January 31, 2023, BIS added seven Iranian entities involved in the manufacture of UAVs to the Entity List as Russian `Military End Users,' thereby subjecting them to some of the most comprehensive export restrictions under the EAR, including on foreign-produced items under the Russia/Belarus-Military End User FDP rule (see § 734.9(g) of the EAR). 88 FR 6621 (Feb. 1, 2023). Recent investigations indicate that pieces of Iranian UAVs have been found on the battlefield in Ukraine, in some cases with U.S.-branded “parts” and “components.”

Iran is already subject to comprehensive export restrictions under U.S. law, including pursuant to § 746.7 of the EAR. This rule builds on recent efforts to target Russian activity involving Iran-supplied UAVs by imposing new destination-based controls on Iran. These new controls impose export and reexport license requirements on a subset of EAR99 items, i.e., items not specified on the Commerce Control List (supplement no. 1 to part 774 of the EAR) if destined to Iran, regardless of whether a U.S. person, is involved in the transaction. Such items are identified by HTS-6 Codes in a new supplement for Iran that is being added to the EAR by this rule and require a license for exports and reexports to Iran. This rule also adds a new FDP rule specific to Iran for items in certain categories of the CCL. The new FDP rule also covers certain other items identified in this new supplement to render additional foreign-produced items subject to the EAR. This rule similarly revises the existing Russia/Belarus FDP rule to reference these foreign-produced items to ensure that the items described in this supplement will be similarly controlled to Russia and Belarus when they are also the “direct product” of certain U.S.-origin “technology” or “software,” or are produced by a plant or a `major component' of a plant which is itself the “direct product” of certain U.S.-origin “technology” or “software.” Together, with a separate rule published in the same issue of the Federal Register adding export controls for Russia and Belarus, these changes impose license requirements on additional exports from abroad and reexports to Iran, Russia, and Belarus, with the purpose of substantially degrading the Iranian UAV program and Russia's use of such UAVs against Ukraine. Some of the items added to supplement no. 7 to part 746 already required a license for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to Russia and Belarus prior to this rule because they were already identified on supplement no. 4 or 5 to part 746. The separate rule published in the same issue of the Federal Register is adding the remaining items added by this rule to supplement no. 7 to part 746 to supplement no. 4 or 5 to impose a license requirement for exports and reexports and transfers within Russia and Belarus and to align those other controls with U.S. allies.

For the reasons stated above, this rule takes four actions targeting Iranian UAVs.

First, BIS is creating a list of items used in Iranian UAVs. This rule identifies these items using HTS-6 codes in a new supplement no. 7 to part 746 of the EAR.

Second, this rule, in conjunction with a separate rule in the same issue of the Federal Register adding export controls for Russia and Belarus, expands the Russia/Belarus FDP rule and adds an Iran FDP rule to ensure that foreign-produced items identified in new supplement no. 7 to part 746 are subject to the EAR when they are destined to Russia, Belarus, or Iran, and that certain foreign-produced items specified in any ECCN in Categories 3 through 5 or 7 on the CCL are subject to the EAR when they are destined for Iran.

Third, this rule expands the license requirements for Iran in § 746.7 of the EAR to include requirements for exports and reexports of items identified in new supplement no. 7 to part 746 (including foreign-made items subject to the EAR under the new Iran FDP rule described in § 734.9(j)).

Fourth, this rule exempts countries identified in supplement no. 3 to part 746 (Countries Excluded from Certain License Requirements, pursuant to § 746.8), from some of the new controls on foreign-produced items described in new supplement no. 7 to part 746.

This rule imposes new export controls on Iran in connection with its UAV program in order to degrade Iran's ability to support Russia's military aggression in Ukraine, as described below:

A. Imposition of additional license requirements for Iran covering items used in UAVs that are identified by HTS-6 codes in new supplement no. 7 to part 746.

In part 746, this rule adds a new supplement no. 7 to part 746—Items that Require a License under § 746.7 When Destined for Iran and under § 746.8 When Destined to Russia or Belarus. This rule adds these items because they are useful in Iran's UAV program and Russia has used such UAVs in its further invasion of Ukraine. New supplement no. 7 to part 746 consists of two columns: HTS-6 Code and the HTS Description. This rule adds twelve entries to the new supplement. These HTS-6 codes cover a greater range of items than those described in existing Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) on the CCL, and will consequently capture items that are designated EAR99 ( i.e., not specifically described on the CCL).

This rule adds a paragraph (a) to the introductory text of the supplement to explain the origin of the HTS-6 codes and descriptions in this list, i.e., the United States International Trade Commission (USITC's) HTS of the United States (2023). Similar to introductory text set forth in the supplement no. 4 to part 746, this paragraph specifies that the items described in supplement no. 7 to part 746 include any modified or designed “components,” “parts,” “accessories,” and “attachments” therefor to the items listed in the supplement regardless of the HTS Code or HTS Description of the “components,” “parts,” “accessories,” and “attachments,” except that any “part” or minor “component” that is a fastener ( e.g., screw, bolt, nut, nut plate, stud, insert, clip, rivet, pin), washer, spacer, insulator, grommet, bushing, spring, wire, or solder is excluded. New paragraph (a) also advises exporters with general questions on HTS codes to contact an import specialist at U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the nearest port of export. Exporters with questions on how to classify an item on the CCL or whether a particular “component,” “part,” accessory,” or “attachment” therefor is “modified or designed” for an item listed in supplement no. 7 to part 746 should contact BIS.

This rule also adds a paragraph (b) to the introductory text of the supplement to specify that the items identified in the HTS-6 Code column of supplement no. 7 to part 746 are subject to the license requirements under §§ 746.7(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) and 746.8(a)(2). Paragraph (b) clarifies that the HTS Description column is intended to assist exporters with their Automated Export System (AES) filing responsibilities. BIS clarifies here that a subjective interpretation of the HTS Description does not determine whether an item is subject to the license requirements under §§ 746.7(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) and 746.8(a)(2). If an item is classified under any 10-digit Schedule B, or 8-digit HTS code beginning with the HTS-6 Code indicated in supplement no. 7 to part 746, then it is subject to the license requirements under §§ 746.7(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) and 746.8(a)(2), regardless of how the HTS Description is interpreted. For example, if an exporter, reexporter, or transferor “knows” their item is classified under an HTS-6 Code in supplement no. 7 to part 746, but disagrees that their item matches the HTS Description in supplement no. 7 to part 746, in that scenario, then the HTS-6 Code is still controlling for determining the license requirement under §§ 746.7(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) and 746.8(a)(2), even if someone believes their item could potentially meet the description of more than one HTS Description. As noted above, the HTS Description is intended to assist exporters with their AES filing responsibilities, but is not determinative for whether an item is identified under supplement no. 7 to part 746.

The use of the HTS-6 Code to identify the license requirements for these items will ease compliance burdens on exporters and reexporters because the HTS-6 Code is more precise than the HTS Description. The use of the HTS-6 Code for identifying the license requirement will also help to enhance the enforcement of these items because the HTS-6 Code will be easier to identify in the Electronic Export Information (EEI) in AES.

BIS estimates the addition of supplement no. 7 to part 746 will not result in any additional license applications submitted to BIS annually, because the export and reexport to Iran of items newly subject to the EAR will be subject to the regulatory authority of the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to the extent the export or reexport is prohibited by 31 CFR 560.204 or 560.205 of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 560 (ITSR); such exports and reexports therefore will be subject to the licensing jurisdiction of OFAC and eligible for general or specific licenses issued—pursuant to the ITSR for purposes of these destination-based license requirements for Iran. Any export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) subject to a part 744 end-use or end-user license requirements will still require a separate authorization from BIS.

B. Expansion of Russia/Belarus FDP rule and addition of new Iran FDP rule for items identified in new supplement no. 7 to part 746.

This rule makes two changes to § 734.9 Foreign-Direct Product (FDP) Rules related to the new supplement no. 7 to part 746.

1. Expansion of Russia/Belarus FDP rule. This rule revises the existing Russia/Belarus FDP rule in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(B) and (f)(1)(ii)(B) of § 734.9 to reference new supplement no. 7 to part 746, which expands the product scope of the Russia/Belarus FDP rule to include items identified in new supplement no. 7 to part 746, even if such items are designated EAR99 when they meet the FDP criteria under paragraph (f). The items this rule adds to supplement no. 7 to part 746 includes “parts” and “components” that are used in UAVs that have been found on the battlefield in Ukraine. As detailed above, Russia has been relying on Iran's UAVs for use in strikes against Ukraine. Many of the “parts” and “components” found in such UAVs are branded as U.S. or U.S.-origin, including by referring to U.S. manufacturers. However, such branding does not definitively indicate that such items were produced in the United States. Thus, expanding the foreign direct product rule to cover these items will help ensure that such products are not available for shipment to Iran for use in the manufacture of UAVs that are being used by Russia in Ukraine.

This rule also revises paragraph (f)(1)(i)(B) and (f)(1)(ii)(B) of § 734.9 to remove the term “identified” and adds in its place the phrase “specified in any ECCN on the CCL.” This rule also removes the phrase “or is not designated EAR99,” because the phrase is no longer needed with the other revisions made to these two paragraphs. These changes will align the text more closely with the same type of text used in the other FDP rules in § 734.9.

This rule also revises paragraph (f)(2) of § 734.9 to remove the phrase “not designated EAR99” and adding in its place the phrase “specified in any ECCN on the CCL or in supplement no. 6 or 7.” The revision to add “specified in any ECCN” is a clarification and the addition of “supplement no. 6 or 7” is a conforming change to reflect the current scope of the Russia/Belarus FDP rule.

BIS estimates these changes to § 734.9(f) will not result in any additional license applications submitted to BIS annually, because even though this rule will add items subject to the EAR, the license review policy of denial generally discourages applicants from submitting licenses.

2. Addition of new Iran FDP rule. This rule adds a new foreign direct product rule under paragraph (j) (Iran FDP rule) of § 734.9 of the EAR. This Iran FDP rule is generally modeled after the Russia/Belarus FDP rule in § 734.9(f), but with slight differences to make the Iran FDP rule more narrowly targeted at Iran's UAV activities of concern. The Iran FDP rule establishes jurisdiction over foreign-produced items that are the direct product of U.S.-origin software or technology classified in Categories 3 through 5 and 7 of the CCL, or are produced by a plant or major component of a plant which itself is the “direct product” of such software or technology. The product scope is limited to foreign-produced items identified in supplement no. 7 to part 746—including items designated EAR99—and to items classified in any ECCN in Categories 3 through 5 or 7 of the CCL.

As further described below, transactions from or within countries identified in supplement no. 3 to part 746 are exempted from the license requirements for items subject to this new FDP rule.

BIS estimates that the addition of paragraph (j) to § 734.9 will result in an additional five license applications submitted to BIS annually.

C. Expansion of Iran controls under part 746 to impose license requirements for items identified in new supplement no. 7 to part 746 and for foreign-produced items made subject to the EAR under the new Iran FDP rule.

In § 746.7—Iran, this rule revises the fourth sentence of the introductory text to the section to add a reference to new licensing requirement paragraphs in § 746.7. This rule also revises paragraph (a) (License Requirements) for Iran by redesignating the existing text of paragraph (a)(1) (apart from the paragraph (a)(1) heading) as new paragraph (a)(1)(i) (CCL-based license requirements). This rule adds a new license requirement to § 746.7 under new paragraph (a)(1)(ii) (Supplement no. 7 to part 746 of the EAR license requirements) for export or reexport of items identified in new supplement no. 7 to part 746, and adds a new license requirement for the export from abroad or reexport of foreign-produced items subject to the EAR because of the new Iran FDP rule under new paragraph (a)(1)(iii). This rule also adds new paragraph (a)(1)(iv) to exempt certain exports from abroad and reexports from countries identified in supplement no. 3 to part 746 from the license requirement in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) and adds new paragraph (a)(1)(v) to exempt items designated EAR99 and identified in supplement no. 7 to part 746 from consideration as U.S.-origin controlled content when incorporated into a foreign-made item exported or reexported from a country identified in supplement no. 3 to part 746. The exemptions in paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (v) are similar in regulatory construction to those that apply to the same countries for purposes of export controls on Russia and Belarus in § 746.8 of the EAR.

As a conforming change, this final rule also revises supplement no. 2 to part 734—Guidelines for De Minimis Rules, by revising the third sentence of paragraph (a)(1), which specifies that exporters must use the license requirements in part 746 for identifying U.S.-origin controlled content for de minimis purposes (excluding U.S.-origin content that meets the criteria in § 746.8(a)(5)). This final rule revises this parenthetical phrase to specify that U.S.-origin controlled content that meets the criteria in § 746.7(a)(1)(v) is also excluded from de minimis calculations when identifying controlled U.S.-origin content.

As currently stated in § 746.7 of the EAR, and as applied to the new license requirements added by this rule, if a transaction is authorized by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), separate authorization from BIS is not required. However, BIS authorization will generally be required for transactions that require a license from BIS under the new Iran license requirements added by this rule but that are not subject to the ITSR, unless an exemption applies ( e.g., exports of foreign-produced items subject to the new Iran FDP rule that do not involve U.S. persons and that would not qualify for an OFAC general license if subject to the ITSR).

BIS adds a sentence to the end of new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) under § 746.7 to specify that reexports and exports from abroad of foreign-produced items that would have otherwise met all of the terms and conditions of an OFAC general license if the transactions had been subject to OFAC license requirements are exempt from BIS license requirements in paragraph (a)(1)(iii). This exemption was added because of the potential for the Iran FDP rule to reach certain items that may be used in applications other than to develop or produce Iran UAVs, such as use in medical devices or communications devices authorized for export or reexport to Iran under the ITSR. To the extent that foreign-produced items subject to the EAR under the Iran FDP rule fall outside the scope of OFAC jurisdiction, BIS will treat transactions involving such foreign-produced items consistently with comparable transactions that are eligible for OFAC general licenses if they were conducted by U.S. persons or involved reexports of items exported from the United States. Questions about whether a transaction is exempt because it is comparable to a transaction that would be authorized if subject to the ITSR should be directed to OFAC.

D. Conforming change to expand the scope of supplement no. 3 to part 746 to reflect allied countries' exclusion from the new Iran FDP rule.

In supplement no. 3 to part 746—Countries Excluded from Certain License Requirements, pursuant to § 746.8, this rule revises the heading of the supplement to add a reference to the Iran export controls section under § 746.7. This rule also adds a new second sentence to the introductory text of the supplement to specify that the countries in the supplement are excluded from certain requirements related to Iran in § 746.7 of the EAR, as described in § 746.7(a)(1)(iv) and (v).

Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), on February 24, 2023, pursuant to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or within a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR), provided the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is completed no later than on March 27, 2023.

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (codified, as amended, at 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule. To the extent it applies to certain activities that are the subject of this rule, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) (codified, as amended, at 22 U.S.C. 7201-7211) also serves as authority for this rule.

1. This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” because it “pertain[s]” to a “military or foreign affairs function of the United States” under sec. 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number.

This rule involves the following OMB-approved collections of information subject to the PRA:

• 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 29.4 minutes for a manual or electronic submission;

• 0694-0096 “Five Year Records Retention Period,” which carries a burden hour estimate of less than 1 minute; and

• 0607-0152 “Automated Export System (AES) Program,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 3 minutes per electronic submission.

BIS estimates that these new controls on Iran under the EAR will result in an increase of five license applications submitted annually to BIS. However, the additional burden falls within the existing estimates currently associated with these control numbers. Additional information regarding these collections of information—including all background materials—can be found at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain by using the search function to enter either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number.

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

4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4821) (ECRA), this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date. While section 1762 of ECRA provides sufficient authority for such an exemption, this action is also independently exempt from these APA requirements because it involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (5. U.S.C. 553(a)(1)).

5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 734 and 746 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) are amended as follows:

Background

The Entity List (supplement no. 4 to part 744 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774)) identifies entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the entities have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to § 744.11(b). The EAR impose additional license requirements on, and limit the availability of, most license exceptions for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) when a listed entity is a party to the transaction. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the “License Review Policy” column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant Federal Register document that added the entity to the Entity List. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) places entities on the Entity List pursuant to part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

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

The ERC determined to add 3DiVi, AO Papilon, IT-Papillon OOO, OOO Adis, and Papilon Limited Liability Company to the Entity List under the destination of Russia. These entities are added for their involvement in activities that are contrary to the foreign policy interests of the United States under § 744.11, including but not limited to providing support for Russia's filtration operations in occupied areas of Ukraine, which include the use of biometric technology in suppressing Ukrainian resistance and enforcing loyalty among the Ukrainian population in occupied areas. For these five entities, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and will review license applications under a presumption of denial.

The ERC determined to add Joint Stock Company Elektron Optronik, Joint Stock Company Zelenograd Nanotechnology Center, Public Joint Stock Company Kremny, Technopark Skolkovo Limited Liability Company, and VisionLabs Limited Liability Company to the Entity List under the destination of Russia for acquiring and attempting to acquire U.S.-origin items in support of activities contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. This activity is contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests under § 744.11. For these five entities, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and will review license applications under a policy of denial.

The End-User Review Committee determined to add the following sixty-six Russian entities to the Entity List for acquiring and attempting to acquire U.S.-origin items in support of Russia's military: Advanced Research Foundation; Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation; Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution Research and Production Complex Technology Center; Federal State Institution Federal Scientific Center Scientific Research Institute for System Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Joint Stock Company All Russian Research Institute of Radio Engineering; Joint Stock Company All-Russian Research Institute Signal; Joint Stock Company Center of Research and Technology Services Dinamika; Joint Stock Company Concern Avtomatika; Joint Stock Company Design Center Soyuz; Joint Stock Company Design Technology Center Elektronika; Joint Stock Company Institute for Scientific Research Microelectronic Equipment Progress; Joint Stock Company Kizlyar Electromechanical Plant; Joint Stock Company Machine-Building Engineering Office Fakel Named After Akademika P.D. Grushina; Joint Stock Company North Western Regional Center of Almaz Antey Concern Obukhovsky Plant; Joint Stock Company Penza Electrotechnical Research Institute; Joint Stock Company Production Association Sever; Joint Stock Company Production Association Ural Optical and Mechanical Plant Named After E.S. Yalamov; Joint Stock Company Ramenskoye Design Company; Joint Stock Company Research and Production Association Named After S.A. Lavochkina; Joint Stock Company Research and Production Association of Measuring Equipment; Joint Stock Company Research and Production Enterprise Radar MMS; Joint Stock Company Research and Production Enterprise Sapfir; Joint Stock Company Research Center ELINS; Joint Stock Company RT-Tekhpriemka; Joint Stock Company Russian Research Institute Electronstandart; Joint Stock Company Ryazan Plant of Metal Ceramic Instruments; Joint Stock Company Scientific Production Enterprise Digital Solutions; Joint Stock Company Scientific Production Enterprise Kontakt; Joint Stock Company Scientific Production Enterprise Topaz; Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute Giricond; Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute of Computer Engineering NII SVT; Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute of Electrical Carbon Products; Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute of Electronic and Mechanical Devices; Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute of Electronic Engineering Materials; Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute of Gas Discharge Devices Plasma; Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute of Industrial Television Rastr; Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute of Precision Mechanical Engineering; Joint Stock Company Shipbuilding Corporation Ak Bars; Joint Stock Company Special Design Bureau of Computer Engineering; Joint Stock Company Special Design Bureau of Control Means; Joint Stock Company Special Design Bureau Turbina; Joint Stock Company Special Relay System Design and Engineering Bureau; Joint Stock Company State Missile Center Named After Akademika V.P. Makeyeva; Joint Stock Company State Scientific Research Institute Kristall; Joint Stock Company Svetlana Semiconductors; Joint Stock Company Tekhnodinamika; Joint Stock Company the Institute of Electronic Control Computers Named After I.S. Bruk; Joint Stock Company Vologda Optical and Mechanical Plant; Joint Stock Company Voronezh Semiconductor Devices Factory Assembly; Joint Stock Company Vyatka Machine-Building Enterprise Avitek; KAMAZ Publicly Traded Company; Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Limited Liability Company Research and Production Association Radiovolna; Limited Liability Company RSB-Group; Mitishinskiy Scientific Research Institute of Radio Measuring Instruments; Open Joint Stock Company Ilyushin Aviation Complex; Open Joint Stock Company Khabarovsk Radio Engineering Plant; Open Joint Stock Company Mariyskiy Machine-Building Plant; Open Joint Stock Company Scientific and Production Enterprise Pulsar; Public Joint Stock Company Megafon; Public Joint Stock Company Tutaev Motor Plant; Public Joint Stock Company Vympel Interstate Corporation; RT-Inform Limited Liability Company; Skolkovo Foundation; Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology; and State Flight Testing Center Named After V.P. Chkalov). These entities' acquisition and attempts to acquire U.S.-origin items in support of Russia's military are contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests under § 744.11 and these entities qualify as military end users under § 744.21 of the EAR. These entities are receiving a footnote 3 designation because the ERC has determined that they are Russian or Belarusian 'military end users' pursuant to § 744.21. A footnote 3 designation subjects these entities to the Russia/Belarus-Military End User Foreign Direct Product (FDP) rule, detailed in § 734.9(g). Five of the entities (Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution Research and Production Complex Technology Center; Joint Stock Company Research and Production Association Named After S.A. Lavochkina; Joint Stock Company Research and Production Association of Measuring Equipment; Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute of Industrial Television Rastr; and Joint Stock Company State Missile Center Named After Akademika V.P. Makeveva (GRTS Makevev)) have a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR. For these five entities, License Exception GOV is available for use pursuant to §  740.11(b)(2) and (e). The license review policy for these five entities is a policy of denial for all items subject to the EAR other than food and medicine designated as EAR99 and for items for U.S. Government-supported use in the International Space Station (ISS), which will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The remaining sixty-one entities are added with a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of denial.

For the reasons described above, this final rule adds the following seventy-six entities to the Entity List and includes, where appropriate, aliases:

• 3DiVi OOO,

• Advanced Research Foundation,

• AO Papilon,

• Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation;

• Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution Research and Production Complex Technology Center;

• Federal State Institution Federal Scientific Center Scientific Research Institute for System Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

• IT-Papillon OOO,

• Joint Stock Company All Russian Research Institute of Radio Engineering;

• Joint Stock Company All-Russian Research Institute Signal;

• Joint Stock Company Center of Research and Technology Services Dinamika;

• Joint Stock Company Concern Avtomatika;

• Joint Stock Company Design Center Soyuz;

• Joint Stock Company Design Technology Center Elektronika;

• Joint Stock Company Elektron Optronik,

• Joint Stock Company Institute for Scientific Research Microelectronic Equipment Progress;

• Joint Stock Company Kizlyar Electromechanical Plant;

• Joint Stock Company Machine-Building Engineering Office Fakel Named After Akademika P.D. Grushina;

• Joint Stock Company North Western Regional Center of Almaz Antey Concern Obukhovsky Plant;

• Joint Stock Company Penza Electrotechnical Research Institute;

• Joint Stock Company Production Association Sever;

• Joint Stock Company Production Association Ural Optical and Mechanical Plant Named After E.S. Yalamov;

• Joint Stock Company Ramenskoye Design Company;

• Joint Stock Company Research and Production Association Named After S.A. Lavochkina;

• Joint Stock Company Research and Production Association of Measuring Equipment;

• Joint Stock Company Research and Production Enterprise Radar MMS;

• Joint Stock Company Research and Production Enterprise Sapfir;

• Joint Stock Company Research Center ELINS;

• Joint Stock Company RT-Tekhpriemka;

• Joint Stock Company Russian Research Institute Electronstandart;

• Joint Stock Company Ryazan Plant of Metal Ceramic Instruments;

• Joint Stock Company Scientific Production Enterprise Digital Solutions;

• Joint Stock Company Scientific Production Enterprise Kontakt;

• Joint Stock Company Scientific Production Enterprise Topaz;

• Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute Giricond;

• Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute of Computer Engineering NII SVT;

• Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute of Electrical Carbon Products;

• Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute of Electronic and Mechanical Devices;

• Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute of Electronic Engineering Materials;

• Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute of Gas Discharge Devices Plasma;

• Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute of Industrial Television Rastr;

• Joint Stock Company Scientific Research Institute of Precision Mechanical Engineering;

• Joint Stock Company Shipbuilding Corporation Ak Bars;

• Joint Stock Company Special Design Bureau of Computer Engineering;

• Joint Stock Company Special Design Bureau of Control Means;

• Joint Stock Company Special Design Bureau Turbina;

• Joint Stock Company Special Relay System Design and Engineering Bureau;

• Joint Stock Company State Missile Center Named After Akademika V.P. Makeyeva;

• Joint Stock Company State Scientific Research Institute Kristall;

• Joint Stock Company Svetlana Semiconductors;

• Joint Stock Company Tekhnodinamika;

• Joint Stock Company the Institute of Electronic Control Computers Named After I.S. Bruk;

• Joint Stock Company Vologda Optical and Mechanical Plant;

• Joint Stock Company Voronezh Semiconductor Devices Factory Assembly;

• Joint Stock Company Vyatka Machine-Building Enterprise Avitek;

• Joint Stock Company Zelenograd Nanotechnology Center,

• KAMAZ Publicly Traded Company;

• Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

• Limited Liability Company Research and Production Association Radiovolna;

• Limited Liability Company RSB-Group;

• Mitishinskiy Scientific Research Institute of Radio Measuring Instruments;

• OOO Adis,

• Open Joint Stock Company Ilyushin Aviation Complex;

• Open Joint Stock Company Khabarovsk Radio Engineering Plant;

• Open Joint Stock Company Mariyskiy Machine-Building Plant;

• Open Joint Stock Company Scientific and Production Enterprise Pulsar;

• Papilon Systems Limited Liability Company,

• Public Joint Stock Company Kremny,

• Public Joint Stock Company Megafon;

• Public Joint Stock Company Tutaev Motor Plant;

• Public Joint Stock Company Vympel Interstate Corporation;

• RT-Inform Limited Liability Company;

• Skolkovo Foundation;

• Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology;

• State Flight Testing Center Named After V.P. Chkalov;

• Technopark Skolkovo Limited Liability Company, and

• VisionLabs Limited Liability Company.

The ERC determined to modify four entities (Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies, Public Joint Stock Company Moscow Institute of Electro Mechanics and Automation; Meteor Plant; Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology; and Obninsk Research and Production Enterprise) on the Entity List under the destination of Russia by revising the aliases, addresses and license requirement for these entries. Four additional aliases are being added to the entry for Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies, Public Joint Stock Company Moscow Institute of Electro Mechanics and Automation; two aliases are being added to the entry for Meteor Plant JSC, three additional aliases are being added to the entry for Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology, and two aliases are being added to the entry for Obninsk Research and Production Enterprise (ORPE). The addresses for the four entities are also being revised for clarification purposes only. The license requirement for all four entities is being revised to read “Policy of denial” as these entities have acquired and attempted to acquire U.S.-origin items in support of Russia's military.

For the changes being made in this final rule, shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), on February 24, 2023, pursuant to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or within a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR).

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.

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

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and commodity classifications, and carries a burden estimate of 29.4 minutes for a manual or electronic submission for a total burden estimate of 33,133 hours. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule.

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

4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.

5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

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

Background

The Entity List (supplement no. 4 to part 744 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774)) identifies entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the entities have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to § 744.11(b). The EAR impose additional license requirements on, and limit the availability of, most license exceptions for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) when a listed entity is a party to the transaction. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the “License Review Policy” column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant Federal Register document that added the entity to the Entity List. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) places entities on the Entity List pursuant to part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

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

The ERC determined to add AOOK Technology Ltd., under the destination of China; CPUNTO Inc., under the destination of Canada; Dexias Industrial Products and Trade Limited Company, under the destination of Russia; Electronic Network Inc., under the destination of Canada; Innovation and Technologies LLC, under the destination of Russia; and Promtekhkomplekt JSC, under the destination of Russia, to the Entity List. These additions are based on information that these companies significantly contribute to Russia's military and/or defense industrial base and are involved in activities contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests under §§ 744.11 and 744.21 of the EAR. These entities will receive a footnote 3 designation because the ERC has determined that they are Russian or Belarusian `military end users' in accordance with § 744.21. A footnote 3 designation subjects these entities to the Russia/Belarus-Military End User Foreign Direct Product (FDP) rule, detailed under § 734.9(g). These entities are added with a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR. License applications will be reviewed under a policy of denial for all items subject to the EAR, other than applications for food and medicine designated as EAR99, which will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

The ERC determined to add Beijing Ti-Tech Science and Technology Development Co., under the destination of China; Beijing Yunze Technology Co., Ltd., under the destination of China; China HEAD Aerospace Technology Co., under the destinations of China, France, and the Netherlands; and Spacety Co., Ltd., under the destinations of China and Luxembourg, to the Entity List. These additions are based on information that these companies significantly contribute to Russia's military and/or defense industrial base and are involved in activities contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests under §§ 744.11 and 744.21 of the EAR. These entities will receive a footnote 3 designation because the ERC has determined that they are Russian or Belarusian `military end users' in accordance with § 744.21. A footnote 3 designation subjects these entities to the Russia/Belarus-Military End User Foreign Direct Product (FDP) rule, detailed under § 734.9(g). These entities are added with a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR. License applications for these entities will be reviewed under a policy of denial for all items subject to the EAR, other than applications for food and medicine designated as EAR99, which will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

For the reasons described above, this final rule adds the following 10 entities under 13 entries to the Entity List and includes, where appropriate, aliases:

• CPUNTO Inc., and

• Electronic Network Inc.

• AOOK Technology Ltd.,

• Beijing Ti-Tech Science and Technology Development Co.,

• Beijing Yunze Technology Co., Ltd.,

• China HEAD Aerospace Technology Co., and

• Spacety Co. Ltd.

• China HEAD Aerospace Technology Co.

• Spacety Co., Ltd.

• China HEAD Aerospace Technology Co.

• Dexias Industrial Products and Trade Limited Company,

• Innovation and Technologies LLC, and

• Promtekhkomplekt JSC.

BIS notes that this rule is meant to serve as a response to Russian aggression against Ukraine. This rule does include entities in several allied and partnered countries, but is not an action against the countries in which the entities are located or registered or the governments of those countries. This rule only serves as an action against those entities listed, which have assisted the Russian military, contrary to U.S. foreign and national security policy interests.

For the changes being made in this final rule, shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), on February 24th, pursuant to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or within a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR).

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.

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

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and commodity classifications, and carries a burden estimate of 29.4 minutes for a manual or electronic submission for a total burden estimate of 33,133 hours. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule.

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

4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.

5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

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

I. Background

In response to Russia's February 2022 further invasion of Ukraine, BIS imposed extensive sanctions on Russia under the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) (EAR) as part of the final rule Implementation of Sanctions Against Russia Under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (the Russia Sanctions Rule), effective on February 24, 2022, and published on March 3, 2022 (87 FR 12226). Effective March 2, 2022, BIS also imposed similar sanctions on Belarus under the EAR in a final rule, Implementation of Sanctions Against Belarus (“Belarus Sanctions Rule”), published on March 8, 2022 (87 FR 13048). Since the publication of the Russia Sanctions Rule and the Belarus Sanctions Rule, BIS has published several other final rules imposing stringent export controls on Russia and Belarus. These actions reflect the U.S. Government's position that Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and Belarus's complicity in the invasion, flagrantly violated international law, are contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, and undermine global order, peace, and security.

The export control measures in this final rule build upon the policy objectives set forth in the earlier rules referenced above. The adoption of these measures, undertaken in part to better align U.S. controls with stringent measures implemented by partner and ally countries, will enhance the effectiveness of the multilateral sanctions on Russia by further limiting access to items that enable Russia's military capabilities and sources of revenue that could support those capabilities. Additionally, the new or expanded controls specified in this rule target Belarus as part of the U.S. response to the country's complicity in Russia's aggression.

This rule revises the EAR to enhance and strengthen the existing sanctions against Russia and Belarus by expanding the scope of the Russian and Belarusian industry sector sanctions and the `luxury goods' sanctions to better align them with the controls that have been implemented by U.S. allies and partners imposing substantially similar controls on Russia and Belarus. For similar policy reasons, this rule also refines other existing controls on Russia and Belarus that were imposed in response to the February 2022 further invasion of Ukraine.

This rule enhances and strengthens the sanctions that have been implemented on Russia and Belarus under the EAR, as described under Sections A and B below. The regulatory revisions described under Section A. Imposition of new export controls on Russia and Belarus, including to align the EAR's controls with those imposed by U.S. allies and partners, include:

• Revisions to the sanctions under supplement no. 2 to part 746 to make conforming changes with other supplements (supplements nos. 4 and 6 to part 746) used under the Russian and Belarusian Industry Sector Sanctions to provide alignment with sanctions imposed by U.S. partners and allies, and make the EAR sanctions stronger, more effective, and easier to understand;

• Expansion of Russian Industry Sector Sanctions under supplement no. 4 to part 746 by adding additional items to align the sanctions with sanctions imposed by U.S. partners and allies and by making other changes to render the EAR's sanctions stronger, more effective, and easier to understand;

• Expansion of Russian Industry Sector Sanctions under supplement no. 6 to part 746 by adding additional items to align them with sanctions imposed by U.S. partners and allies and by making other changes to render the EAR's sanctions stronger, more effective, and easier to understand;

• Expansion of `Luxury Goods' Sanctions by adding additional items to supplement no. 5 to part 746 to align them with sanctions imposed by U.S. allies and partners; and

• Alignment changes to supplement no. 3 to part 746 of the EAR (Countries Excluded from Certain License Requirements of §§ 746.7 and 746.8) to add Taiwan.

The remaining changes are described under Section B. Corrections and clarifications to existing controls on Russian and Belarus. The changes described under Section B include:

• Clarification that § 744.7 extends to transfers (in-country), in addition to exports and reexports;

• Clarification that the exclusion for items controlled under ECCN 5A992 or 5D992 under § 746.8 also applies to `Luxury Goods Sanctions' license requirements under § 746.10(a)(1); and

• Conforming changes to the licensing policies under §§ 746.5, 746.8, and 746.10 and addition of a case-by-case license review policy for applications for the disposition of items needed as part of companies curtailing or closing all operations in Russia or Belarus.

This rule expands the scope of the Russian Industry Sector Sanctions by adding additional items to supplement no. 4 to part 746 that will require a license under § 746.5(a)(1)(ii), as described further below. This rule also expands the scope of the “Luxury Goods” Sanctions by adding additional items to supplement no. 5 to part 746 that will require a license under § 746.10, as described further below.

a. Clarifying changes to the heading of supplement no. 2 to part 746.

In supplement no. 2 to part 746—Russian Industry Sector Sanctions, this rule makes a clarifying change by revising the section heading to add Belarus and a reference to § 746.5(a)(1)(i). These two changes are made to conform this supplement's heading with the same heading structure used in the other two supplements used to identify items that require a license under the Russian and Belarusian Industry Sector Sanctions, i.e., supplements nos. 4 and 6. These two clarifying changes are intended to make it easier for exporters, reexporters, and transferors to understand the scope of supplement no. 2 to part 746 and to create greater consistency in the three supplement headings used to identify items that require a license if destined for Russian and Belarusian industry sectors.

b. Changing the methodology for identifying items by using the HTS-6 Code and HTS Description to make it easier to align with U.S. allies' and partners' controls.

In supplement no. 2 to part 746, this rule revises the table to remove the columns for `Schedule B' and `Schedule B description' and adds in their place columns to identify the same set of items but by using the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)-6 Code and HTS Description. With these changes in the methodology used to identify items, the supplement will now utilize HTS-6 Codes and HTS Descriptions, instead of the applicable Schedule B number and Schedule B Description. This change aligns the underlying controls with those of U.S. allies and partners who are generally using the HS-6 Codes and HS Descriptions, which are equivalent to the HTS-6 Codes and HTS Descriptions used under the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Because the HS-6 Codes and HS Descriptions are recognized and used internationally, it will make it easier to align the EAR controls with those of U.S. allies and partners.

c. Conforming changes to supplement no. 2 to part 746 introductory text to reflect the use of the HTS-6 Codes and HTS Descriptions and to better align this supplement with supplement no. 4 to part 746 introductory text.

This rule makes a conforming change that revises the introductory text of supplement no. 2 to part 746 to remove references to the Schedule B numbers and Schedule B descriptions and adds in their place references to the applicable HTS-6 codes and HTS descriptions, as well as specifying that the source for the HTS-6 codes and descriptions in this list comes from the United States International Trade Commission (USITC's) Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2023). The revised introductory text to supplement no. 2 is modeled after the same type of description text as used in supplement no. 4 to part 746 and is similarly intended to make it easier for exporters, reexporters, and transferors to understand and comply with the EAR's Russian and Belarusian industry sector sanctions as a whole. The rule also revises the sentence in the introductory text by removing references to three Schedule B numbers that were listed in both supplements nos. 2 and 4 prior to this rule and identifying instead the applicable six HTS-6 codes: 841350, 841360, 842139, 843049, 843139, and 847989.

d. Expansion and clarification of supplement no. 2 to part 746 to strengthen the controls by specifying that the supplement includes any modified or designed “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” for the items identified in the table to better align the supplement with supplement no. 4 to part 746.

Also in supplement no. 2 to part 746, this rule expands the scope of the items that are subject to the Russian and Belarusian Industry Sector Sanctions by revising newly added paragraph (a) in the introductory text to specify that the items captured include any modified or designed “components,” “parts,” “accessories,” and “attachments” therefor, regardless of their HTS Code or HTS Description.” In many cases these “components,” “parts,” “accessories,” and “attachments” are not specifically identified by HTS Code or HTS Description. Paragraph (a) also specifies that the expansion does not include any “part” or minor “component” that is a fastener ( e.g., screw, bolt, nut, nut plate, stud, insert, clip, rivet, pin), washer, spacer, insulator, grommet, bushing, spring, wire, or solder. By expanding the scope of the items set forth in the supplement in this manner, this revision aligns this aspect of supplement no. 2 with supplement no. 4, which also already included the same text for “components,” “parts,” “accessories,” and “attachments,” and generally promotes and enhances the strength and effectiveness of the sanctions set forth in this supplement.

e. Clarifications to supplement no. 2 to part 746 introductory text to specify that the scope of the license requirement applies to an item's HTS-6 Code and describe how such information relates to other information in the supplement's table, as well as to content describing other HTS Codes that are longer but still derived from HTS-6 Codes.

This rule adds a new paragraph (b) to specify that the items identified in the HTS-6 Code column of supplement no. 2 to part 746 are the items that are subject to the license requirement under § 746.5(a)(1)(i). This rule adds one sentence to paragraph (b) to clarify that that HTS Description is included as a column heading under the table to assist exporters with their Automated Export System (AES) filing responsibilities and to have a better idea of the types of items that fall under specific HTS-6 Codes. This rule also adds a sentence to specify that the HTS-6 Code governs in determining the license requirement. For example, if an exporter “knows” their item is classified under an HTS-6 Code in supplement no. 2 to part 746, but does not believe that their item matches the corresponding HTS Description in supplement no. 2 to part 746, the HTS-6 Code will control for determining the license requirement under § 746.5(a)(1)(i). Likewise, if someone believes their item could potentially meet the description of more than one HTS Description, the HTS-6 Code will control. As noted above, the HTS Description is intended to assist exporters with their AES filing responsibilities but does not govern whether an item is identified under supplement no. 2 to part 746. Lastly, this rule adds a sentence to new paragraph (b) to clarify that the license requirements extend to HTS Codes at the 8 and 10 digit level when those HTS-8 and HTS-10 codes begin with the HTS-6 Codes as their first 6 numbers. This text is intended to prevent an exporter from identifying an item at the 8 or 10 digit level as a way to try to evade these controls. If the 8 or 10 digit code for the item begins with one of the HTS-6 Codes (that is, matches the first six numbers of the latter) that are specified in the table, the item will require a license under § 746.5(a)(1)(i).

BIS estimates these changes to supplement no. 2 to part 746 will result in an additional two license applications submitted to BIS annually.

a. Expansion of the controls by adding 322 HTS-6 Codes to supplement no. 4 to part 746.

In supplement no. 4 to part 746—Russian and Belarusian Industry Sector Sanctions pursuant to § 746.5(a)(1)(ii), this rule expands the scope of the Russian and Belarusian Industry Sector Sanctions by adding 322 additional HTS-6 Code entries corresponding to 322 industrial items that will require a license for export or reexport to or transfer within Russia or Belarus under § 746.5(a)(1)(ii). The restrictions on these additional industrial items are intended to further undermine the Russian and Belarusian industrial bases and their ability to continue to support the Russian invasion of and subsequent military aggression in Ukraine. The items added include a variety of electronics, industrial machinery, and equipment. The complete list of 322 new HTS-6 Codes this rule adds to supplement no. 4 are as follows: 720810, 720825, 720826, 720827, 720836, 720837, 720838, 720839, 720840, 720851, 720852, 720853, 720854, 720890, 720915, 720916, 720917, 720918, 720925, 720926, 720927, 720928, 720990, 721011, 721012, 721020, 721030, 721041, 721049, 721050, 721061, 721069, 721070, 721119, 721123, 721190, 721220, 721230, 721240, 721250, 721911, 721912, 721913, 721914, 721921, 721922, 721923, 721924, 721931, 721932, 721933, 721934, 721935, 721990, 722011, 722012, 722020, 722090, 722511, 722540, 722550, 722591, 722592, 722611, 722619, 722620, 722692, 722699, 730810, 730820, 730830, 730840, 730890, 731021, 731029, 761010, 761090, 761210, 840410, 840420, 840490, 840510, 840681, 840682, 840721, 840729, 840810, 840820, 840890, 840999, 841090, 841111, 841112, 841121, 841122, 841191, 841311, 841319, 841330, 841350, 841360, 841381, 841410, 841610, 841620, 841630, 841690, 841720, 841919, 841950, 841960, 841990, 842111, 842611, 842619, 842620, 842630, 842641, 842649, 842691, 842710, 842790, 842831, 842870, 842911, 842920, 842930, 842940, 842951, 842952, 843049, 843120, 843139, 843141, 844319, 845420, 845490, 845522, 845530, 845620, 845640, 845710, 845730, 845811, 845819, 845891, 845899, 845921, 845931, 845941, 845961, 846012, 846019, 846022, 846023, 846024, 846029, 846031, 846039, 846040, 846222, 846223, 846224, 846225, 846226, 846229, 846232, 846233, 846239, 846242, 846249, 846251, 846259, 846261, 846262, 846263, 846269, 846290, 846310, 846320, 846330, 846390, 846410, 846420, 846490, 846691, 846693, 846694, 846810, 846820, 846880, 847330, 847431, 847730, 847981, 847982, 848130, 848250, 848310, 848320, 848330, 848340, 848350, 848360, 848390, 848520, 848530, 848590, 848610, 848620, 848630, 848640, 848710, 850153, 850211, 850212, 850300, 850511, 850590, 850710, 850720, 851110, 851120, 851130, 851140, 851150, 851180, 851190, 851220, 851290, 851411, 851419, 851420, 851490, 851511, 851519, 851521, 851529, 851680, 851771, 851779, 852351, 852581, 852582, 852583, 852589, 852610, 852721, 852849, 852910, 853080, 853221, 853224, 853229, 853230, 853290, 853400, 853510, 853521, 853650, 853690, 853810, 853929, 853951, 853952, 854121, 854129, 854130, 854141, 854142, 854143, 854149, 854320, 854330, 854411, 854430, 854449, 854470, 854520, 854710, 854800, 854911, 854912, 854913, 854914, 854919, 854921, 854929, 854931, 854939, 854991, 854999, 870310, 870423, 870510, 870540, 871690, 900110, 900510, 900580, 900590, 901380, 901410, 901420, 901480, 901490, 901510, 901520, 902480, 902519, 902590, 902710, 902781, 902789, 902920, 902990, 903032, 903039, 903040, 903082, and 903089.

b. Removal of Schedule B and Schedule B Description columns under supplement no. 4 to part 746 to make it easier to understand the supplement's scope and to align the controls with those imposed by U.S. allies and partners.

Also in supplement no. 4 to part 746, this rule revises the table to remove the columns for Schedule B and Schedule B Description while retaining the existing HTS Code and HTS Description columns. With these changes, the supplement will now utilize HTS-6 Code and the HTS Description, instead of the Schedule B and Schedule B Description. This change aligns the underlying controls with those of U.S. allies and partners who generally use HS-6 Codes and HS Descriptions, which are equivalent to the HTS-6 Codes and HTS Descriptions used under the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Because the HS-6 Codes and HS Descriptions are recognized and used internationally, these changes will make it easier to align these EAR controls with those of U.S. allies and partners.

c. Revision to the column used to identify the license requirement under supplement no. 4 to part 746 to use the HTS-6 Code column instead of the HTS Description column.

Prior to this rule, the supplement no. 4 to part 746 introductory text specified that the HTS Description column is determinative in identifying the items that require a license under § 746.5(a)(1)(ii). BIS determined that in making changes to align the EAR's controls in this supplement with those imposed by U.S. allies and partners, it would be preferable from a consistency and precision perspective to make the HTS-6 Code, as opposed to the HTS Description, be the determinative factor in assessing licensing obligations under § 746.5(a)(1)(ii). While using the HTS-6 Code instead of the HTS Description may result in some additional items being subject to the license requirements under § 746.5(a)(1)(ii), as a general matter, using the HTS-6 column will make it easier for exporters, reexporters, and transferors to understand and comply with these controls. This revision may also facilitate the licensing of these items by BIS. The use of the HTS-6 Code to identify the items subject to the license requirement under § 746.5(a)(1)(ii) will also help to improve the effectiveness of enforcement-related activities because it will be easier for BIS and other U.S. Government enforcement officials to identify items that require a license under supplement no. 4 to part 746 due to the fact that if there is a match between an HTS-6 Code in the Electronic Export Information (EEI) data filed in the Automated Export System (AES) and an HTS-6 Code identified under supplement no. 4 to part 746, a license will be required for the export of the item at issue.

d. Clarifications to the supplement no. 4 to part 746 introductory text to specify how the HTS-6 Codes relate to other information in the table, as well as to content referring to other HTS Codes that are longer but derived from HTS-6 Codes.

Similar to the clarifications described above to the supplement no. 2 to part 746 introductory text, this rule revises paragraph (b) under the supplement no. 4 to part 746 introductory text to clarify that that HTS Description is included as a column heading under the table to assist exporters with their AES filing responsibilities, as well as to provide them with clarity regarding the types of items that fall under specific HTS-6 Codes. This rule also adds a sentence to specify that the HTS-6 Code governs in determining the license requirement. As with the example provided above for supplement no. 2 to part 746 where an exporter believes more than one HTS Description may apply to their item, the HTS-6 Code governs the license requirements for the items set forth in supplement no. 4 to part 746. Lastly, this rule adds a sentence to new paragraph (b) to clarify that the license requirements extend to HTS Codes at the 8 and 10 digit level when those HTS-8 and HTS-10 codes begin with the HTS-6 Codes as their first 6 numbers. This text is intended to prevent an exporter from identifying an item at the 8 or 10 digit level as a way to try to evade these controls. If the 8 or 10 digit code begins with the six numbers of one of the HTS-6 Codes in the table, it will require a license under § 746.5(a)(1)(i).

BIS estimates these changes to supplement no. 4 to part 746 will result in an additional 10 license applications submitted to BIS annually.

In supplement no. 6 to part 746, this rule expands the list of items that require a license under § 746.5(a)(1)(iii) to better align these Russian and Belarusian Russian Industry Sector Sanctions with the U.S. allies' and partners' controls. This rule also makes certain clarifying changes to facilitate understanding of the controls, such as adding explanatory notes. Specifically, this rule makes the following changes to supplement no. 6 to part 746:

a. Under paragraph (c), by expanding the scope of the paragraph to add `thiafentanil' as an additional chemical to align with controls imposed by U.S. allies and partners on the same chemical.

b. Under paragraph (e), this rule makes the following changes:

Under paragraph (e)(4) this rule clarifies the scope of items controlled by adding the words “isolated or purified' before the references to nucleotides and oligonucleotides and by adding an `and' between the terms nucleotides and oligonucleotides. This rule also deletes the phrase `and reagents for oligonucleotide synthesis' and the `or' at the end of the paragraph. These words are no longer needed because of the greater specificity that has been added by the other changes to this paragraph. Additionally, due to the addition of new paragraphs (e)(6) and (7), the `or' is no longer needed between paragraphs (e)(4) and (5).

Under paragraph (e)(5), this rule clarifies the scope of items controlled by adding the words “isolated or purified' before amino acids, peptides, and proteins. This rule also adds an `and' between the terms peptides and proteins and deletes the phrase `and resins and reagents for peptide synthesis at the end of the paragraph. This deletion is being made in light of the greater specificity that has been added with the other changes to paragraph (e)(5).

This rule adds a new paragraph (e)(6) to control reagents and materials for oligonucleotide synthesis, n.e.s. This rule also adds a new paragraph (e)(7) to control resins, reagents, and materials for peptide synthesis under the Russian and Belarusian Industry Sector Sanctions set forth in § 746.5(a)(1)(iii). These expansions are made to align with the U.S. allies' and partners' controls on these items and to further strengthen the EAR's controls.

c. Under paragraph (f), this rule makes the following changes:

Under paragraph (f)(1), this rule removes the term `fermenters' because it is not needed for defining the scope of the control, as fermenters are listed under paragraph (f)(12) of this rule. This change is made to align this control with the controls imposed by the U.S. allies and partners and to make it easier for exporters to understand the scope of the control.

Under paragraph (f)(2), this rule removes the phrase `in which all surfaces that come into direct contact with the chemicals being processed are made from controlled materials' and in its place adds the broader term `n.e.s.' This phrase was removed because the words `controlled materials' was confusing from a compliance perspective. Under paragraph (f)(3), this rule adds the term “components” to the scope of the control and adds quotes around the terms “parts” and “accessories” to clarify that these terms are defined terms under the EAR. This clarification addresses questions that BIS has received from exporters regarding whether consumables are captured under paragraph (f)(3). As described below, this rule adds a note to paragraph (f) to specify that “components, parts, and accessories” include consumables.

Under paragraph (f)(10), this rule expands the scope of the control by adding `and microarrays' after well plates. This term is added to better achieve the intended scope of the control and to strengthen it.

Under paragraph (f)(13), this rule clarifies the scope of the paragraph by adding the term “and ultracentrifuges” and by adding quotes around the EAR-defined terms “components” and “accessories.” Biological sample separation capabilities capture `ultracentrifuges' as well as `centrifuges.' The addition of the term `ultracentrifuges' will make the scope of the control parameter clearer.

Under paragraphs (f)(14) through (17), this rule expands their scope by adding the defined EAR terms “components,” “parts,” and “accessories.” These terms are added to better achieve the intended scope of these controls, to better align them with U.S. allies' and partners' controls, and to strengthen the EAR's controls. In addition, under paragraph (f)(16), this rule adds the term `and qPCR' to clarify that these types of instruments are caught under the control parameter in addition to Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) instruments. While `qPCR' instruments already fell under the scope of the paragraph (e)(16) control parameter, this added text will make it clearer and better align with the U.S. allies' and partners' controls, which reference the term `qPCR.'

Under paragraph (f)(18), this rule adds quotes around the EAR-defined terms “components,” “parts,” and “accessories” and adds the term “n.e.s.' to clarify the scope of this control parameter.

Under paragraph (f)(19), this rule expands the scope of the paragraph by adding the EAR-defined terms “components,” “parts,” and “accessories.” These terms are added to better achieve the intended scope of these controls and strengthen them, as well as better align them with U.S. allies' and partners' controls.

Under paragraph (f)(22), this rule removes the word `or' because it is no longer needed with the addition of new paragraphs (f)(24) through (27) described below.

Under paragraph (f)(23), this rule expands the scope of the paragraph by adding the EAR-defined terms “parts” and “accessories,” as well as adding term `n.e.s.' These terms are added to better achieve the intended scope of these controls and strengthen them, as well as better align them with U.S. allies' and partners' controls.

This rule adds a new paragraph (f)(24) to control “microreactors, n.e.s.” This rule adds a new paragraph (f)(25) to control `solid and liquid aerosol generating equipment, n.e.s.'; a new paragraph (f)(26) to control `laboratory milling equipment, “components,” “parts,” and “accessories,” n.e.s.'; and a new paragraph (f)(27) to control `peptide synthesizers, “components,” “parts,” and “accessories.” These expansions are made to align BIS's controls with the controls that U.S. allies and partners have imposed on these items and to strengthen them.

As mentioned above, this rule also adds a new Note 6 to paragraph (f). The new note clarifies that consistent with the definitions in part 772 of the EAR, “components,” “parts,” and “accessories” include consumables. The clarifications to paragraph (f), along with the new Note 6 to paragraph (f), will clarify that consumables are within the scope of the control parameters.

Lastly, under paragraph (f)(23), this rule revises Technical Note 1 to paragraph (f)(23) to specify that consistent with EU List X.B.X.001, for purposes of paragraph (f)(23), `continuous flow reactors' consist of plug and play systems. This revised technical note clarifies that these are plug and play systems in which reactants are continuously fed into the reactor and the resultant product is collected at the outlet.

BIS estimates these changes to supplement no. 2 to part 746 will result in an additional 10 license applications submitted to BIS annually.

In supplement no. 5 to part 746—`Luxury Goods' Sanctions for Russia and Belarus Pursuant to § 746.10(a)(1) and (2), this rule expands the scope of the `Luxury Goods' Sanctions by adding two hundred and seventy-six additional entries that will require a license for export or reexport to or transfers within Russia or Belarus and for designated Russian and Belarusian oligarchs and malign actors worldwide under § 746.10(a)(1) and (2). The restrictions on these additional items are intended to impose additional costs on Russians and Belarusians supporting the Russian government's invasion of Ukraine. The items this rule adds include a variety of `luxury goods.' The addition of these items will strengthen BIS's controls under the EAR and also align them with the controls imposed by U.S. allies and partners on these items.

BIS estimates these changes to supplement no. 5 to part 746 will result in an additional 15 license applications submitted to BIS annually.

As noted above, in response to Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine and Belarus's s complicity in the invasion, BIS imposed extensive export controls on Russia and Belarus under the EAR. However, certain of the new licensing requirements pertaining to foreign-produced items under § 746.8 do not apply to countries that have committed to implementing substantially similar export controls on Russia and Belarus under their domestic laws. These countries are listed in supplement no. 3. to part 746 of the EAR. Pursuant to § 746.8(a)(5) of the EAR, countries that have made such a commitment receive full or partial exclusions, as appropriate, from the Foreign Direct Product rules' license requirements set forth under § 746.8(a)(2) and (3), as well as under § 746.7(a)(1)(iii), as a result of a revision included in another rule published in today's Federal Register that revised supplement no. 3 to part 746 as described further below. Similarly, in the case of such “excluded” countries, the license requirements in § 746.8(a)(1) are not used to determine U.S.-origin controlled content under the EAR's de minimis rules, as set forth in supplement no. 2 to part 734 of the EAR, provided that the criteria in § 746.8(a)(5)(i) and (ii) are met.

Pursuant to the Russia Sanctions rule, 32 countries were added to new supplement no. 3. In March 2022, BIS published a rule that added South Korea to the list of countries, 1 and in April 2022, it published a rule that added Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland to the list. 2 Taiwan has implemented measures on Russia and Belarus that are substantially similar to those imposed by BIS. In this rule, in recognition of Taiwan's implementation of such measures, BIS is adding Taiwan to supplement no. 3 to part 746 of the EAR with the designation of “full.”

Lastly, this rule makes a conforming change to the heading of supplement no. 3 to part 746 to conform with a revision that is being made by another final rule published in today's issue of the Federal Register , Export Control Measures on Iran Under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to Address Iranian Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and Their Use by Russia Against Ukraine, that is revising the heading of supplement no. 3 to part 746.

BIS estimates the changes described in Section B of this final rule will not result in the submission of any additional license applications to BIS. Some of the clarifications this rule makes were also described above under Section A where the clarifications and expansions were being made to the same EAR section or supplement. The corrections and clarifications under Section B do not include expansion of the controls, which includes the clarifications to § 744.7.

In § 744.7, this rule adds the term “transfer (in-country)” wherever the terms “exports” and “reexports” occur to clarify that the license requirements of this section also apply to transfers (in-country). BIS is making this clarification as part of this rule due to the increased importance of this part 744 end-use control for imposing license requirements for Russian and Belarusian aircraft and vessels. In addition, BIS has received a number of questions recently from the public on whether the controls extend to transfers (in-country). These questioners have typically requested confirmation that their understanding is correct that the § 744.7 requirements included transfers (in-country), indicating that there is not a misunderstanding of this provision by the exporting community. However, to provide further guidance to exporters and to help further strengthen understanding and compliance with the Russia and Belarus sanctions related to items being exported, reexported, transferred (in-country) to such aircraft or vessels, this rule adds transfer (in-country) to § 744.7.

In § 746.10 (`Luxury goods' sanctions against Russia and Belarus and Russian and Belarusian oligarchs and malign actors), this rule adds introductory text to paragraph (a) to clarify that the same exclusion for ECCNs 5A992 or 5D992 under § 746.8(a) introductory text also applies to the `luxury goods' sanctions under § 746.10(a)(1). This exclusion text is added to ensure that the `luxury goods' license requirements under § 746.10(a)(1) do not undermine the scope of the ECCNs 5A992 and 5D992 exclusion under § 746.8 because certain items under supplement no. 5 to part 746 are also classified under ECCNs 5A992 or 5D992, which effectively negates some of the exclusion under § 746.8. This rule addresses this by adding the same exclusion text for ECCNs 5A992 and 5D992, so that the license requirement under § 746.10(a)(1) does not impose a separate license requirement on items that are within the scope of the exclusion text in § 746.8.

In §§ 746.5, 746.8, and 746.10, this rule makes two changes to the license review policies of these sections to make conforming changes and to add one additional case-by-case license review policy.

a. Conforming changes to the license review policies in §§ 746.5, 746.8, and 746.10.

In §§ 746.5(b)(1) and (2) and 746.10(b), this rule makes conforming changes to each of the licensing policies to conform to the structure of the licensing policy paragraph under § 746.8(b). This rule does so by revising each of the sentences that specifies the policy of denial license review policy by adding a period and then adding a new sentence adding the same case-by-case license review policy text to §§ 746.5(b)(1) and (2) and 746.10(b), as is currently found in § 746.8(b). These changes also specify that license applications under those sections, will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the transaction in question would benefit the Russian or Belarusian government or defense sector.

b. Addition of case-by-case license review policy for applications for the disposition of items by companies curtailing or closing all operations in Russia or Belarus.

In §§ 746.5(b)(1) and (2), 746.8(b), and 746.10(b), this rule adds a new case-by-case license review policy for applications for the disposition of items by companies not headquartered in Country Group D:1, D:5, E:1 or E:2 that are curtailing or closing all operations in Russia or Belarus. Companies deciding to curtail or close all operations in Russia put further pressure on the Russian government and on the Russian and Belarusian defense industrial base, as their departure will hollow out both countries' industrial capacity and economy, which may lead to further degradation of their defense industrial base. BIS encourages companies to exit the Russian and Belarusian markets and is making these changes to facilitate such decisions. In curtailing or closing operations in Russia or Belarus, many companies and other entities have encountered difficulties, such as issues related to the disposition of items subject to the EAR that may be too large or cost-prohibitive to remove from Russia. The new case-by-case license review policy added by this rule will facilitate the orderly exit of companies and entities from Russia and Belarus in a manner consistent with U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. As discussed above, BIS will review such license application to determine whether the disposition of these items will benefit the Russian or Belarusian government or military.

For the changes being made in this final rule, shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), on February 24, 2023, pursuant to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or within a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR), provided the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is completed no later than on March 27, 2023.

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (codified, as amended, at 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule. To the extent it applies to certain activities that are the subject of this rule, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) (codified, as amended, at 22 U.S.C. 7201-7211) also serves as authority for this rule.

1. This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” because it “pertain[s]” to a “military or foreign affairs function of the United States” under sec. 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number.

This rule involves the following OMB-approved collections of information subject to the PRA:

• 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 29.4 minutes for a manual or electronic submission;

• 0694-0096 “Five Year Records Retention Period,” which carries a burden hour estimate of less than 1 minute; and

• 0607-0152 “Automated Export System (AES) Program,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 3 minutes per electronic submission.

BIS estimates that these new controls on Russia and Belarus under the EAR will result in an increase of 37 license applications submitted annually to BIS. However, the additional burden falls within the existing estimates currently associated with these control numbers. Additional information regarding these collections of information—including all background materials—can be found at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain by using the search function to enter either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number.

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

4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4821) (ECRA), this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date. While section 1762 of ECRA provides sufficient authority for such an exemption, this action is also independently exempt from these APA requirements because it involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (5. U.S.C. 553(a)(1)).

5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 744 and 746 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) are amended as follows: