Please refer to Docket IDs NRC-2017-0022 and NRC-2008-0173 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket IDs NRC-2017-0022 and NRC-2008-0173.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

Please include Docket IDs NRC-2017-0022 and NRC-2008-0173 in your comment submission. When preparing and submitting your comments, see “Tips for Submitting Effective Comments” in the “Availability of Documents” section.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

On May 28, 1997, the NRC issued § 34.41(a) of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Licenses for Industrial Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Operations,” commonly called “the two-person rule,” which requires a second qualified individual (radiographer or radiographer's assistant) to be present during industrial radiography operations at temporary jobsites. (62 FR 28948). In the preamble for the two-person rule, the NRC stated, “the purpose of the second individual is to provide immediate assistance when required and to prevent unauthorized entry into the restricted area.” (62 FR 28955). The second individual should have “. . . sufficient radiography and safety training to allow him/her to take charge and secure the radioactive material, provide aid where necessary, and prevent access to radiation areas by unauthorized persons.” (62 FR 28955). The NRC has consistently interpreted 10 CFR 34.41(a) to require the second qualified individual to directly observe radiographic operations.

The Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) is a review process that evaluates the adequacy and compatibility of each Agreement State and NRC radioactive materials program. In June 2001, during an IMPEP review, the NRC preliminarily identified that implementation of the two-person rule by the State of Texas Department of Health (Texas) was not compatible with the provisions of 10 CFR 34.41(a). 1 Specifically, the NRC concluded that Texas's regulations are not compatible with 10 CFR 34.41(a) because Texas does not require the second individual to “observe” the operations. For example, the second qualified individual is permitted to perform other job-related duties, such as developing radiographic film in a nearby darkroom, during radiographic operations. In such a case, the second person would not be deemed available to observe and provide immediate assistance in the case of an accident or injury. However, the final IMPEP report found that Texas's performance was satisfactory based on additional performance information provided by Texas at that time. The final IMPEP report recommended that the NRC, in coordination with the Agreement States, reconsider how the rule could be implemented.

The NRC convened a working group with representatives from the OAS in June 2002. 2 The group provided options to an NRC Management Review Board. 3 The Management Review Board recommended that OAS or the State of Texas submit a Petition for Rulemaking (PRM) to the NRC with a request to reevaluate the two-person rule. The NRC agreed to hold in abeyance compatibility findings for inconsistencies identified during all IMPEP reviews related to the issues in the PRM until the issue is resolved.

On November 3, 2005, the OAS submitted a PRM requesting the NRC to amend its regulations in 10 CFR 34.41(a), 34.43(a), and 34.51 related to industrial radiographic operations to: (1) Require that an individual receive a specific amount of radiation safety training before using sources of radiation for industrial radiography; (2) clarify the requirements related to the responsibilities of the second individual that is required to be present during radiographic operations; and (3) clarify how many individuals are required to meet visual surveillance requirements during radiographic operations. The petitioner also requested that NUREG-1556, Volume 2, “Program-Specific Guidance about Industrial Radiography Licenses,”  4 be revised to reflect the proposed amendments. The petitioner asserted that the NRC's interpretation of the two-person rule added unnecessary cost to the industry because the second qualified individual is unavailable to perform other job-related duties such as developing radiographic film in a darkroom. The petitioner requested the NRC delete from the two-person rule the sentence, “[t]he additional qualified individual shall observe the operation and be capable of providing immediate assistance to prevent unauthorized entry.” The petitioner posited that in a temporary jobsite situation in which the crew consists of two qualified radiographers, and the surveillance requirement of 10 CFR 34.51 can be met, that the second individual should be considered available to provide immediate assistance even if the second qualified individual is engaged in job-related duties other than observation of radiographic operations. The petitioner also argued that one of the primary factors identified as a root cause of many industrial radiography overexposures was lack of radiation safety training.

The NRC reviewed the petition and determined that the issues and concerns raised in the petition merited further NRC consideration and inclusion in a future rulemaking (73 FR 27771). Because the rulemaking activity did not raise an immediate safety, environmental, or security concern, it was rated a medium priority. Resources were applied to this rulemaking in fiscal year 2018.

The NRC has previously interpreted § 34.41(a) to require both the radiographer and the second qualified individual to maintain direct observation when radiographic operations are being conducted at a temporary jobsite. 5 This interpretation has been demonstrated, through operating experience, to be unnecessary to protect public health and safety. The NRC is now reinterpreting that requirement.

The regulation uses the term “observe” rather than “directly observe,” and also requires that the second qualified individual “be capable of providing immediate assistance to prevent unauthorized entry.” The NRC's interpretation has been that direct observation is required to ensure the second individual can provide immediate assistance. The two-person rule is intended to ensure that the second individual is able “. . . to take charge and secure the radioactive material, provide aid where necessary, and prevent access to radiation areas by unauthorized persons.” To achieve that purpose, the word “observe” is used to ensure that the second individual can determine when it is necessary to take charge or help the radiographer and prevent unauthorized entry.

Therefore, the NRC now interprets § 34.41 such that the requirements contained in the sentence, “[t]he additional qualified individual shall observe the operation and be capable of providing immediate assistance to prevent unauthorized entry” are met if the second qualified individual is in sufficiently close proximity to the operation and sufficiently aware of the ongoing activities to be able to provide assistance or take charge when necessary and to prevent unauthorized entry. The second individual may perform other tasks nearby so long as they are cognizant of the site-specific circumstances when radiographic operations are in progress. The second individual could, for example, use remote video surveillance to maintain awareness of ongoing radiographic operations from a nearby darkroom.

This interpretation does not affect the NRC's existing guidance for temporary jobsites that have multiple access points. As explained in NUREG-1556, Volume 2, Revision 1, licensees may need two or more individuals present to prevent unauthorized entry at temporary jobsites at facilities with multiple levels and multiple access points, or where members of the public are close to the radiographic operations.

The NRC is not requiring Agreement States to revise their interpretations of § 34.41. As such, and as described below, the NRC hereby changes the compatibility category of § 34.41 from B to C.

Under the “Agreement State Program Policy Statement” approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), NRC program elements (including regulations) are placed into compatibility categories A, B, C, D, NRC, or adequacy category Health and Safety (H&S).

Compatibility Category A program elements are those program elements that are basic radiation protection standards and scientific terms and definitions that are necessary to understand radiation protection concepts. An Agreement State should adopt Category A program elements in an essentially identical manner in order to provide uniformity in the regulation of agreement material on a nationwide basis.

Compatibility Category B program elements are those program elements that apply to activities that have direct and significant effects in multiple jurisdictions. An Agreement State should adopt Category B program elements in an essentially identical manner.

Compatibility Category C program elements are those program elements that do not meet the criteria of Category A or B, but contain the essential objectives that an Agreement State should adopt to avoid conflict, duplication, gaps, or other conditions that would jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of agreement material on a national basis. An Agreement State should adopt the essential objectives of the Category C program elements.

Compatibility Category D program elements are those program elements that do not meet any of the criteria of Category A, B, or C and, therefore, do not need to be adopted by Agreement States for purposes of compatibility.

Compatibility Category NRC program elements are those program elements that address areas of regulation that cannot be relinquished to the Agreement States under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or provisions of 10 CFR. These program elements should not be adopted by the Agreement States.

Adequacy Category H&S program elements are program elements that are required because of a particular health and safety role in the regulation of agreement material within the State and should be adopted in a manner that embodies the essential objectives of the NRC program.

The NRC is changing the compatibility category designation for § 34.41(a) from B to C. Instead of requiring Agreement States to adopt this regulation in an essentially identical manner, they would now be able to implement regulations that are more restrictive than the NRC requirements, provided that the essential objective is met, and the State requirements do not jeopardize an orderly pattern of regulation of agreement material on a nationwide basis. The NRC, with the benefit of over 20 years of experience with Agreement States' implementing differing interpretations of the two-person rule, has determined that essentially identical implementation is not necessary to provide an orderly pattern of regulation. Despite differences in implementation of the two-person rule, the NRC is not aware of any cross-jurisdictional boundary issues for the National Materials Program. Therefore, § 34.41(a) is hereby redesignated Compatibility Category C.

The essential objective of § 34.41(a) is to have a second qualified individual maintain awareness of the radiographic operations, maintain direct communications with the radiographer, and be capable of providing immediate assistance to the radiographer or taking charge when necessary, and to prevent unauthorized entry into a restricted area. To meet the essential objective of Compatibility Category C, the Agreement State may either adopt the NRC's position or may continue to require direct observation of radiographic operations by the second qualified individual at temporary jobsites. Agreement States may also adopt other more restrictive requirements.

The NRC is requesting comments on this interpretation and the change from Compatibility Category B to C for the surveillance requirements in § 34.41(a). The NRC will publish a document in the Federal Register containing an evaluation of the significant comments and any revisions to this interpretation made as a result of the comments and their evaluation.

The NRC will evaluate comments received on this notification of interpretation to determine if the petition issues related to the two-person rule in PRM-34-6 are resolved. This notification of interpretation makes § 34.41(a) consistent with the requirement of § 34.51 that at least one of the two individuals present at a temporary jobsite “maintain direct observation of the operation.”

In addition, the NRC has reviewed the petition regarding training requirements and has concluded, based on associated operational experience since 1997, that current requirements in § 34.43(c) are sufficient to ensure safe radiographic operations. Specifically, the second qualified individual is required to receive equipment training on radiographic devices, sources, associated equipment, radiation survey equipment and the daily inspection requirements on the equipment. The training requirements in 10 CFR part 34 prepare individuals conducting radiographic operations with sufficient knowledge and understanding of the regulations and safety requirements and familiarity with the equipment that they will use in the performance of their work.

Based on this review, the NRC has preliminarily concluded that rulemaking to amend its requirements for Industrial Radiographic Operations and Training is no longer necessary and, therefore, is proposing discontinuing the rulemaking activity.

The NRC intends to develop an addendum to the current version of NUREG-1556, Volume 2, Revision 1, “Program-Specific Guidance About Industrial Radiography Licenses” and to revise Inspection Procedure 87121, “Industrial Radiography Programs” to address the interpretation of the surveillance requirements.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

This notification of interpretation is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

The requirement of § 34.41(a) is met if the additional qualified individual is in sufficiently close proximity to the operation and sufficiently aware of the ongoing activities to be able to provide assistance or take charge when necessary and to prevent unauthorized entry. In addition, the compatibility category for § 34.41(a) is changed to Category C. This notification of interpretation addresses the issues identified in PRM-34-6 regarding the two-person rule. Therefore, the NRC has preliminarily concluded that rulemaking is no longer necessary and is proposing discontinuing the rulemaking activity initiated in response to PRM-34-6.

In addition, the NRC has concluded that the training requirements for the second qualified individual in § 34.43(c) are sufficient to ensure safe radiographic operations. The NRC's review of operational experience since 1997 shows that the NRC's training requirements for the second qualified individual, either a radiographer's assistant or radiographer, are adequate to protect public health and safety. Therefore, the NRC proposes denying PRM-34-6.

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0187, dated August 21, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0187) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters.

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 Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 15, 2021 (86 FR 14290). The NPRM was prompted by a report of cracks and geometrical non-conformities of the TRBs; all cracks initiated in the drain hole area at the blade root section. The NPRM proposed to require cleaning affected parts, visual and dye penetrant inspections for cracks of affected parts, a dimensional inspection to verify conformity of affected parts, and corrective actions if necessary, as specified in an EASA AD.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address geometrical non-conformities of the TRBs, which could lead to crack initiation and consequent blade failure, and possible loss of control of the helicopter. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

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

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

EASA AD 2020-0187 specifies procedures for cleaning affected parts, visual and dye penetrant inspections for cracks of affected parts (the cleaning and visual and dye penetrant inspections are one-time or repetitive, depending on the accumulated hours time in service on the TRB), a one-time dimensional inspection to verify conformity of affected parts, and corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions include replacement of the affected part with a serviceable part, and additional repetitive cleaning and inspections until replacement of the affected part with a serviceable part. 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 considers this AD interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 264 helicopters 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 helicopters 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,

(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:

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-37, dated October 9, 2020 (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0030.

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-700-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2021 (86 FR 11191). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that during installation, a fuel pipe bracket assembly on the intermediate rib in the center fuel tank was mislocated, resulting in an offset between the fitting assembly and the refuel/defuel tube assembly. The NPRM proposed to require modification of the fuel pipe bracket assembly, including all related investigative actions and corrective actions, if necessary; and performing an operational test of the refuel and defuel system. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the offset, which could cause a preload on the fuel pipes and reduce their ability to absorb shock or vibration-induced loads, making the tube and clamp more prone to stress corrosion cracking. This could lead to failure of the coupling and the bracket and p-clamp assembly, resulting in fuel leakage and loss of electrical bonding between fuel pipes, and lightning-induced sparking that could induce fuel ignition. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

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

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

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 700-28-6006, dated June 1, 2020. This service information describes procedures for a modification of the fuel pipe bracket assembly, including investigative actions (a detailed visual inspection of the fuel pipe assembly for any damaged paint, permanent deformation, corrosion, cracking, gouges, dents, or deep scratches); installation of certain new parts; replacement of the fuel pipe and fuel pipe bracket assembly, if necessary; and an operational test of the refuel and defuel system. 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 51 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 action 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 this on-condition action:

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.

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

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:

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0218, dated October 12, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0218) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

This AD was prompted by a determination that the cabin swift broadband antenna doubler installation does not meet WFD requirements. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the potential effects of WFD on the installation. This condition, if not corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage. See the MCAI for additional background information.

EASA AD 2020-0218 describes procedures for accomplishing a special detailed inspection (roto test high frequency eddy current) of the affected fastener holes, repairing, if any cracks or other discrepancies ( e.g. oversized hole, corrosion, or other damage) are found, and replacing the cabin swift broadband antenna doubler with a modified doubler.

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 the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD because the FAA evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2020-0218 described previously, as incorporated by reference, 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 initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0218 is incorporated by reference in this final rule. This AD, therefore, requires compliance with EASA AD 2020-0218 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 the EASA AD 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 the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0218 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0218 is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0367.

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.

There are currently no U.S.-registered airplanes affected by this AD. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3). In addition, for the foregoing reason(s), 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.

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0367; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01398-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 https://www.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 Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223; email sanjay.ralhan@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.

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.

Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with this AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.

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

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.

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters with a Ti-bolt part number (P/N) EN3740-060022F marked with manufacturer monogram “D” or with an illegible manufacturer monogram, installed on the aft connection of the tail rotor ball bearing control. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2021 (86 FR 12294). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require removing any affected Ti-bolt P/N EN3740-060022F from service. The NPRM also to prohibit installing an affected Ti-bolt on the aft connection of the ball bearing control of any helicopter. The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2019-0258, dated October 18, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0258), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD), formerly Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH, Model MBB-BK117 D-2 helicopters. EASA advises of a report of a broken Ti-bolt. Subsequent investigation revealed that an improper heat treatment process was accomplished on a batch of Ti-bolts, which can lead to hydrogen embrittlement. Hydrogen embrittlement can make high-strength bolts susceptible to stress corrosion, pitting, and failure. EASA states that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of an affected Ti-bolt installed in a critical location, possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.

Accordingly, EASA AD 2019-0258 requires a one-time inspection for Ti-bolt P/N EN3740-060022F marked with manufacturer monogram “D” or with an illegible manufacturer monogram installed on the aft connection of the tail rotor ball bearing control (ball bearing control) and, depending on findings, contacting AHD for corrective action. EASA AD 2019-0258 also prohibits the (re)installation of these Ti-bolts.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. 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 these helicopters.

The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-00A-001, Revision 1, dated October 16, 2019, which specifies replacing each Ti-bolt P/N EN3740-060022F that is marked with manufacturer monogram “D” or if the manufacturer monogram cannot be identified with an airworthy Ti-bolt in both locations of the aft connection of ball bearing control and both high frequency (HF) antenna bracket locations.

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.

EASA AD 2019-0258 applies to Model MBB-BK117 D-2 helicopters and requires inspecting for Ti-bolt P/N EN3740-060022F marked with manufacturer monogram “D” or with an illegible manufacturer monogram installed on the aft connection of the ball bearing control. This AD applies to Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters with a Ti-bolt P/N EN3740-060022F marked with manufacturer monogram “D” or with an illegible manufacturer monogram installed on the aft connection of the ball bearing control instead. EASA AD 2019-0258 requires contacting AHD for approved instructions if an affected Ti-bolt is found, whereas this AD requires removing an affected Ti-bolt from service instead.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 29 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Replacing a Ti-bolt takes about 2 work-hours and parts cost about $100 for an estimated cost of $270 per Ti-bolt.

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 helicopters 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:

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-31, dated September 23, 2020 (TCCA AD CF-2020-31) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0097.

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-100-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2021 (86 FR 11163). The NPRM was prompted by reports of DCMP failures during production flight tests. The NPRM proposed to require installing a redesigned DCMP electric motor assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to address failures of the DCMP and electrical system generators, which could lead to the loss of normal electrical power on the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

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

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

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 100-29-18, Revision 03, dated December 18, 2014. This service information describes procedures for installing the redesigned DCMP electric motor assembly, having part number (P/N) 945202-3 (including a wiring modification and a structural modification). 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 239 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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:

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0084, dated April 3, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0084) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK117 D-2 helicopters. Although EASA AD 2020-0084 applies to all Model MBB-BK117 D-2 helicopters, this AD applies to helicopters with an affected part installed instead.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Model MBB-BK117 D-2 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2021 (86 FR 13234). The NPRM was prompted by reports that collective lever switch units having certain part numbers did not have retaining rings installed in the cable cut switch guard. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting certain collective lever switch units for discrepancies (missing retaining rings, incorrectly installed retaining rings, and a missing axis in the cable cut switch guard), doing all applicable corrective actions, and marking affected parts.

The cable cut switch guard has an axis that holds, and allows the guard to turn over, the cable cut switch. This axis is secured with two retaining rings and if both retaining rings are missing, the axis can move out. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition, which could cause inadvertent activation of the rescue hoist cable cut function, resulting in personal injury. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes and an update to paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

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

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

EASA AD 2020-0084 specifies procedures for inspecting collective lever switch units having certain part numbers for discrepancies, applicable corrective actions, and marking affected parts. Discrepancies include missing retaining rings, incorrectly installed retaining rings, and a missing axis in the cable cut switch guard. Corrective actions include installing missing retaining rings, adjusting retaining rings that are installed incorrectly, and installing an axis in the cable cut switch guard. EASA AD 2020-0084 also specifies that an affected part can be installed on any helicopter, provided it has been marked. 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 30 helicopters 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 helicopters that might need these on-condition actions:

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.

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

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:

On March 6, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order preliminarily enjoining the U.S. Department of State from implementing or enforcing the final rule entitled International Traffic In Arms Regulations: U.S. Munitions List Categories I, II, and III, 85 FR 3819 (Jan. 23, 2020) “insofar as it alters the status quo restrictions on technical data and software directly related to the production of firearms or firearm parts using a 3D-printer or similar equipment.” Washington v. U.S. Dep't of State (Case No. 2:20-cv-00111-RAJ).

On April 27, 2021, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 20-35391) issued a decision that vacated the district court's order enjoining the Department of State's Final Rule removing 3D-printed guns and their associated files from the USML; however, the preliminary injunction remained in effect until the mandate of the Ninth Circuit for this decision was issued on May 26, 2021. Until the entry of the mandate, all persons engaged in manufacturing, exporting, temporarily importing, brokering, or furnishing defense services related to `technical data and software directly related to the production of firearms or firearm parts using a 3D-printer or similar equipment' were required to treat such technical data and software as listed on the USML and controlled by the ITAR.

On May 26, 2021, the mandate of the Ninth Circuit was issued, and the entirety of the Department of State's final rule published in the Federal Register at 85 FR 3819 went into effect.

As a result of the vacatur of the injunction, any request for licenses of “technology” and “software” that fall under the U.S. Department of Commerce regulations, 15 CFR 732.2(b) and 734.7(c) (added by the Commerce January 23, 2020 rule, entitled Control of Firearms, Guns, Ammunition and Related Articles the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the USML; 85 FR 4136, Jan. 23, 2020), should be directed to the U.S. Department of Commerce because this “technology” and “software” are subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

BIS strongly encourages any person with “technology” or “software” that may meet the criteria in section 734.7(c) of the EAR to review those provisions in the Commerce January 23, 2020 rule closely, as well as all other applicable EAR provisions. In anticipation of the dismissal of the case, BIS updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) posted on the BIS website to add twelve FAQs to assist public understanding of section 734.7(c), including addressing application questions. These FAQs are available on the BIS website at https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/policy-guidance/2572-faqs-for-the-commerce-category-i-iii-firearms-rule-posted-on-bis-website-7-7-20/file. For instance, those FAQs make clear that a BIS license is required prior to posting on the internet of “any file, including any CAD file, that can be processed by a software program into an electronic format, such as a CAM file, with no or minimal additional information or manipulation from the operator(s), and that . . . once converted will be in an executable code for the production of a firearm frame or receiver or complete firearm.”

BIS also strongly encourages any person with questions regarding section 734.7(c), which they believe are not addressed sufficiently in the FAQs on the BIS website, to contact BIS for additional guidance. See the BIS contact information under the For Further Information Contact section of this notice. In addition, if a person is unsure whether the criteria of section 734.7(c) are met, including whether the “technology” or “software” is ready for insertion into a computer numerically controlled machine tool, additive manufacturing equipment, or any other equipment, persons with such “technology” or “software” can submit an official classification request to BIS using the free online submission system, called SNAP-R, available on the BIS website, to receive an official classification of the “technology” or “software.” For additional information on SNAP-R, see https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/licensing/simplified-network-application-process-redesign-snap-r/getting-started-with-snap-r. The person submitting the official classification should note in the classification request that the classification is being submitted to determine whether the “technology” or “software” meets the criteria in section 734.7(c).

The Entity List (supplement no. 4 to part 744 of the EAR) 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. The EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774) impose additional license requirements on, and limit the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to listed entities. 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 adding entities to the Entity List. 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 MEU List (supplement no. 7 to part 744 of the EAR) identifies entities that have been determined by the End-User Review Committee (ERC) to be `military end users' pursuant to § 744.21 of the EAR. That section imposes additional license requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to listed entities on the MEU List, as specified in supplement no. 7 to part 744 and § 744.21 of the EAR. Entities are listed on the MEU List under the destinations of Burma, China, Russia, or Venezuela. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the introductory text of supplement no. 7 to part 744 and in § 744.21(b) and (e) of the EAR. The MEU List includes introductory text, which specifies the scope of the license requirements, limitations on the use of EAR license exceptions, and the license review policy that applies to each listed entity. These requirements are also reflected in § 744.21 but, for ease of reference, these requirements are also included in the introductory text of the supplement.

The 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 and the MEU List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List and MEU List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

Under § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) of the EAR, 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 that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and those acting on behalf of such entities, may be added to the Entity List. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of § 744.11 provide an illustrative list of activities that could be considered contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.

This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add eight entities to the Entity List. These eight entities will be listed on the Entity List under the destinations of Pakistan and the UAE. The ERC made the decision to add these eight entities described below under the standard set forth in § 744.11(b) of the EAR.

The ERC determined that the eight subject entities are engaging in or enabling activities contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, as follows:

The ECR determined that eight entities are involved in proliferation to unsafeguarded nuclear activities that are contrary to the national security and/or foreign policy of the United States. Six of these entities are located in Pakistan: Hassan Scientific Corporation; Mecatech (Private) Limited; Middle East Automation & Controls Services; Mirza and Co.; Techno-Commercial; and TELEC Electronics & Machinery (Pvt) Ltd. Two of these entities are located in UAE: Delta Engineering Concern FZE; and Future Trends International, FZE LLC.

Pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR, the ERC determined that the conduct of the above-described eight entities raises sufficient concerns that prior review, via the imposition of a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR involving these eight entities and the possible issuance of license denials or the possible imposition of license conditions on shipments to this entity, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent violations of the EAR or otherwise protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests.

For the eight entities added to the Entity List in this final rule described under this section, Section A, Additions to the Entity List, BIS imposes a license requirement that applies to all items subject to the EAR. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the person being added to the Entity List in this rule. BIS imposes a license review policy of a presumption of denial for these eight entities.

For the reasons described above, this final rule adds the following eight entities to the Entity List:

• Hassan Scientific Corporation;

• Mecatech (Private) Limited;

• Middle East Automation & Controls Services;

• Mirza and Co;

• Techno-Commercial; and

• TELEC Electronics & Machinery (Pvt) Ltd.

• Delta Engineering Concern FZE; and

• Future Trends International, FZE LLC.

This final rule revises two existing entries, two under the destination China, as follows.

This rule implements a revision to one existing entry for “DJI,” first added to the Entity List under the destination of China on December 22, 2020 (85 FR 83420, December 22, 2020). The ERC determined to modify the existing entry under China for DJI by revising the License Requirement column to exclude EAR99-designated technology for the operation, maintenance, or repair of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) released to DJI by the operator of the UAV.

This rule implements a revision to one existing entry for “Seajet Company Limited,” first added to the Entity List under the destination of China on September 4, 2018 (83 FR 44824, September 4, 2018). BIS is revising the existing entry under China by adding three aliases and five addresses. The ERC determined to modify the existing entry for Seajet Company Limited under China by adding alternate business names as aliases and addresses.

This final rule implements a correction to one existing entry on the Entity List, one under China. The correction is under the destination of China for the entity China State Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited (CSSC) 750th Research Institute. This entity was added to the EAR on December 18, 2020 (85 FR 83416, December 22, 2020) (the “December 22 Final Rule”). While the amendatory instruction and the Background section of the December 22 Final Rule adding the entity used the correct name China State Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited (CSSC) 750th Test Center, the regulatory text of the December 22 Final Rule used the incorrect title China State Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited (CSSC) 750th Research Institute. While BIS had updated the preamble and the amendatory instruction of December 22 Final Rule to use Test Center instead of Research Center in the entity name, it inadvertently missed updating the correction in the regulatory text. Because the December 22 Final Rule used a slightly different name in the amendatory instruction compared to the regulatory text, the change was not incorporated as intended in the regulations. This final rule corrects the entity's name to accurately state China State Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited (CSSC) 750th Test Center. This correction is made by adding the entry again with the corrected entity name.

This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove IKAN Engineering Services, one entity located in Pakistan, from the Entity List on the basis of a removal request. The entry for IKAN Engineering Services was added to the Entity List on September 18, 2014 (79 FR 56003, September 18, 2014). The ERC decided to remove this one entity based on information BIS received pursuant to § 744.16 of the EAR and the review the ERC conducted in accordance with procedures described in supplement no. 5 to part 744.

This final rule implements the decision to remove the following one entity, located in Pakistan, from the Entity List:

• IKAN Engineering Services.

This rule removes Molecular Devices Shanghai Corporation, an entity located in China, from the MEU List. The entry for Molecular Devices Shanghai Corporation was added to the MEU List on December 23, 2020 (85 FR 83799, December 23, 2020). The ERC determined to remove the entry for Molecular Devices Shanghai Corporation from the MEU List on the basis of a request for removal submitted to BIS pursuant to § 744.21(b)(2) of the EAR.

This final rule removes the following one entity, located in China, from the MEU List:

• Molecular Devices Shanghai Corporation.

This final rule revises one existing entry, under the destination China, as follows. This rule implements a revision to one existing entry for Hutchison Optel Telecom Technology Co., Ltd., first added to the MEU List under the destination of China on December 23, 2020 (85 FR 83799, December 23, 2020). BIS is revising the existing entry under China by removing “Hutchinson” at the beginning of the entity's name and adding “Chongqing” in its place. The entity's name will read as Chongqing Optel Telecom Technology Co., Ltd. The ERC determined to modify the entry for Hutchison Optel Telecom Technology Co., Ltd. to change the name and address for this entry on the basis of a request for modification submitted to BIS pursuant to § 744.21(b)(1)(i) of the EAR. Because this modification changes the first name of the entity, the amendatory instructions below remove the existing entity with the current name and changes the entity name to the amended name. This final rule retains the original Federal Register citation and also includes the Federal Register citation from this final rule, so that the public is aware of when this existing entity was originally added and when it was modified on the MEU List.

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 June 1, 2021, 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. 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 final rule has been designated 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 carries a burden estimate of 29.6 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. 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 ECRA ( see 50 U.S.C. 4821), 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:

We are making technical amendments to correct § 242.600(b)(5). Specifically, this document amends Instruction 8 published in the Adopting Release by adding new Instruction 8.w. to revise a cross-reference to current § 242.600(b)(4) in current § 242.600(b)(5).

In document FR doc. 2020-28370, which was published in the Federal Register on Friday, April 9, 2021, at 86 FR 18596, the following correction is made:

On January 23, 2020, the Department published a final rule in the Federal Register at 85 FR 3819 (RIN 1400-AE30) that amended the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to revise Categories I, II, and III of the U.S. Munitions List (USML) and remove certain items that no longer warrant control. On the same date, the Department of Commerce published a companion final rule in the Federal Register at 85 FR 4136 (RIN 0694-AF47) that made conforming changes to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to control the export of certain commodities, software, and technology removed from the USML. These final rules were set to be effective March 9, 2020.

On March 6, 2020, in response to a lawsuit filed by several U.S. States, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-00111), issued an order preliminarily enjoining part of the Department's final rule. More specifically, the order enjoined the Department “from implementing or enforcing the regulation entitled International Traffic in Arms Regulation: U.S. Munitions List Categories I, II, and III, 85 FR 3819 (Jan. 23, 2020) insofar as it alters the status quo restrictions on technical data and software directly related to the production of firearm and firearm parts using a 3D-printer or similar equipment.” As the text of the order explained, and as was similarly described in a document published on April 2, 2020 at 85 FR 18445, the court's order required the Department to maintain certain technical data controls in the USML related to producing 3-D printed firearms or firearm parts; however, other parts of the subject final rule were allowed to go into effect, including the removal of certain tangible firearms from the USML, which the Department of Commerce then began to regulate for export under its EAR.

However, on May 26, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate in Washington v. U.S. Dep't of State, No. 20-35391, 2021 WL 1621320, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 12448 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2021), vacating the preliminary injunction previously entered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 6, 2020.

As a result, the remainder of the Department's subject final rule at 85 FR 3819 has now gone into effect. The Department therefore no longer regulates the export of certain kinds of technical data as described in its previous Federal Register document of April 2, 2020 at 85 FR 18445. Now, the EAR, administered by the Department of Commerce, exclusively controls the export of all commodities, software, and technology described in its final rule at 85 FR 4136 on January 23, 2020. For questions about that rule, please contact the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security or visit its website at https://www.bis.doc.gov/.

On April 20, 2020, at 85 FR 21770, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) published a final rule on administrative guidance implementing E.O. 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents,” signed by President Trump on October 9, 2019. As required by the E.O., this rule contained policy and requirements for issuing, modifying, withdrawing, and using guidance; making guidance available to the public; a notice and comment process for significant guidance; and taking a responding to petitions about guidance.

On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued the “Executive Order on Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal Regulation” which, among other things, revoked E.O. 13891 and directed agencies to promptly take steps to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies, or portions thereof, implementing or enforcing the Executive Orders. In accordance with E.O. 13992, FMCS is issuing this final rule, which rescinds the rule on procedures for FMCS guidance documents published April 20, 2020.

FMCS has determined that this rule is suitable for final rulemaking. The revisions to FMCS' policies and requirements surrounding administrative guidance are purely internal matters of agency management, as well as the agency's organization, procedure, and practice. Accordingly, as with the April 20, 2020, final rule, FMCS is not required to engage in a notice and comment process to issue this rule under the Administrative Procedures Act, See U.S.C. 553(a)(2), 553(b)(A). Furthermore, because this rule is procedural rather than substantive, the normal requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) that a rule not be effective until at least 30 days after publication in the Federal Register is inapplicable. FMCS also finds good cause to provide an immediate effective date for this rule because it imposes no obligations on parties outside the federal government and therefore no advance notice is required to enable employers or other private parties to come into compliance.

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: www.treasury.gov/ofac.

On February 10, 2021, the President, invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) (IEEPA), issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14014 of February 10, 2021, “Blocking Property With Respect to the Situation in Burma” (86 FR 9429, February 12, 2021).

In E.O. 14014, the President determined that the situation in and in relation to Burma, and in particular the February 1, 2021 coup, in which the military overthrew the democratically elected civilian government of Burma and unjustly arrested and detained government leaders, politicians, human rights defenders, journalists, and religious leaders, thereby rejecting the will of the people of Burma as expressed in elections held in November 2020 and undermining the country's democratic transition and rule of law, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and declared a national emergency to deal with that threat.

OFAC is issuing the Burma Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 525 (the “Regulations”), to implement E.O. 14014, pursuant to authorities delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury in E.O. 14014. A copy of E.O. 14014 appears in appendix A to this part.

The Regulations are being published in abbreviated form at this time for the purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public. OFAC intends to supplement this part 525 with a more comprehensive set of regulations, which may include additional interpretive and definitional guidance, general licenses, and other regulatory provisions. The appendix to the Regulations will be removed when OFAC supplements this part with a more comprehensive set of regulations.

Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

The CSX Railroad drawbridge across Three Mile Creek, mile 0.0 in Mobile, AL operates under 33 CFR 117.500. In the open to vessel position the drawbridge has a horizontal clearance of 56 feet and unlimited vertical clearance. In the closed to vessel position the bridge has a vertical clearance of 10 feet.

This bridge has failed to open on signal when CSX builds trains from their rail yard in Mobile, AL that extend onto the drawbridge. CSX has changed their rail yard operating schedule to open the bridge to vessel traffic each day from 6:30 a.m.-7:30 a.m., 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. and 10:30-p.m.-11:30 p.m. During these periods CSX will not station trains on the bridge from their yard. All vessels in the queue will be passed through the bridge. CSX will open the bridge on signal at all other times if there are no trains on the bridge. This change will allow vessel operators to schedule their trips through this bridge and to pass through at all other times when there are no trains on the bridge.

From 6 a.m. June 1, 2021 through 6 p.m. August 2, 2021 the draw of the CSX railroad bridge across Three Mile Creek mile 0.0 shall open daily from 6:30 a.m.-7:30 a.m., 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m., and 10:30 p.m.-11:30 p.m. At all other times the draw shall open on signal if there are no train cars stationed on the bridge. During all openings the draw shall not close until the queue of all vessels seeking passage is cleared.

This 60 day test deviation will allow the Coast Guard to collect data on the impact of the proposed regulation change on vessels.

The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov . If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Documents mentioned as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified of any posting or updates to the docket.

On February 9, 2021 (86 FR 8722), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania's plan for maintaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Erie Area through November 8, 2027, in accordance with CAA section 175A. The formal SIP revision was submitted by PADEP on February 27, 2020.

On October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57207, effective November 8, 2007), EPA approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from PADEP for the Erie Area. In accordance with CAA section 175A(b), at the end of the eighth year after the effective date of the redesignation, the state must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing maintenance of the standard for an additional 10 years, and in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 1 the D.C. Circuit held that this requirement cannot be waived for areas, like the Erie Area, that had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS prior to revocation and that were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria for adequate maintenance plans. In addition, EPA has published longstanding guidance that provides further insight on the content of an approvable maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five elements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of continued attainment; and (5) a contingency plan. 2 PADEP's February 27, 2020 submittal fulfills Pennsylvania's obligation to submit a second maintenance plan and addresses each of the five necessary elements.

As discussed in the February 9, 2021 NPRM, EPA allows the submittal of a limited maintenance plan (LMP) to meet the statutory requirement that the area will maintain for the statutory period. Qualifying areas may meet the maintenance demonstration by showing that the area's design value  3 is well below the NAAQS and that the historical stability of the area's air quality levels indicates that the area is unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future. EPA evaluated PADEP's February 27, 2020 submittal for consistency with all applicable EPA guidance and CAA requirements. EPA found that the submittal met CAA section 175A and all CAA requirements, and proposed approval of the LMP for the Erie Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. Other specific requirements of PADEP's February 27, 2020 submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

EPA received four comments on the February 9, 2021 NPRM but only one that was adverse and relevant to this action. All comments are in the docket for this rule action. A summary of the relevant adverse comment and EPA's response is provided herein.

Comment: The commenter asserts that the LMP should not be approved because “Pennsylvania identifies no actual contingency measures.” According to the commenter, a “contingency measure is supposed to be a known measure that can be quickly implemented by a state in order to prevent the violation of the NAAQS.” The comment asserts that the plan's current contingency measures are defective because they allegedly will not be evaluated and determined until after an exceedance of the NAAQS has occurred. The comment claims that EPA is aware Pennsylvania has a history of not meeting its CAA requirements on time, and that it can take Pennsylvania more than two years to implement a regulation, which would be too long to prevent a violation of the NAAQS.

Response: The commenter asserts that Pennsylvania identifies no actual contingency measures because the measures are not yet “evaluated” and “determined” and cannot be implemented before a violation of the NAAQS occurs. Because Pennsylvania identifies two regulatory and six non-regulatory contingency measures in general terms, EPA understands the comment's use of the term “evaluated” and “determined” must mean something like the specific measures identified by PADEP have not been fully promulgated and are not in effect at this time. If EPA's understanding is correct, EPA agrees with this fact, but does not agree that this has any bearing on the approvability of the particular contingency measures or of the overall LMP.

PADEP identifies six non-regulatory measures and two regulatory measures. The two regulatory measures are “additional controls” on consumer products and portable fuel containers. The six non-regulatory measures are: Voluntary diesel engine “chip reflash;” diesel retrofit for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets; idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives; idling technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses, and other freight-handling facilities; accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment; additional promotion of alternative fuel for home heating and agriculture use. As stated in the Calcagni memo, EPA's long-standing interpretation is that contingency measures for maintenance of the NAAQS are not required to be fully adopted in order to be approved. The commenter refers to a recent court case vacating, among other things, the contingency measure provisions in EPA's rule for implementing the 2015 ozone NAAQS, Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 15-1465 (D.C. Cir. January 29, 2021). It is possible that the commenter has conflated the contingency measure provisions at issue in that case, which pertained to attainment plans, and those at issue in this LMP, which pertain to maintenance plans. The contingency measure provisions for maintenance and attainment are found in two different sections of the CAA, with substantially different wording and requirements. The attainment plan contingency measures provisions in CAA Section 172(c)(9) require that the attainment plan have “specific measures” that can “take effect in any such case without further action by the State or the Administrator” if the area fails to make reasonable further progress or attain the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9). Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the contingency measure requirements for maintenance areas. Section 175A(d) requires that the maintenance plan contain “such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an attainment area.” 42 U.S.C. 7505a(d). Unlike Section 172(c)(9), there is not requirement under section 175A that the contingency measures be set forth with specificity or that they be able to take effect without further action by EPA or the State.

With this statutory background in mind, EPA does not agree that the plan should be disapproved due to PADEP's ability to promulgate a contingency measure in sufficient time to avert a violation of the NAAQS. As noted previously, CAA section 175A(d) mandates that a maintenance plan must contain “such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an attainment area.” (emphasis added). The statute therefore does not include any requirement that a maintenance plan's contingency measures prevent a violation of the NAAQS, but rather only that those selected measures be available to address a violation of the NAAQS after it already occurs. Pennsylvania also elected to adopt a “warning level response,” which states that PADEP will consider adopting contingency measures if, for two consecutive years, the fourth highest eight-hour ozone concentrations at any monitor in the area are above 84 parts per billion (ppb). But this warning level response is not required under the CAA, and therefore we do not agree with the commenter that the plan should be disapproved based on the commenter's concern over the timeliness of the warning level response implementation.

Moreover, as a general matter, we do not agree that the schedules for implementation of contingency provisions in the LMP are insufficient. As noted, the CAA provides some degree of flexibility in assessing a maintenance plan's contingency measures—requiring that the plan contain such contingency provisions “as the Administrator deems necessary” to assure that any violations of the NAAQS will be “promptly” corrected. EPA's longstanding guidance for redesignations, the Calcagni Memo, also does not provide precise parameters for what strictly constitutes “prompt” implementation of contingency measures, noting that, for purposes of CAA section 175A, “a state is not required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take effect without further action by the state in order for the maintenance plan to be approved.” Calcagni memo at 12. However, the guidance does state that the plan should ensure that the measures are adopted “expediently” once they are triggered, and should provide “a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action by the state.” Id. We think the state's plan, which provides specific lists of regulatory and non-regulatory measures that the state would consider after evaluating and assessing what it believed to be the cause of increased ozone concentrations, and the specific timeframes it would use to expediently implement the various measures, meets the requirements of CAA section 175A.

EPA is approving PADEP's second maintenance plan for the Erie Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 2, 2021. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, approving PADEP's second maintenance plan for the Erie Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

The EPA approved revisions to California's federally authorized hazardous waste program by publishing proposed and final rules in the Federal Register on October 18, 2019 (80 FR 55871), and January 14, 2020 (85 FR 2038), respectively. On March 5, 2021, the EPA proposed to add citations for approving the State's authority to adopt additional waste streams as universal wastes in the State Analogues to the Federal Program table and revise the scope of the State program that is considered “broader in scope” than the Federal program. The changes detailed in the proposed correction are summarized below.

1. The EPA added citations to the table for Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) 66260.22 and 66260.23 and the Federal analogues, 40 CFR 260.20(a) and 260.23(a) through (d), respectively. In addition, the EPA added a footnote to the table clarifying the implications of the authorization of the State's universal waste program as to a waste stream that the State already identified as a universal waste before the universal waste authorization update was effective, i.e., aerosol cans. (Similarly, effective January 1, 2021, California also now includes photovoltaic solar panels in the State's universal waste program.)

2. The EPA revised the list of California requirements that the EPA considers beyond the scope of the Federal program by deleting California-only universal wastes (further defined as non-RCRA hazardous wastes) from the list of State requirements that are broader in scope than the Federal program and adding language to the broader in scope analysis that specifies that any non-RCRA hazardous wastes that the State regulates as a hazardous waste are generally considered beyond the scope of the Federal program.

No comments were received on the proposal. The corrections are hereby finalized and the changes to the scope of California's authorized universal hazardous waste program will become effective on the date listed in the DATES section above.

Codification is the process of placing citations and references to the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. The EPA does this by adding those citations and references to the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. The EPA is not codifying the authorization of California's revisions at this time. However, the EPA reserves the right to amend 40 CFR part 272, subpart F, for the authorization of California's program at a later date.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action (RCRA state authorization) from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action finalizes corrections to the authorization of state requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this action finalizes corrections to the authorization of pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely corrects the Federal Register document in which the EPA authorized state requirements as part of the state RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant, and it does not concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionally affect children. This correction is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Under RCRA section 3006(b), the EPA grants a state's application for authorization, as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 do not apply. See 15 U.S.C. 272 note, sec. 12(d)(3), Public Law 104-113, 110 Stat. 783 (Mar. 7, 1996) (exempting compliance with the NTTAA's requirement to use VCS if compliance is “inconsistent with applicable law”). As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this correction to its rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the correction to the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This correction to the rule authorizing California's universal waste program does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Because this correction to the California universal waste authorization rule authorizes pre-existing state rules which are at least equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing Federal requirements, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the final rule correction in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This correction is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS, and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights in this temporary rule are given in gutted weight.

The commercial sector for golden tilefish has two components, each with its own quota: The hook-and-line and longline components (50 CFR 622.190(a)(2)). The golden tilefish commercial annual catch limit (ACL) is allocated 25 percent to the hook-and-line component and 75 percent to the longline component. The total commercial ACL (equivalent to the commercial quota) for golden tilefish is 331,740 lb (150,475 kg), and the hook-and-line component ACL is 82,935 lb (37,619 kg).

Under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial hook-and-line component for golden tilefish when its commercial ACL has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing such a notification with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial ACL for the golden tilefish hook-and-line component in the South Atlantic will be reached by June 1, 2021. Accordingly, the commercial hook-and-line component of South Atlantic golden tilefish is closed effective at 12:01 a.m., Eastern Time, on June 1, 2021.

The commercial longline component for South Atlantic golden tilefish also closed on March 31, 2021, and will remain closed for the remainder of the current fishing year, through December 31, 2021 (86 FR 14549; March 17, 2021). Therefore, because the commercial longline component is already closed, and NMFS is closing the commercial hook-and-line component through this temporary rule, all harvest of South Atlantic golden tilefish in the EEZ is limited to the recreational bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(2)(iii) and (c)(1) as long as the recreational sector is open.

The operator of a vessel with a valid Federal commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having golden tilefish on board harvested by hook-and-line must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such golden tilefish prior to 12:01 a.m., Eastern Time, on June 1, 2021. During the closure, the sale or purchase of golden tilefish taken from the EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of golden tilefish that were harvested by hook-and-line, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., Eastern Time, on June 1, 2021, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. For a person on board a vessel for which a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the recreational bag and possession limits and the sale and purchase prohibitions during the commercial closure for golden tilefish apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(ii).

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the regulations associated with the commercial closure of the golden tilefish hook-and-line component have already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are also contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement the closure to protect the golden tilefish resource and minimize the risk of exceeding the sector's ACL. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would result in exceeding the sector's ACL.

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

The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subparts C through G, regulate fishing for over 90 species of groundfish off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) develops groundfish harvest specifications and management measures for two-year periods ( i.e., a biennium). NMFS published the final rule to implement harvest specifications and management measures for the 2021-2022 biennium for most species managed under the PCGFMP on December 11, 2020, (85 FR 79880). NMFS also published a correction (85 FR 86853, December 31, 2020), and a correcting amendment (86 FR 14379, March 16, 2021) to implement the Council's recommendations for the 2021-2022 harvest specifications and management measures.

In general, the management measures set at the start of the biennial harvest specifications cycle help the various sectors of the fishery attain, but not exceed, the catch limits for each stock. The Council, in coordination with Pacific Coast Treaty Indian Tribes and the states of Washington, Oregon, and California, recommends adjustments to the management measures during the fishing year to achieve this goal. At its March 2-5 and 8-11, 2021, meeting, the Council recommended decreasing the amount of Pacific halibut that vessels in the sablefish primary fishery north of Point Chehalis, WA, may take incidentally to ensure that catch of Pacific halibut stays within the allocated amount.

Pacific halibut is generally a prohibited species for vessels fishing in Pacific coast groundfish fisheries, unless explicitly allowed in groundfish regulations. The Council developed a Catch Sharing Plan for the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) Regulatory Area 2A, as provided for in the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 773-773k), to allocate the Area 2A annual total allowable catch (TAC) for Pacific halibut among fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California.

Under the Catch Sharing Plan, the sablefish primary fishery north of Point Chehalis, WA (46°53.30′ N lat.) is allocated a portion of the Washington recreational allocation, which varies via a TAC-dependent formula, as described in the Catch Sharing Plan.

The sablefish primary fishery season is open from April 1 to October 31, though the fishery may close for individual participants prior to October 31 once they reach the cumulative limit associated with their tier assignment(s). Regulations at § 660.231(b)(3)(iv) allow vessels fishing in the sablefish primary fishery with a permit from the IPHC to retain Pacific halibut up to a set landing limit, which may be reviewed and modified throughout the sablefish primary fishery season to allow for attainment, but not exceedance of the Pacific halibut allocation. The objectives for the annual landing restrictions are to allow incidental Pacific halibut catch to attain the Pacific halibut allocation at about the same time the sablefish primary season ends (October 31), and to ensure an equitable sharing of the Pacific halibut landings among the fishers.

On March 9, 2021, NMFS implemented a 2021 Area 2A TAC of 1,510,000 pound (lb) (684.9 metric tons (mt)) (86 FR 13475). As specified by the Catch Sharing Plan, since the 2021 Area 2A catch limit is greater than 1.5 million pounds (680.4 mt), the incidental halibut limit for the sablefish primary fishery's allocation is 70,000 lb (31.8 mt) (86 FR 13475, March 9, 2021), the same limit as was in place in 2020. In 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic affecting vessel participation, harvest during the regular sablefish primary fishery season was lower than predicted. As a result, at the September 2020 Council meeting, the Council recommended, and NMFS implemented, an emergency rule to extend the sablefish primary season, normally scheduled to end on October 31, until December 31, 2020 (85 FR 68001, October 27, 2020). Also, as part of that emergency rule, the incidental Pacific halibut retention allowance continued until the close of the Pacific halibut season on November 15, 2020. The 2020 season concluded with 90.5 percent of the 70,000 lb (31.8 mt) allowance for Pacific halibut landed. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on sablefish primary fishery harvest are expected to be lessened in 2021, compared to 2020. If fishing patterns return to more typical seasonal efforts in 2021, the incidental Pacific halibut retention limit in place in 2020 may be too high, and harvest of Pacific halibut may accrue too quickly to allow retention throughout the entire sablefish primary season, which is expected to run through October 31, 2021. Therefore, at the March 2021 virtual meeting, the Council recommended a precautionary reduction in Pacific halibut retention allowance early in the 2021 sablefish primary fishery season to discourage targeted fishing while allowing small incidental catches through the end of the season on October 31.

The Council recommended, and NMFS is revising the incidental Pacific halibut retention regulations at § 660.231(b)(3)(iv) to decrease the incidental Pacific halibut catch limit to enable some efficiency without exceeding the harvest limit. The limit will be reduced from 250 lb (113 kg) dressed weight of halibut for every 1,000 lb (454 kg) dressed weight of sablefish landed, and up to two halibut in excess of the ratio, to 225 lb (102 kg) dressed weight of halibut for every 1,000 lb (454 kg) dressed weight of sablefish landed, and up to two halibut in excess of the ratio. This decrease is expected to allow opportunity for total catch of Pacific halibut to approach, but not exceed, the 2021 allocation for the sablefish primary fishery north of Point Chehalis, WA (70,000 lb or 31.8 mt).

This final rule makes routine inseason adjustments to groundfish fishery management measures, based on the best scientific information available, consistent with the PCGFMP and its implementing regulations.

This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.60(c) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The aggregate data upon which these actions are based are available for public inspection by contacting Abbie Moyer in NMFS' West Coast Region (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above), or view at the NMFS West Coast Groundfish website: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/groundfish/index.html.

NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and comment on the revisions to groundfish management measures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The adjustments to management measures in this document affect commercial fisheries off the coast of Washington. No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the final rule for the 2021-2022 harvest specifications and management measures, which was published on December 11, 2020 (85 FR 79880). Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, NMFS finds good cause to waive prior notice and comment.

At its March 2021 meeting, the Council recommended the decrease to the incidental Pacific halibut retention limit for vessels fishing in the sablefish primary fishery north of Point Chehalis. The sablefish primary fishery opened on April 1. The Council recommends this precautionary reduction be implemented as soon as possible, early in the season, in an effort to prolong the amount of time Pacific halibut may be retained in the sablefish primary fishery north of Point Chehalis.

Additionally, if the new limit is not implemented until closer to the end of the season, after a full rulemaking, the sablefish primary fishery north of Point Chehalis would be more likely to reach or exceed its 2021 allocation of Pacific halibut before the end of the sablefish primary fishery season. Therefore, providing a comment period for this action could limit the equitable benefits to the fishery, and the vessels that participate in the fishery, as they rely on the Pacific halibut retention allowance throughout the entire season and could result in a greater risk of exceeding the Pacific halibut harvest allocation.

Because prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be provided for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or 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 for this rule and none has been prepared.

For the same reasons stated above, NMFS has determined good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) so that this final rule may become effective upon publication in the Federal Register . The adjustments to management measures in this document affect commercial fisheries by decreasing the incidental halibut retention limit in the sablefish primary fishery north of Point Chehalis, WA. This adjustment was requested by the Council's advisory bodies, as well as members of industry during the Council's March 2021, meeting, and recommended unanimously by the Council. No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the biennial harvest specifications and management measures established through a notice and comment rulemaking for 2021-2022 (85 FR 79880, December 11, 2020).

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