Background

The FCIC serves America's agricultural producers through effective, market-based risk management tools to strengthen the economic stability of agricultural producers and rural communities. FCIC is committed to increasing the availability and effectiveness of Federal crop insurance as a risk management tool. Approved Insurance Providers (AIP) sell and service Federal crop insurance policies in every state through a public-private partnership. FCIC reinsures the AIPs who share the risks associated with catastrophic losses due to major weather events. FCIC's vision is to secure the future of agriculture by providing world class risk management tools to rural America.

FCIC amends the Common Crop Insurance Regulations by revising 7 CFR 457.140, Dry Pea Crop Insurance Provisions, and by revising 7 CFR 457.150, Dry Bean Crop Insurance Provisions, to be effective for the 2022 and succeeding crop years.

For both 7 CFR 457.140, Dry Pea Crop Insurance Provisions, and 7 CFR 457.150, Dry Bean Crop Insurance Provisions, FCIC is allowing separate enterprise units by type.

Crop insurance units are an identifiable, insurable segment of land on which an insurable crop is grown, and separate production records have been kept. Enterprise units are all insurable acreage of an insured crop in the county in which the insured has a share on the date coverage begins for the crop year. Allowing separate enterprise units allows producers to be indemnified separately by type. The benefit for producers is that a gain on one type will not be offset by the loss on another type. Currently, optional units by type are available for all types listed in the actuarial documents.

If an insured elects enterprise units for these types, further division of enterprise units is not allowed. The insured may elect one enterprise unit for all types, or a combination of types (for example, under the Dry Peas Crop Provisions, the insured may elect an enterprise unit for spring and smooth green types and a separate enterprise unit for the Austrian type, or separate enterprise units for each). Additionally, the acreage must each separately qualify for enterprise units and will be subject to the current requirements in the Basic Provisions.

If an insured elects enterprise units for multiple types and does not qualify for separate enterprise units, there are options based on the timing of the discovery:

• If the insured elects separate enterprise units for multiple types and the AIP discovers the enterprise unit qualifications are not separately met for all types:

(1) On or before the acreage reporting date, the insured may elect:

(a) All types in which the insured elected an enterprise unit for meeting the requirements in section 34(a)(4) as separate enterprise units, and basic or optional units for any acreage that is not reported and insured as an enterprise unit, whichever the insured reports on the acreage report and for which the insured qualifies;

(b) One enterprise unit for all acreage of the crop in the county provided the insured meets the requirements in section 34(a)(4); or

(c) Basic or optional units for all acreage of the crop in the county, whichever the insured reports on the acreage report and for which the insured qualifies.

(2) After acreage reporting date, the insured may have one enterprise unit comprised of all acreage in the county of the crop provided the insured meets requirements in section 34(a)(4), or the AIP will assign a basic unit structure for all acreage of the crop in the county.

• If an insured elects an enterprise unit for only one type and the AIP discovers the enterprise unit qualifications are not met for that type:

(1) On or before the acreage reporting date, the insured's unit division for all acreage of the crop in the county will be based on basic or optional units, whichever the insured reports on the acreage report and for which the insured qualifies; or

(2) After the acreage reporting date, the AIP will assign the basic unit structure for all acreage of the crop in the county.

FCIC is also revising the first sentence in redesignated paragraph (b) to eliminate the need to list all optional unit choices from the Basic Provisions. This allows the Dry Pea Crop Provisions and Dry Bean Crop Provisions to follow, without a new regulation, the Basic Provisions optional unit division language when and if those provisions in the Basic Provisions are updated.

FCIC is adding a new paragraph (c) to state that if types are only available by written agreement, separate enterprise units or optional units for those types are not available. This is consistent with enterprise unit and optional unit provisions in other Crop Provisions, such as Coarse Grains Crop Provisions.

Other changes specific to 7 CFR 457.140, Dry Pea Crop Insurance Provisions, are as follows:

1. Throughout the Crop Provisions, FCIC is removing the reference to United States Standards for Split Peas. The standards for Split Peas are used by processors but are not applicable to producers.

2. Section 1—FCIC is revising the definition of Local Market Price by removing the reference to United States Standards for Split Peas. Producers, grower groups, buyers, and GIPSA graders have stated that the Split Pea Standards only apply to processors and not to growers. Therefore, FCIC is removing the Split Pea references to reduce any potential confusion for growers.

3. Section 2—FCIC is designating the undesignated paragraph in section 2 as paragraph (b) and adding a new paragraph (a) to allow enterprise and optional units by type, regardless of whether the type is listed in the actuarial documents or the type is insured by written agreement.

4. Section 3—FCIC is revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to replace the phrase “insured fall-planted dry pea acreage” with the phrase “insurable fall-planted dry pea acreage.” Paragraph (c) provides guidance regarding the date by which producers can make changes to their insurance coverage depending on the status of their fall-planted acreage. The provisions previously stated that if producers have “insured” fall-planted acreage, no changes can be made after the fall sales closing date. FCIC received input from insurance companies that the phrase “insured fall planted acreage” implied that if producers planted fall-planted acreage but chose not insure it, then they would have until the spring sales closing date to make changes to the insurance coverage on the spring-planted acreage. That was not the intent of the provisions. All acreage of the crop in the county must be insured. If the producer plants fall-planted acreage and it meets the insurability requirements in section 6, then it must be insured. Therefore, FCIC is revising the language to indicate if producers planted “insurable” fall-planted acreage, then no changes may be made after the fall sales closing date.

Other changes to 7 CFR 457.150, Dry Bean Crop Insurance Provisions, are as follows:

1. Throughout the Crop Provisions, FCIC is removing the Basic Provisions section titles when the section number is a sufficient reference. This is consistent with changes being made in other Crop Provisions.

2. Section 1—FCIC is revising the definition of Type to allow enterprise and optional units for types insured by written agreement. Written agreements in this instance would allow producers to insure dry beans that would otherwise not be insurable based on an insurance offer unique to that producer. This change would address optional units (as well as enterprise units by type) when the producer has a written agreement providing coverage for a type not shown in the actuarial documents of the county in question. It also would give producers the same coverage available in the Dry Pea Crop Provisions and provide equitable treatment.

3. Section 2—FCIC is designating the undesignated paragraph in section 2 as paragraph (b) and adding a new paragraph (a) to allow enterprise and optional units by type, as described above.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 553) provides that the notice and comment and 30-day delay in the effective date provisions do not apply when the rule involves specified actions, including matters relating to contracts. This rule governs contracts for crop insurance policies and therefore falls within that exemption.

This rule is exempt from the regulatory analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

For major rules, the Congressional Review Act requires a delay the effective date of 60 days after publication to allow for Congressional review. This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, this final rule is effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register . Although not required by APA or any other law, FCIC has chosen to request comments on this rule.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 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 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The requirements in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 for the analysis of costs and benefits apply to rules that are determined to be significant.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule and analysis of the costs and benefits is not required under either Executive Order 12866 or 13563.

Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on this rule, we invite your comments on how to make the rule easier to understand. For example:

• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Are the scope and intent of the rule clear?

• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?

• Is the material logically organized?

• Would changing the grouping or order of sections or adding headings make the rule easier to understand?

• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?

• Would more, but shorter, sections be better? Are there specific sections that are too long or confusing?

• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

In general, the environmental impacts of rules are to be considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). FCIC conducts programs and activities that have been determined to have no individual or cumulative effect on the human environment. As specified in 7 CFR 1b.4, FCIC is categorically excluded from the preparation of an Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement unless the FCIC Manager (agency head) determines that an action may have a significant environmental effect. The FCIC Manager has determined this rule will not have a significant environmental effect. Therefore, FCIC will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this action and this rule serves as documentation of the programmatic environmental compliance decision.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule will not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. Before any judicial actions may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR part 11 are to be exhausted.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

RMA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that require Tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. The regulation changes do not have Tribal implications that preempt Tribal law and are not expected have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes. If a Tribe requests consultation, RMA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by Congress.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions of State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefits analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Program listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this rule applies is No. 10.450—Crop Insurance.

In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I), the rule does not change the information collection approved by OMB under control numbers 0563-0053.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family or parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 or 844-433-2774 (toll-free nationwide). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a-program-discrimination-complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by mail to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or email: OAC@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

For the reasons discussed above, FCIC amends 7 CFR part 457 as follows:

Background

On June 1, 2020, FSIS proposed to remove from the Federal meat inspection regulations a provision requiring the defibrination of livestock blood saved as edible product (85 FR 33031). The Agency stated in the proposed rule that eliminating the requirement, along with its associated costs to industry, would not affect food safety, but would enable industry to meet a demand for non-defibrinated blood products.

FSIS noted in the proposal that, before 1974, the regulations allowed establishments to collect edible blood from all livestock, except swine. However, in 1974, the Agency promulgated 9 CFR 310.20, which removed the swine blood prohibition, finding that it was not necessary for food safety (39 FR 1973, January 16, 1974). In the 1974 rule, the Agency also reasoned that the prohibition was burdensome, in that it denied specialty food producers a source of swine blood for their products.

Also, FSIS explained in the proposed rule that there had been no substantive changes governing the saving of livestock blood since 1974. Since that time, 9 CFR 310.20 has allowed establishments to save edible blood from all livestock, including swine, provided the animals' carcasses are inspected and passed and the blood is collected, defibrinated, and handled in a manner to prevent its becoming adulterated under the FMIA.

FSIS examined the peer-reviewed literature on coagulated, i.e., non-defibrinated, blood and did not identify any scientifically supportable food safety concerns. Thus, FSIS believes coagulated blood, like fluid blood, is safe for human consumption, provided the blood is saved from inspected and passed animals, and the blood is otherwise produced and prepared in compliance with all other FSIS regulations. Therefore, FSIS believes the defibrination requirement is not necessary to ensure food safety in accordance with the FMIA. 2

Furthermore, as is explained in the proposed rule, FSIS has become aware that some establishments are interested in collecting coagulated blood for use in human food products, including specialty and ethnic food products, that require coagulated blood as an ingredient. Such foods include variations of blood sausage, blood pudding, and blood tofu. The current defibrination requirement denies specialty and ethnic food producers a source of coagulated blood, thereby placing an unnecessary economic burden on them and on the livestock slaughter establishments that could provide coagulated blood.

FSIS proposed to remove the defibrination requirement from the Federal meat inspection regulations for many of the same reasons it gave for eliminating the swine blood prohibition in 1974.

This final rule is consistent with the proposed rule. FSIS is making no additional changes to the regulations in response to comments. FSIS is removing the defibrination requirement from 9 CFR 310.20.

Specifically, FSIS is revising the codified regulations to remove the word “defibrinated”. Under this final rule, official establishments will still have the option to defibrinate blood, provided they meet all other requirements in 9 CFR 310.20. The regulations will continue to prohibit the defibrination of blood by hand. The regulations will also continue to require the use of anticoagulants that meet cited requirements in title 9 and title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Comments: FSIS received two comments on the proposed rule. The first, from an industry association, was in agreement with the Agency's reasons for proposing to eliminate the blood defibrination requirement, including the lack of a food-safety benefit from the requirement and the fact that coagulated blood is a key ingredient in certain ethnic cuisines.

The second comment, from an individual, supported the practice of saving undefibrinated livestock blood as an edible product. The comment also underscored the benefits from eliminating the unnecessary costs associated with the defibrination requirement. The commenter stated that although these costs, as calculated in the Agency's economic analysis, may seem minimal when viewing a single employee performing a single defibrination task, they add up in the course of a year and when considering the number of establishments affected.

Response: FSIS agrees with the commenters and appreciates their support for this deregulatory action.

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 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 as a “non-significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866.

FSIS has updated the estimated benefits for this final rule from those published in the proposed rule based on more recent data. The changes include: A slight increase in the number of askFSIS questions and establishments; updated wage rates for production employees; and updated anti-coagulant solution costs.

From October 2015 to December 2, 2020, FSIS received 16 askFSIS  3 questions about defibrination from 15 slaughter establishments. Therefore, FSIS assumes that at least 15 establishments will be affected by this final rule.

There are no expected costs associated with this final rule. FSIS will allow coagulated blood to be saved for edible purposes.

This final rule will benefit slaughter establishments that manufacture livestock blood and processing establishments that use the blood in their products, such as blood sausage, blood tofu, and blood pudding. This final rule will allow slaughter establishments manufacturing livestock blood for edible purposes to package and sell the item in its customary coagulated form, enhancing the marketability for these niche products. In addition, removing the unnecessary, prescriptive requirements will allow establishments additional flexibility to be innovative and to operate in the most efficient manner.

Removing the regulatory requirement for establishments to defibrinate livestock blood is expected to result in industry cost savings. Establishments will reduce anti-coagulant solution costs and labor costs associated with defibrination.

According to 9 CFR 424.21, sodium citrate is a FSIS-approved anti-coagulant that can be used to defibrinate blood. FSIS estimates that the 2020 sodium citrate solution cost per gallon of blood is $1.47. 4 Using askFSIS and Public Health Information System (PHIS)  5 data, FSIS determined that all 15 establishments that process edible blood are small or very small establishments. FSIS experts estimated that small establishments that process edible blood products process two to five gallons of edible blood per production day. These establishments operate about 213  6 production days per year, which means that they each process an estimated 426 to 1,065 gallons of edible blood per year. Each of these establishments will save approximately $1,096 per year, with a range of $626  7 to $1,566  8 if they no longer defibrinate blood.

Establishments that process edible blood will also benefit from labor cost savings. FSIS experts estimate that it takes one production worker two to five minutes to defibrinate one gallon of livestock blood. FSIS estimated the total compensation rate of a production employee is $28.46  9 per hour or approximately $0.50  10 per minute based on 2019 estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Each establishment will save approximately $1,305 in labor costs per year, 11 with a range of $426 to $2,663 if they no longer defibrinate blood.

FSIS estimated that at least the 15 establishments that submitted askFSIS questions about defibrination from October 2015 to December 2, 2020 will benefit from the cost savings associated with this final rule. The total estimated annual industry cost savings are detailed in Table 1.

The FSIS Administrator has made a determination that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in the United States, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). Small and very small establishments will benefit from the cost savings associated with this final rule. However, the benefits to small and very small establishments, as indicated by the total savings estimates in Table 1 ($15,780 to $63,435 over 10 years), will not be significant. Of the 15 establishments that submitted askFSIS questions about defibrination from October 2015 to December 2, 2020, about 67 percent were classified as small, by Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) size, and 33 percent were HACCP-size very small. Under the HACCP-size definitions, large establishments have 500 or more employees and small establishments have fewer than 500 but more than 10 employees. Very small establishments have fewer than 10 employees or annual sales of less than $2.5 million.

There are no new paperwork or recordkeeping requirements associated with this final rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Each USDA agency is required to comply with 7 CFR part 1b of the Departmental regulations, which supplements the National Environmental Policy Act regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality. Under these regulations, actions of certain USDA agencies and agency units are categorically excluded from the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) unless the agency head determines that an action may have a significant environmental effect (7 CFR 1b.4(b)). FSIS is among the agencies categorically excluded from the preparation of an EA or EIS (7 CFR 1b.4(b)(6)).

FSIS has determined that this final rule, which removes the defibrination requirement from 9 CFR 310.20, will not create any extraordinary circumstances that would result in this normally excluded action's having a significant individual or cumulative effect on the human environment. Therefore, this action is appropriately subject to the categorical exclusion from the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement provided under 7 CFR 1b.4(6) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations.

FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et seq. ) by, among other things, promoting the use of the internet and other information technologies and providing increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a-program-discrimination-complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS web page located at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password-protect their accounts.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FSIS amends 9 CFR chapter III as follows:

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-29, dated August 21, 2020 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 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-2021-0093.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2021 (86 FR 11180). The NPRM was prompted by reports indicating that the left- and right-hand elevator torque tube bearings were contaminated with sand and corrosion, restricting free rotation. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive general visual inspections of the left- and right-hand elevator torque tube bearings for any sand, dust, or corrosion; repetitive functional tests of the elevator control system; and replacement of the elevator torque tube bearings if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address sand contamination and corrosion of the elevator torque tube bearings, which could lead to binding or seizure of the bearings, and potentially lead to a reduction in or loss of airplane pitch control. 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 the following service information.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-27-041, Revision 1, dated December 7, 2020.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-083, Revision 1, dated December 7, 2020.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5012, Revision 1, dated December 7, 2020.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-5503, Revision 1, dated December 7, 2020.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6012, Revision 1, dated December 7, 2020.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-27-6503, Revision 1, dated December 7, 2020.

This service information describes procedures for repetitive general visual inspections of the left- and right-hand elevator torque tube bearings for any sand, dust, or corrosion; repetitive functional tests of the elevator control system; and corrective actions including replacement of the elevator torque tube bearings if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models and serial numbers.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 392 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the reporting requirement in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $33,320, or $85 per product.

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.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Bell Model 429 helicopters, serial numbers 57001 and subsequent. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2021 (86 FR 18218). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require establishing a life limit for certain part-numbered tail rotor outboard flapping bearings and a certain part-numbered hoist kit cable cutter cartridge. The NPRM also proposed to require establishing recurring CMR tasks for a certain part-numbered wheeled landing gear system, float/life raft kit, and hoist kit, and depending on the results of the CMR tasks, corrective action. The NPRM was prompted by Canadian AD CF-2017-16, dated May 17, 2017, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority of Canada, to correct an unsafe condition for Bell Model 429 helicopters, serial numbers 57001 and subsequent. Transport Canada advises that Bell has established life limits and CMR tasks for various parts and accordingly revised Chapter 4—Airworthiness Limitations Schedule of Bell Helicopter 429 Maintenance Manual BHT-429-MM-1 to Revision 26, dated September 9, 2016 (BHT-429-MM-1). Transport Canada states that failure to replace life-limited parts or perform CMR tasks as specified could result in an unsafe condition.

Accordingly, the Transport Canada AD requires updating the maintenance schedule for the parts affected with the airworthiness life limits and CMR tasks in Revision 26 of BHT-429-MM-1.

The FAA received comments from one commenter. The commenter was Bell. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Bell requested changing the compliance time of the hoist cable anti-foul assembly operational check from before the first flight of the day involving a hoist operation to after the last flight of the day. Bell requested this change to avoid the potential to suspend critical operations in order to accomplish the check and any required corrective maintenance because according to Bell, hoist equipment serves an essential service and may be required for critical missions with minimal notice. Bell further stated that this task was established based on the system safety assessment for the Bell Model 429 helicopter hoist installation and exposure based on a daily check after the last flight was considered in that assessment to conservatively meet acceptable reliability targets for its Major hazard classification.

The FAA disagrees with the request to change the compliance time to after the last flight of the day. The compliance time of before the first flight of the day is standard practice in rotorcraft AD actions for enforceability purposes. However, this wording does not imply that the operational check and corrective action must be done on the same calendar day as the first flight of the day involving a hoist operation. In light of this, the FAA has made no changes based on this request.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these helicopters. Except, since issuance of the NPRM, Bell has updated its contact information to obtain service documentation by changing its website address and adding an email address. This final rule reflects those changes and this AD is otherwise adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Chapter 4—Airworthiness Limitations Schedule of BHT-429-MM-1. This service information specifies airworthiness life limits, inspection intervals, and CMR requirements for parts installed on Model 429 helicopters. Revision 26 of this service information establishes life limits for a certain part-numbered tail rotor flapping outboard bearing and hoist kit cartridge cable cutter and CMR requirements for a certain part-numbered wheeled landing gear system, float/life raft kit, and hoist kit.

Additionally, the FAA reviewed Chapter 96-47—600-Pound External Hoist Electrical System—Operational Check, of Bell 429 Maintenance Manual Supplement For 600-Pound External Hoist Kit, BHT-429-MMS-4, Revision 1, dated March 14, 2014. This service information specifies inspection procedures and corrective action for various components of the hoist system.

Lastly, the FAA reviewed Testing and Fault Isolation, pages 101-117/118, Cleaning, pages 401-405/406, and Scheduled Maintenance, pages 609-611/612, of Goodrich Rescue Hoist System Component Maintenance Manual 25-00-38-1, dated July 15, 2009, for rescue hoist assembly part number 44316-12-102. This service information specifies maintenance procedures and lists replacement parts for this part-numbered Goodrich rescue hoist assembly.

This AD requires corrective action for failed CMR tasks, whereas the Transport Canada AD does not. The Transport Canada AD requires accomplishing an operational check of the hoist cable anti-foul assembly daily after the last flight, whereas this AD requires this action before the first flight of the day involving a hoist operation instead.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 110 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 tail rotor outboard flapping bearing takes about 4 work-hours and parts cost about $7,500 for an estimated cost of $7,840 per helicopter and $862,400 for the U.S. fleet, per replacement cycle. Replacing a hoist kit cable cutter cartridge takes about 3 work-hours and parts cost about $5,200 for an estimated cost of $5,455 per helicopter and $600,050 for the U.S. fleet, per replacement cycle.

Performing a functional check of the wheeled landing gear system takes about 4 work-hours for an estimated cost of $340 per helicopter and $37,400 for the U.S. fleet, per cycle. Performing a functional check of the float/life raft kit takes about 2 work-hours for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $18,700 for the U.S. fleet, per cycle.

Performing an operational check of the hoist kit cable anti-foul assembly takes about 2 work-hours for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $18,700 for the U.S. fleet, per cycle. Cleaning, visually inspecting, and lubricating the rescue hoist cable takes about 2 work-hours for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $18,700 for the U.S. fleet, per cycle. Performing an operational check of the hoist kit speed limit switches and the electrical system takes about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $4,730 for the U.S. fleet, per cycle. Performing a functional check of the cable cutter cartridge electrical system takes about 3 work-hours for an estimated cost of $255 per helicopter and $28,050 for the U.S. fleet, per cycle.

The FAA has no way of determining the estimated costs to do allowable repairs based on the results of the CMR tasks. If required, replacing the float/life raft takes about 2 work-hours and parts cost about $5,000 for an estimated cost of $5,170 per float/life raft. Replacing the anti-foul assembly takes about 3 work-hours and parts cost about $1,500 for an estimated cost of $1,755 per anti-foul assembly. Replacing a rescue hoist cable takes about 3 work-hours and parts cost about $3,150 for an estimated cost of $3,405 per rescue hoist cable. Overhauling a rescue hoist assembly costs about $83,000 and it takes about 8 work-hours to remove and reinstall the hoist for a labor cost of $680, for a total estimated cost of $83,680 per helicopter, per overhaul cycle. Alternatively, replacing a hoist takes about 8 work-hours and parts cost about $200,000 for an estimated cost of $200,680 per helicopter, per replacement cycle.

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:

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0203, dated September 23, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0203) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-09-14, Amendment 39-19910 (85 FR 30601, May 20, 2020) (AD 2020-09-14). AD 2020-09-14 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2021 (86 FR 10493). The NPRM was prompted by a new, water-resistant ICP developed by the manufacturer to address the identified unsafe condition. The NPRM proposed to continue to require revising the existing AFM to define a liquid-prohibited zone on the flight deck and provide procedures following liquid spillage on the center pedestal. The NPRM also proposed to continue to require installing a removable ICP cover on the flight deck and further revising the AFM to include instructions for ICP cover use, as specified in EASA AD 2020-0203. The NPRM also proposed to require installing a new, water-resistant ICP, which would allow removing the ICP protective cover and the AFM revisions, as specified in EASA AD 2020-0203.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the potential for dual-engine in-flight shutdown (IFSD), possibly resulting in a forced landing with consequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) indicated its support for the NPRM.

In the NPRM, the FAA did not provide a parts cost estimate for the new actions, and it was noted that the FAA had received no definitive data regarding cost estimates for those parts. Since publication of the NPRM, the FAA has obtained a parts cost estimate from the manufacturer, and has updated the Costs of Compliance section of this final rule accordingly.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, 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 2020-0203 describes procedures for revising the AFM to define a liquid-prohibited zone on the flight deck and provide procedures following liquid spillage on the center pedestal, installing an ICP cover on the flight deck, and further revising the AFM to include instructions for ICP cover use. EASA AD 2020-0203 also describes procedures for installing a new, water-resistant ICP; removing the ICP protective cover; and removing the AFM revisions. 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 15 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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:

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 (Type Certificate previously held by Eurocopter France) Model AS350B3 and EC130T2 helicopters with an ARRIEL 2D engine and THALES full authority digital engine control (FADEC) part number (P/N) C13165DA00 without amendment A or P/N C13165FA00 without amendment B, installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2021 (86 FR 15140). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the Emergency Procedures of the existing RFM for your helicopter by inserting Appendix 4. of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS350-01.00.67 or ASB No. EC130-04A004, each Revision 2 and dated February 17, 2014 (ASB AS350-01.00.67 and ASB EC130-04A004) or a different document with information identical to that in Appendix 4., as applicable to your helicopter model. As an optional terminating action for the RFM revision, the NPRM proposed to allow installing amendment A on FADEC P/N C13165DA00 or amendment B on FADEC P/N C13165FA00.

The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2013-0287, dated December 5, 2013 (EASA AD 2013-0287), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter (formerly Eurocopter France, Aerospatiale) Model AS 350 B3 and EC 130 T2 helicopters with an ARRIEL 2D engine and THALES FADEC P/N C13165DA00 or P/N C13165FA00 installed. EASA advises of a report of an in-flight event where the pilot noticed that the temporary amber governor (GOV) light had illuminated, followed by the failure of the vehicle engine monitoring display (VEMD) screens, and no availability of the automatic or auxiliary engine back-up control ancillary unit (EBCAU). Subsequent investigation identified an internal failure of the engine DECU, which led to loss of fuel flow regulation (frozen fuel metering unit). This failure was not indicated to the pilot by a red GOV warning light as expected, but with amber GOV indication and loss of VEMD display instead. EASA also advises that if this fuel metering unit is frozen in the open position, it may lead to a rotor overspeed, and if it is frozen in the closed position, it may lead to unavailability of engine power. EASA states that this condition, if not addressed, could result in the pilot identifying the type of failure condition incorrectly, possibly resulting in an improper response.

Accordingly, and pending the development of a DECU assembly design improvement, the EASA AD requires incorporating a new procedure into the Emergency Procedures section of the RFM and informing all flight crews of the RFM change. EASA considers its AD an interim action and states that further AD action may follow.

After EASA issued EASA AD 2013-0287, EASA issued SIB No. 2013-23, dated December 19, 2013, for Eurocopter AS 350 B3 and EC 130 T2 helicopters with a Turboméca ARRIEL 2D engine installed. The SIB recommends modifying certain electronic engine control units (EECUs).

The FAA received comments from an anonymous commenter. The commenter stated that the EECU or DECU is an engine component and requested this be reflected as an engine AD and not an airframe AD. The commenter further stated that this AD is unnecessary because the flight manual revision is required as part of the certification of the aircraft and is already regulatory as the flight manual is an FAA approved manual. The FAA does not agree; EASA, as the state of design authority for Airbus Helicopters, determined that the unsafe condition exists only in the Model AS 350 B3 and EC 130 T2 helicopters. Additionally, one of the actions mitigating the unsafe condition is modification of the RFM. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0287 against the airframe. As the validating authority, the FAA, in accordance with the bilateral agreement with the European Union, did not find just cause to change the effectivity for the FAA AD. Per 14 CFR 21.5, an approved RFM must be presented to the owner upon delivery of the rotorcraft. Unless required through an operational certificate or operational specification, the rotorcraft owner is not required by regulation to adopt flight manual revisions made after delivery of the rotorcraft. To mandate a change to the RFM to address the unsafe condition, the FAA must issue an AD.

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, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these helicopters.

The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters ASB AS350-01.00.67 and ASB EC130-04A004. ASB AS350-01.00.67 applies to Model AS350B3 helicopters and ASB EC130-04A004 applies to Model EC130T2 helicopters. This service information provides a new RFM procedure in the event of illumination of the amber GOV followed by the loss of the VEMD display.

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 also reviewed Safran Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 73 2852, Revision B, dated February 12, 2014. This service information specifies replacing certain FADEC D EECUs with certain amended FADEC D EECUs.

The EASA AD applies to Model AS350B3 and EC130T2 helicopters, with an ARRIEL 2D engine and THALES FADEC P/N C13165DA00 or P/N C13165FA00 installed, whereas this AD applies to those helicopters except not those with THALES FADEC P/N C13165DA00 with amendment A or P/N C13165FA00 with amendment B installed. This AD also allows installing those amendments on the FADEC as an optional terminating action, whereas the EASA AD does not.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects up to 628 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.

Revising the existing RFM for your helicopter takes about 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and up to $13,188 for the U.S. fleet.

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:

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0223, dated October 14, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0223) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Saab AB, Support and Services Model SAAB 2000 airplanes.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Saab AB, Support and Services Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2021 (86 FR 11184). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that the left-hand MLG collapsed after touchdown, causing severe damage to the airplane. The NPRM proposed to require modifying the MLG hydraulic transfer valve, as specified in EASA AD 2020-0223.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address abnormal behavior of the MLG hydraulic transfer valve due to a restriction in hydraulic flow, which could cause the MLG hydraulic transfer valve to not function properly and fail to retract, extend, or lock the MLG, and possibly result in MLG collapse following landing and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants. 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 2020-0223 describes procedures for modifying the MLG hydraulic transfer valve. This modification includes installing a new relay, relocation of wiring, and installation of new wiring, to ensure that, when the emergency extension handle is used, the transfer valve solenoid is energized to force the transfer valve to the “gear down” position. 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 8 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 FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2021 (86 FR 11186). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that a crack was found on the splice angle flange that is attached to the STA 540 bulkhead in the area between certain stringers. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive surface HFEC inspections at the radius of the left- and right-side of the STA 540 bulkhead splice angle for any cracking, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address any cracking in the splice angle, which could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit load and could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane; in addition, such cracking could lead to adjoining parts cracking and a potential fuel leak and consequent fire.

The FAA received a comment from Boeing who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA also received an additional comment from Aviation Partners Boeing.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the proposed AD.

The FAA concurs with the commenter. The FAA has redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1347 RB, dated July 29, 2020. The service information describes procedures for repetitive surface HFEC inspections at the radius of the left- and right-side of the STA 540 bulkhead splice angle for any cracking, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include repair or replacement. 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 ADDRESSES .

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 117 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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 2019-0305, dated December 17, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0305), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK117 D-2 helicopters.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK117 D-2 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2021 (86 FR 17330). The NPRM was prompted by reports of chafing marks on the wiring harness behind the middle side panels in the area of the front PAX panels. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting, modifying, and rerouting the wiring harness, as specified in the EASA AD.

The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent electrical failure of the helicopter wiring harness. See the EASA AD 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.

EASA AD 2019-0305 specifies inspecting the wiring harness installed behind the front PAX panel of the left and right hand middle side panels and depending on the results, repairing or modifying the wiring harness. For a modified wiring harness, EASA AD 2019-0305 specifies repetitively inspecting for damage.

The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB-BK117 D-2-88A-003, Revision 1 and dated December 9, 2019 (ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-88A-003). ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-88A-003 applies to Model MBB-BK-117 D-2 and D-2m helicopters. This service information specifies inspecting, repairing, and modifying the wiring harness installed behind the front PAX panel of the left and right hand middle side panels. 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.

Where the EASA AD refers to flight hours, this AD uses hours time-in-service (TIS) instead. Where the EASA AD allows a tolerance to the compliance time of certain initial and repetitive inspections, this AD requires a compliance time of within 440 hours TIS after modification of an affected part for a certain initial inspection and thereafter at intervals within 440 hours TIS for certain repetitive inspections instead. Where the EASA AD requires repetitive inspections in accordance with paragraph 3.B.8. of ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-88A-003, this AD requires repetitive inspections in accordance with paragraph 3.B.9. of ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-88A-003.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 60 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Inspecting the wiring harness takes about 6 work-hours for an estimated cost of $510 per helicopter and $30,600 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle. Modification during the inspection of the wiring harness takes about 6 work-hours for an estimated cost of $510 per helicopter.

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 2021-0014, dated January 13, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0014) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes.

This AD was prompted by a report that corrosion was found on the horizontal flange on the front spar lower boom, between the rebate strap and the lower boom, and resulted in bulging. The FAA is issuing this AD to address corrosion on the horizontal flange, which could lead to reduced structural integrity of the wing torsion box structure. See the MCAI for additional background information.

EASA AD 2021-0014 specifies procedures for doing a detailed visual inspection to detect any bulging, loose, and missing countersunk fastener heads at the LH and RH outer wing lower skin of the front spar between wing station (WSTA) 10110 and WSTA 11190; and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include repetitive detailed visual inspections of the LH and RH outer wing lower skin, at the front spar between WSTA 10110 and WSTA 11190, if bulging between 0.5 mm and 3 mm is found; a detailed visual inspection to detect corrosion at the front spar lower boom and rebate strap if any bulging, loose, or missing countersunk fastener head, or bulging in excess of 3 mm, is found; and repair of any corrosion damage. EASA AD 2021-0014 also specifies reporting inspection findings. 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 2021-0014 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 developed a process to use certain civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with other manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, EASA AD 2021-0014 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD, therefore, requires compliance with EASA AD 2021-0014 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0014 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 2021-0014 that is required for compliance with it is available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0448.

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 domestic operators of these products. 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, 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-2021-0448; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00044-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 Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3226; email Tom.Rodriguez@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 estimates that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the reporting requirement in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of reporting the inspection results to be $85 per product.

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

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0198, dated August 15, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0198), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD), formerly Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH, Model MBB-BK117 D-2 helicopters.

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 Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2021 (86 FR 17322). The NPRM was prompted by a short circuit in a yaw trim actuator connector that occurred during production electrical tests. Subsequent investigations determined that a sharp edge in the backshell damaged the wiring insulation. The NPRM proposed to require replacing certain backshells, as specified in an EASA AD.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address an unsafe condition that could result in yaw or pitch trim runaway and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. See EASA AD 2019-0198 for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received comments from one commenter; however, none of the comments requested a change to the requirements proposed by the NPRM or the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed.

EASA AD 2019-0198 specifies replacing backshells part number (P/N) M85049/90-13W02 if manufactured by AMPHENOL or if the manufacturer is unknown (affected part) with backshells P/N M85049/90-13W02 not manufactured by AMPHENOL (serviceable part). EASA AD 2019-0198 also prohibits the (re-)installation of an affected 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.

EASA AD 2019-0198 applies to all Model MBB-BK117 D-2 helicopters, whereas this AD applies to that model helicopter with an affected part installed instead. EASA AD 2019-0198 requires replacing each affected part with a serviceable part within 9 months, whereas this AD requires that replacement within 30 hours time-in-service instead.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 30 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD.

Replacing each backshell takes about 8 work-hours and parts cost $220, for an estimated cost of $900 per backshell.

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 FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2021 (86 FR 17324). The NPRM was prompted by a report that during refueling of the right main tank, if there is a failure of the automatic shutoff system, the refueling panel does not provide the required indication that the automatic shutoff has failed. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require installing a new FQPU and doing an FQPU software check. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this indication failure to warn the person fueling the airplane, which could cause overfill of the right main tank, spilled fuel, and pooling on the ground that could come in contact with an ignition source, resulting in a ground fire.

The FAA received comments from Boeing and United Airlines who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-28-1363 RB, dated June 2, 2020. The service information specifies procedures for replacing the FQPU having an incorrect indication threshold with an FQPU with part number 30128-06 or 30128-58, as applicable, or an FQPU with a later-approved part number, and doing an FQPU software check. 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 ADDRESSES .

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 66 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2016-25-29, Amendment 39-18755 (81 FR 94956, December 27, 2016) (AD 2016-25-29). AD 2016-25-29 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes, and required replacing the cargo compartment insulation blankets on the left and right sides with new insulation blankets that incorporate fire stops. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 10, 2020 (85 FR 48122). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a fire in the bilge area of the cargo compartment that burned through the insulation blankets that were intended to prevent smoke from migrating behind the cargo compartment sidewall liners and upward into the main cabin. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2016-25-29 for certain airplanes. The NPRM also proposed to add airplanes to the applicability and proposed to require a general visual inspection of the replacement insulation blankets to determine if the blankets are in serviceable condition and correctly installed, and applicable on-condition actions. For certain airplanes, the NPRM also proposed to require an inspection to determine the insulation blanket part number installed; replacement of additional insulation blankets; and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address a fire in the bilge area of the cargo compartment, which if not contained could lead to a possible smoke and fire event in the passenger compartment.

The FAA received comments from three commenters, including Aviation Partners Boeing, Delta Air Lines (DAL), and United Airlines (UAL). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01920SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.

The FAA agrees with the commenter that STC ST01920SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST01920SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

UAL concurs with the NPRM and requested that the FAA delay issuance of the final rule until the referenced Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) and airplane maintenance manual (AMM) specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1, dated December 4, 2019, are revised to ensure continued airworthiness and safety. UAL stated that the referenced service information will provide proper documentation support to maintain the insulation blanket changes specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1, dated December 4, 2019, prior to the release of the final rule. UAL also commented that the revised referenced service information can mitigate incorrect repairs and blanket installation, and minimize future alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) requests.

The FAA disagrees with delaying the final rule. Since the publication of the NPRM, the operator's existing IPC and AMM have been revised and provide accurate part numbers and corrective action procedures for missing insulation blankets. In addition, an operator unable to accomplish the actions in this AD for any reason may request approval of an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

UAL expressed concern about the post-compliance maintenance configuration using Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1, dated December 4, 2019, in the absence of a revised Boeing 767 IPC ( i.e., Boeing 767 IPC sections 25-21-05; 25-52-03; 25-52-52; 25-52-62; 25-55-01) to identify the proper insulation blankets with integrated fire stops. UAL described disagreements in the service information for the identity of the insulation blanket installations and corresponding part numbers in the aft and forward cargo compartment of post-modification airplanes and missing insulation blankets from certain appendixes and figures. UAL stated that it is essential to identify post-service bulletin configurations in certain Boeing 767 IPCs to ensure that AD compliance is maintained and to avoid inadvertent demodification by maintenance technicians. UAL commented that the configuration control for the airplane is the IPC, which maintenance technicians use for proper part replacement, and would alert maintenance personnel of insulation blankets having the integrated fire stops to ensure continued airworthiness.

As the FAA stated previously, since the NPRM was issued, relevant sections of the IPC have been revised. The operator's existing IPC contains the accurate part numbers and corrects missing insulation blankets. For clarification, the part numbers for the insulation blankets specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, dated January 15, 2015, and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1, dated December 4, 2019, are acceptable for installation; the new part numbers requires less work to install. The FAA has revised paragraph (h)(4) of this AD accordingly.

In addition, Boeing found that the insulation blankets at certain locations were not affected by the integrated fire stop issue that are addressed in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1, dated December 4, 2019. Therefore, these insulation blankets were removed from Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1, dated December 4, 2019. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1, dated December 4, 2019, includes work to re-inspect the installation of the insulation blankets that were installed in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, dated January 15, 2015. Since those insulation blankets that are not affected by the fire stop issue were removed from Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1, dated December 4, 2019, there is no need for instructions in Revision 1 to inspect the work that was performed in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, dated January 15, 2015. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

UAL commented that, in the toolbox on https://www.myboeingfleet.com, there are two versions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1: One version is dated December 4, 2019, and one version is dated December 5, 2019. UAL also commented that the header of the toolbox states that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1, dated December 4, 2019, is not the current version. UAL stated that the proper service information date needs to be addressed in the NPRM.

The FAA has confirmed that the correct date of the service information is December 4, 2019, and that there is currently only one version of the service information cited on https://www.myboeingfleet.com. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

DAL commented that figure 42-A of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1, dated December 4, 2019, refers to item 4 between stations 434 through 456, but it should be item 3. DAL stated this citation has been confirmed by Boeing in Service Request 3-4634446605.

The FAA agrees that the correct reference for figure 42-A between stations 434 through 456 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1, dated December 4, 2019, is item 3. In addition, figure 42 is a RC step. The FAA has added paragraph (h)(2) of this AD to identify the correct item number.

DAL commented that in figure 51 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1, dated December 4, 2019, there should be an insulation blanket depicted between station (STA) 1395 and STA 1417. DAL also commented that appendixes D, E, F, G, H, and I of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1, dated December 4, 2019, show the insulation blanket part numbers between STA 1395 and STA 1417. DAL reported that Boeing confirmed that the insulation blanket was missing from that figure.

The FAA agrees with the commenter's statement. The FAA has added paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to specify that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1, dated December 4, 2019, figures 49, 50, and 51, between STA 1395 and STA 1417, should indicate that an insulation blanket is installed.

For airplanes that have been in mass parking due to the worldwide pandemic, DAL requested clock stoppage options such as those offered to operators by the manufacturer for scheduled maintenance program tasks. DAL stated that this request is for airplanes that meet the following conditions:

• Airplanes that are currently undergoing storage, or airplanes that will enter storage during the compliance time of the proposed AD.

• Airplanes that were preserved with instructions in close reference to the AMM procedures.

DAL also commented that an airplane in a preserved state does not experience the following risk factors that are taken into consideration for the proposed AD:

• Passenger Safety: The newly installed insulation blankets are meant to prevent smoke from migrating behind the cargo compartment sidewall liners and upward into the main cabin, where it could affect passengers. If the airplane does not have passengers during the time in which it is preserved, there is no increased risk to the public.

• Potential fire in the cargo compartments: Since the airplane is not in operation, there is no cargo being stored in the cargo compartments, meaning it is highly unlikely that there will be a fire initiated to cause smoke.

In addition, DAL asserted that the safety risk associated with the inferior insulation blankets installed on the airplane is either a small consideration or not a consideration at all in the calculation of overall fleet risk because the concern is not with degradation of insulation blanket material, or any other factor in which an increase in compliance time would increase the risk.

The FAA disagrees with having stoppage options due to the unsafe condition. In developing an appropriate compliance time, the FAA considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the actions in this AD. Further, the FAA arrived at the proposed compliance time with Boeing's concurrence. It is difficult to plan for every possible storage scenario, and currently, the FAA does not have procedures that would address every possible scenario to ensure that all airplanes will be addressed in a timely manner once the airplanes are back in service. If an operator is unable to accomplish the actions in this AD for whatever reason or has the airplane in storage, it may request approval of an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 1, dated December 4, 2019. The service information describes procedures for replacement of cargo compartment insulation blankets between stringers 29 and 33, on the left and right sides, with new insulation blankets that incorporate fire stops; an inspection to determine the insulation blanket part number installed between stringers 29 and 33, on the left and right sides; a general visual inspection of the replacement insulation blankets between stringers 29 and 33, on the left and right sides to determine if the insulation blankets are in serviceable condition and correctly installed; and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include repair, replacement, and correction of insulation blanket installations. 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 ADDRESSES .

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 329 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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

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

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 FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2020 (85 FR 85559). The NPRM was prompted by a report of discrepant spoiler assemblies, which have the wrong splice bar installed and lack reinforcing doublers, and by reports that some splice bars were shipped for installation on Model 717-200 airplanes, although they were not eligible for installation on Model 717-200 airplanes and were identified incorrectly with the Model 717-200 splice bar part number. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time inspection of the left- and right-wing inboard and outboard spoiler assemblies for the correct splice bar and doublers configuration, and repair if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address splice bars which are not structurally adequate, which can lead to failure of the splice bar to keep the spoiler drive link engaged, and could result in spoiler float and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

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

The FAA received comments from two additional commenters, Delta Air Lines (Delta) and Hawaiian Airlines. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Delta asked that the compliance time of the proposed AD be changed to 27 months of “flying days” instead of calendar days. Delta stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD states, in part, “At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 717-57A0027 RB, dated June 26, 2020.” Delta noted that Paragraph 1.E., Compliance, of the referenced service information requires a general visual inspection for the correct splice bar and doubler configuration within 6,400 flight hours or 27 months. Delta added that because of the Covid-19 pandemic airlines have a large quantity of aircraft in storage, so changing to flight time would not affect the unsafe condition.

The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the manufacturer's recommendation for an appropriate compliance time, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required inspection within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. In addition, the FAA notes that some Model 717-200 airplanes may have been in service during the pandemic and must comply within the required compliance time. Operators do have the option to inspect the airplane before the first flight following storage if the airplane is in storage for more than 27 months. However, under the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety.

Hawaiian Airlines asked that paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD, which requires obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for repair of any discrepant spoiler, be changed to add another method: Removal and replacement of the discrepant spoiler with a serviceable spoiler that has the correct splice bar and doublers using the procedure specified in the Model 717 airplane maintenance manual (AMM), Chapter 27-60-01. Hawaiian Airlines stated that this would alleviate further out-of-service time of the aircraft, and the discrepant spoiler can be repaired off-wing.

The FAA agrees with the commenter's request. The FAA has added paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii) of this AD to specify that either repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD or replacement of any spoiler assembly having an incorrect configuration with a replacement spoiler assembly is acceptable for compliance with this AD. The FAA notes that a replacement spoiler assembly must have a correct configuration as specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 717-57A0027 RB, dated June 26, 2020. The FAA has also added Note 2 to paragraph (h)(2)(ii) to specify that guidance for replacement can be found in Model 717 AMM, Chapter 27-60-01.

Delta requested the FAA provide an approved method to correct the unsafe condition by removing and discarding any non-blueprint parts and re-assembling per original equipment manufacturer (OEM) spoiler drawing 5940974-1/-2/-501/-502. Delta stated that the OEM spoiler drawing was acceptable for the type certification basis for the Model 717-200 airplane during assembly of the aircraft. Delta added that restoring the spoiler to the OEM blueprint would restore the part to an approved configuration with the unsafe condition removed.

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. An operator cannot bring a discrepant spoiler assembly back to the OEM correct configuration without modifying the underlying spoiler structure. Modifying the spoiler assembly requires repair instructions from the OEM. An operator may request an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 717-57A0027 RB, dated June 26, 2020. This service information describes procedures for a one-time general visual inspection of the left- and right-wing inboard and outboard spoiler assemblies for the correct splice bar and doublers configuration, and repair. 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 ADDRESSES .

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 114 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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 Entity List (supplement no. 4 to part 744 of the EAR) identifies entities reasonably believed to be involved in, or to 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 Export Administration Regulations (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 End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and makes all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add five entities to the Entity List. The five entities are being added based on § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The five entities are located in China.

The ERC reviewed and applied § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to add these five entities to the Entity List. Under that paragraph, persons for whom there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that they 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, along with those acting on behalf of such persons, may be added to the Entity List. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of § 744.11 provide an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.

For each of the five entities described below, the ERC made the requisite determination under the standard set forth in § 744.11(b). Specifically, the ERC determined that the subject entities are engaging in or enabling activities contrary to U.S. foreign policy interests. These entities have been implicated in human rights violations and abuses in the implementation of China's campaign of repression, mass arbitrary detention, forced labor and high-technology surveillance against Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and other members of Muslim minority groups in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. Specifically, the ERC determined that Xinjiang GCL New Energy Material Technology, Co. Ltd; Xinjiang Daqo New Energy, Co. Ltd; Xinjiang East Hope Nonferrous Metals Co. Ltd.; Hoshine Silicon Industry (Shanshan) Co., Ltd.; and Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps are engaging in activities contrary to the foreign policy interests of the United States through participating in the practice of, accepting, or utilizing forced labor.

Pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR, the ERC has determined that the conduct of these five entities raises sufficient concern that prior review of exports, reexports or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR involving these entities, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to these entities, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent items subject to the EAR from being used in activities contrary to the foreign policy interests of the United States.

For the five entities identified above that are being added to the Entity List, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of case-by-case review for Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 1A004.c, 1A004.d, 1A995, 1A999.a, 1D003, 2A983, 2D983, and 2E983. A policy of case-by-case review also applies to items designated as EAR99 that are described in the Note to ECCN 1A995, specifically, items for protection against chemical or biological agents that are consumer goods, packaged for retail sale or personal use, or medical products. Additionally, in light of the current global pandemic, BIS has adopted a policy of case-by-case review for items subject to the EAR that are necessary to detect, identify and treat infectious disease. BIS has adopted a license review policy of presumption of denial for all other items subject to the EAR. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the entities being added to the Entity List in this rule. The acronym “a.k.a.” or ‘also known as’ is used in entries on the Entity List to identify aliases, thereby assisting exporters, reexporters and transferors in identifying entities on the Entity List.

This final rule adds the following five entities to the Entity List:

• Hoshine Silicon Industry (Shanshan) Co., Ltd.;

• Xinjiang Daqo New Energy, Co. Ltd;

• Xinjiang East Hope Nonferrous Metals Co. Ltd.;

• Xinjiang GCL New Energy Material Technology, Co. Ltd; and

• Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps.

Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or for export or reexport 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 24, 2021, pursuant to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport 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. Sections 4801-4852. ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

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.

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

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

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required 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:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. This temporary rule references a date change and a change to the regulated area to an annual recurring special local regulation that already exists in 33 CFR 100.703, Table 1 to 100.703, Line 5. For this year, we received the date changes and the coordinate changes from the Sarasota Powerboat Grand Prix/Powerboat P-1 USA, LLC with insufficient time to publish an NPRM and receive public comment on these changes, as the Sarasota Powerboat Grand Prix event will occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the dangers associated with high speed boat races, the regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators, and vessels transiting the event area. For those reasons, it would be impracticable to publish an NPRM.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with Sarasota Grand Prix.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port St. Petersburg has determined that potential hazards associated with the race will be a danger to anyone within the regulated area. The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Sarasota Powerboat Grand Prix.

This rule establishes a special local regulation that will encompass certain waters of the Gulf of Mexico, Lido Beach, Florida. The special local regulation will be enforced daily from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 25, 2021 through June 27, 2021. The special local regulation will establish an enforcement area where all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high speed boat races, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within without obtaining permission from the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg (COTP) by telephone at (727) 824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the COTP or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners and/or Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on: (1) The special local regulation will be enforced for eight hours on three days; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the COTP or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if authorized by the COTP or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and/or Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so is impracticable since this safety zone must be established by June 24, 2021 and the Coast Guard did not receive notice of the event with sufficient time to undergo notice and comment before that date. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display with a potential blast zone.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the rule's objectives in ensuring that the potential safety hazards associated with the Ford Fireworks display are effectively mitigated, and life and property on the navigable waters in the vicinity are protected.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Ford Fireworks display starting June 24, 2021, will be a safety concern during the loading, transit, and execution of the Ford Fireworks. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the work is being completed.

This rule establishes three safety zones from 8 a.m. on June 24, 2021 through 11:59 p.m. June 28, 2021. In the case of inclement weather on June 28, 2021, all three safety zones will be enforced the subsequent day. The first of the three safety zones is established to encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the Detroit River within a 1,300-foot radius of fireworks loading site at 42°17.418′ N, 083°06.897′ W (WGS 84). This first safety zone will be enforced from 8 a.m. on June 24, 2021 through 8 a.m. on June 28, 2021. The second safety zone is a 1,300-foot radius surrounding each barge while transiting in U.S. waters of the Detroit River from the loading site to the fireworks launch site on Lake St. Clair in the vicinity of the beach at the Lake St. Clair Metro Park. The second safety zone will be enforced from 8 a.m. through 7 p.m. on June 28, 2021. A third safety zone is established to encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Lake St. Clair within a 1,300-foot radius at the fireworks launch site in the vicinity of the beach at Lake St. Clair Metro Park. The third safety zone will be enforced from 7 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. on June 28, 2021. The duration of these safety zones is intended to protect personel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while fireworks are being prepared, ignited, and after the display in the event of unexploded fireworks. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic not will be able to safely transit around these safety zones in certain places which will impact a small designated area of the Detroit River and Lake St. Clair River for various times thoughout the duration of the 4 days. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone in various locations and times thoughout a 4 day period that will prohibit entry within 1300 yards radius of fireworks barges. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60(a)] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impractible. A safety zone is necessary to facilitate safe salvage operations surrounding a capsized vessel that has garnered high media interest and is in a location frequented by commercial and recreational vessel traffic. Immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with recovery salvage operations. We must establish this safety zone by June 15, 2021 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be against the public interest because immediate action is needed to continue ongoing recovery salvage operations.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Houma (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the recovery salvage operations continuing through August 2, 2021, will be a safety concern for anyone within a one nautical mile radius around the capsized vessel in South Timbalier Block 22 of the Gulf of Mexico at position 29°00′25.7877″ N, 090°11′52.9852″ W. This rule is needed to protect life and property on the navigable waters while recovery salvage operations are ongoing.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from June 15, 2021 through August 02, 2021. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a one nautical mile radius around position 29°00′25.7877″ N, 090°11′52.9852″ W, in South Timbalier Block 22 of the Gulf of Mexico, near Port Fouchon, LA. The duration of the zone is intended to protect life and property on these navigable waters for the duration of emergency recovery salvage operations related to the capsized vessel. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter and move within the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Marine Safety Unit Houma. Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67. Persons and vessels permitted to enter or to move within this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement periods and changes through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the limited scale of the safety zone and the ease of vessel traffic navigating around said zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry within a one nautical mile radius of vessels and machinery being used by personnel response operations to a capsized vessel. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in 33 CFR 100.704, Table 1 to § 100.704, Item No. (6), for the Patriot's Point Fireworks Display on July 4, 2021 from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. The regulation in § 100.704, Table 1 to § 100.704, Item No. (6), specifies the location of the regulated area for the Patriot's Point Fireworks Display, which encompasses a portion of the Cooper River at Patriot's Point in Charleston, South Carolina. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 100.704(c)(1), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions of the COTP Charleston or from his designated representative, including the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish the temporary safety zone by June 25, 2021 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. The potential safety hazards associated with this event and the large number of vessels and spectators in the vicinity of vessels require immediate action to ensure the safety of event participants and vessels. Further, waiting for a comment period to run is also contrary to the public interest as it would inhibit the Coast Guard's mission to keep the ports and waterways safe, protect the public from the hazards associated with this event, and minimize the impact on vessel traffic on the navigable waterway.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the temporary safety zone regulation must be established on June 25, 2021 to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Northern New England (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the public tours would be a safety concern for anyone within a 25-yard radius of the participating tall ships. The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transient vessels on the navigable waters of Boothbay Harbor during the scheduled event.

This rule establishes temporary safety zones from 12:01 a.m. on June 25, 2021 until 12:01 a.m. on June 28, 2021. The safety zones would cover all navigable waters within 25 yards of a tall ship in Boothbay Harbor. The duration of the zones is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters during the Tall Ships Boothbay Harbor 2021 Marine Event of National Significance. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zones without obtaining permission from the COTP or Designated Representative. If the tall ships are operating in a confined area and there is not adequate room for vessels to stay out of the safety zones due to a of a lack of navigable water, then vessels will be permitted to operate within the safety zone and shall travel at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course. The navigation rules shall apply at all times while transiting the safety zones. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. The safety zone only impacts a small designated area of the Booth Bay Harbor, ME. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around these safety zones or through it at slow speed in congested areas. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone may do so with permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves safety zones limited in duration and size that encompass the areas around visiting tall ships. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60[a] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is amending 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive final details for the vessel's arrival and transit until June 14, 2021. The Coast Guard must establish this safety zone by June 24, 2021 and lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . It is contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this rule because the safety zone must be effective by June 24, 2021 to protect vessels and persons from the dangers associated with the crane arms extending over the water from the M/V ZHEN HUA 26 as it transits a busy waterway.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the transit of the M/V ZHEN HUA 26 between June 24, 2021 and July 8, 2021, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-foot radius of the vessel during its transit to the Port of Oakland, while the vessel is within the San Francisco Bay and areas shoreward of the line drawn between San Francisco Main Ship Channel Lighted Bell Buoy 7 and San Francisco Main Ship Channel Lighted Whistle Buoy 8 (LLNR 4190 & 4195) in positions 37°46.9′ N, 122°35.4′ W and 37°46.5′ N, 122°35.2′ W, respectively. For this reason, a safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters around the M/V ZHEN HUA 26 during its transit to the Everport Container Terminal in Oakland, CA.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 12:01 a.m. on June 24, 2021 until 11:59 p.m. on July 8, 2021, during the inbound transit of the M/V ZHEN HUA 26. While the M/V ZHEN HUA 26 is within the San Francisco Bay and areas shoreward of the line drawn between San Francisco Main Ship Channel Lighted Bell Buoy 7 and San Francisco Main Ship Channel Lighted Whistle Buoy 8 (LLNR 4190 & 4195) in positions 37°46.9′ N, 122°35.4′ W and 37°46.5′ N, 122°35.2′ W, respectively, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the vessel, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 500 feet out from the vessel. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, mariners, and vessels from hazards associated with the ship-to-shore gantry crane arm, which will extend more than 215 feet out from the transiting vessel.

The M/V ZHEN HUA 26 may make a temporary stop in anchorage during its transit to the Everport Container Terminal. The vessel would stop temporarily to catch the proper tide window after transiting beneath the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.

The effect of the safety zone is to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the M/V ZHEN HUA 26. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. “Designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. This safety zone impacts a 500-foot-radius area of the San Francisco Bay in San Francisco, CA for a limited duration. While the safety zone encompasses a two-week period to account for uncertain transit delays of the M/V ZHEN HUA 26, the safety zone will only be enforced for the duration of the vessel's inbound transit, which is expected to last less than 24 hours, and that period will be announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Vessels desiring to transit through the safety zone may do so upon express permission from the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone which prevents entry to a 500-foot radius area of the San Francisco Bay for a limited period of time during a vessel's inbound transit. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this special local regulation by June 25, 2021 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the power boat race being conducted in the third largest recreational boating community in the nation.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the power boat race on June 25, 2021 in Clear Lake, TX, will be a safety concern for anyone within the Pre-Stage Zone, Approach Zone, Course Run Zone, and Shut-Down Zone before, during, and after the scheduled event. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within these areas during the power boat race.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 25, 2021. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 100 feet of the different zones of the boat course to include the Pre-Stage Zone, Approach Zone, Course Run Zone and Shut-Down Zone. All of these zones along with the Spectator Zone are described below:

Pre-Stage Zone: This area is the pre-staging area for participating vessels to line up. It will include all waters within the following areas 29°33.13 N, 095°01.84 W, 29°33.12 N, 095°01.89 W, 29°33.23 N, 095°01.96 W, 29°33.13 N, 095°01.84 W.

Approach Zone: 1/4 mile distance required for participating vessels to obtain the minimum 40mph requirement for course entry. This will be a straight line to begin at approximately 29°33.256 N, 095°01.89 W and end at approximately 29°33.33 N, 095°02.15 W.

Course Run Zone: 3/4 mile distance where participating vessels will conduct their high-speed run. This will be a straight line to begin at approximately 29°33.33 N, 095°02.16 W and end at approximately 29°33.53 N, 095°02.98 W.

Shut-Down Zone: 1 mile distance where participating vessels will be allowed to slow their speeds back to an idle. This will be a straight line to begin at approximately 29°33.53 N, 095°02.98 W and end at approximately 29°33.74 N, 095°04.1 W.

Spectator Zone: All vessels that will be viewing the event will be required to stay within a designated area. The sponsor is responsible for marking the spectator zone with 4 buoys on the outer corners and ensuring that all vessels within the area are anchored and remain in the area during all ongoing high-speed runs.

No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the established zones without obtaining permission from the on-water Safety-Officer or designated representative. If permission to transit the area is granted, the person must comply with the directions of the on-water Safety Officer or designated representative.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the temporary safety zone. This regulatory action will last seven hours and encompasses a 100 feet radius around the boat race path and staging area. The rest of the lake is open to the public to transit. Vessels and persons may seek permission to transit the regulated areas from the on-water Safety Officer or designated representative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 7 hours that will prohibit entry within 100 feet of the boat race course. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in 33 CFR 100.704, Table 1 to § 100.704, Item No. (5), for the City of North Charleston's Fireworks Display on July 4, 2021 from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. The regulation in § 100.704, Table 1 to § 100.704, Item No. (5), specifies the location of the regulated area for the City of North Charleston's Fireworks Display, which encompasses a portion of the Cooper River at River Front Park in Charleston, South Carolina. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 100.704(c)(1), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions of the COTP Charleston or from his designated representative, including the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

In FR Doc. 2021-09097 of May 3, 2021 (86 FR 23496), there were technical errors in the preamble that are identified and corrected in this correcting document. The provisions in this correction document apply as if they had been included in the document published May 3, 2021.

On page 23553, we stated that all Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model procedures, as of CY 2021, could be performed in ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), erroneously indicating that they would all be paid for by Medicare. We failed to note the exception to the ASC covered procedure list policy that excludes procedures that had been on the inpatient only (IPO) list as of December 31, 2020, which is codified at 42 CFR 416.166(b)(2)(ii)(A). Therefore, we erroneously suggested that total ankle replacement (TAR) is on the list of ASC covered surgical procedures and can be paid for by Medicare when performed in the ASC, whereas TAR is actually subject to the exception at § 416.166(b)(2)(ii)(A) and is not paid for by Medicare when performed in the ASC. We are revising that paragraph in the preamble to state that total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) are both on the ASC covered surgical procedures list, and we are deleting the reference to TAR.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register before the provisions of a rule take effect. Specifically, 5 U.S.C. 553 requires the agency to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register that includes a reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed, and the terms and substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. Further, 5 U.S.C. 553 requires the agency to give interested parties the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through public comment before the provisions of the rule take effect. Similarly, section 1871(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires the Secretary to provide for notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and provide a period of not less than 60 days for public comment for rulemaking to carry out the administration of the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Act. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA, and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act mandate a 30-day delay in effective date after issuance or publication of a rule. Sections 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for exceptions from the notice and comment and delay in effective date APA requirements. In cases in which these exceptions apply, sections 1871(b)(2)(C) and 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, also provide exceptions from the notice and 60-day comment period and delay in effective date requirements of the Act. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorize an agency to dispense with normal rulemaking requirements for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In addition, both section 553(d)(3) of the APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act allow the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where such delay is contrary to the public interest and an agency includes a statement of support.

We believe that this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements of the APA or section 1871 of the Act. This correcting document corrects technical errors in the preamble of the final rule but does not make substantive changes to the policies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the information in the final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that final rule.

In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest to ensure that the final rule accurately reflects our policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering payment eligibility or benefit methodologies or policies, but rather, simply correcting the preamble description of policies that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the final rule accurately reflects these policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the requirements for notice and comment and delay of effective date.

In FR Doc. 2021-09097 of May 3, 2021 (86 FR 23496), make the following corrections:

1. On page 23553, second column, first partial paragraph,

a. Lines 6 through 11, the phrase “remove TAR and certain other orthopedic procedures from the IPO list and allow all procedures not on the IPO list to be paid when furnished in both the outpatient hospital and ASC settings” is corrected to read “add THAs to the ASC covered procedures list”.

b. Lines 11 through 13, the phrase “all procedures included in the CJR model can, as of CY 2021, be performed in the ASC setting” is corrected to read “both TKA and THA may, as of CY 2021, be paid for by Medicare when furnished in the ASC setting”.

c. Line 15, the phrase “hospital setting is corrected to read “hospital settings.”

This document announces that, on May 13, 2021, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the 8YY intercarrier compensation rules contained in the Commission's Order, FCC 20-143, published at 85 FR 75894. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0298. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L St. NE, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0298, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov.

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on May 13, 2021, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 51.

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0298.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-0298.

OMB Approval Date: May 13, 2021.

OMB Expiration Date: May 31, 2024.

Title: Part 61, Tariffs (Other than Tariff Review Plan).

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,925 respondents; 9,585 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-50 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time, biennial and on-occasion reporting requirements.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 1-5, 201-205, 208, 251-271, 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 201-205, 208, 251-271, 403, 502 and 503.

Total Annual Burden: 244,477 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $1,584,000.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe is confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

Privacy Act: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: Sections 201, 202, 203, 204 and 205 of the Communications Act of 1934, (Act) as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 203, 204 and 205, require that common carriers establish just and reasonable charges, practices, and regulations, which must be filed with the Commission to determine whether such schedules are just, reasonable and not unduly discriminatory. On October 9, 2020, the Commission released the Order, FCC 20-143, published at 85 FR 75894, which transitions intercarrier compensation for toll-free services either to lower, uniform rate caps or to bill-and-keep over approximately three years as a means of curtailing abuse of the 8YY intercarrier compensation regime. The Order requires price cap and rate-of-return carriers to establish separate rate elements for certain interstate and intrastate toll free and non-toll free services. Carriers are also required to lower the 8YY database query charges over three years, and are prohibited from charging for more than one query per call. Competitive local exchange carriers (LECs) assessing a tariffed intrastate or interstate Toll Free Database Query Charge must cap such charges and revise their tariffs to ensure that those charges do not exceed the rates charged by the competing incumbent LEC.

The information collected through carriers' tariffs is used by the Commission and state commissions to determine whether services offered are just and reasonable, as the Act requires. The tariffs and any supporting documentation are examined in order to determine if the services are offered in a just and reasonable manner.

On November 15, 1991, we proposed to list the Kanab ambersnail as an endangered species (56 FR 58020). The species' habitat was greatly reduced in size and the population declined, due to preparations for anticipated development. On April 17, 1992, we published a final rule listing the Kanab ambersnail as an endangered species (57 FR 13657), but as explained in that rule, we did not designate critical habitat because we found that designation would be not prudent due to a danger of over-collection or purposeful harm or killing of snails if the locations of the snails were made public on critical habitat maps. On October 12, 1995, we finalized the Kanab ambersnail recovery plan (Service 1995, entire).

We completed a 5-year review of the species' status in July 2011 (Service 2011, entire). As of the time of the 2011 5-year review, several genetic studies indicated that at least one of the three populations identified as the Kanab ambersnail was potentially part of a different species or subspecies, but we did not consider those studies alone to be certain enough to recommend delisting at that time (Miller et al. 2000, p. 8; Stevens et al. 2000, p. 7; Culver et al. 2007, p. 3; Service 2011, pp. 8-9). The subsequent publication of a larger, more comprehensive study on the genetics of the Kanab ambersnail and the Oxyloma genus (Culver et al. 2013, entire) resulted in our proposed rule to delist Kanab ambersnail based on new taxonomic information indicating that it was not a valid taxon, published in the Federal Register on January 6, 2020 (85 FR 487). Please refer to that proposed rule for a more detailed description of the Federal actions concerning this species that occurred prior to November 26, 2019.

It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly related to delisting the Kanab ambersnail in this rule. For more information on the description, biology, ecology, and habitat of the Kanab ambersnail, please refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on April 17, 1992 (57 FR 13657); the Kanab ambersnail recovery plan (Service 1995); the most recent 5-year review for the Kanab ambersnail completed in July 2011 (Service 2011); or any of the documents referenced by this rule. The Service documents, personal communications, and a list of cited literature are available as supporting materials on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2019-0055.

The Kanab ambersnail ( Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis ) was taxonomically identified as a terrestrial snail in the family Succineidae. Succineids are usually referred to as ambersnails due to their mottled grayish-amber to yellowish-amber colored shells (Sorensen and Nelson 2002, p. 5).

The Kanab ambersnail typically inhabits marshes and other wetlands watered by springs and seeps at the base of sandstone or limestone cliffs (Clarke 1991, pp. 28-29; Spamer and Bogan 1993, p. 296; Meretsky et al. 2002, p. 309). Habitat vegetation can consist of cattail ( Typha domingensis ), sedge ( Juncus spp.), native crimson monkeyflower ( Mimulus cardinalis ), watercress ( Nasturtium officinale ), native water sedge ( Carex aquatilis ), and maidenhair fern ( Adiantum capillus-veneris ) (57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992; Stevens et al. 1997, p. 6; Sorensen 2005, p. 3). The Kanab ambersnail often inhabits dead and decaying litter and live stems of plants (Service 2011, p. 11).

When the Kanab ambersnail was listed, we knew of two populations in Utah (Three Lakes and Kanab Creek Canyon) and one population in Arizona (Vasey's Paradise) (57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992). The Kanab Creek Canyon population in Utah was extirpated by 1991, after dewatering of the seep for livestock use severely reduced the available habitat. Kanab ambersnails were last found there in 1990, when three individuals were identified (Service 2011, p. 12). Currently, there are two naturally occurring populations of Kanab ambersnails (Vasey's Paradise in Arizona, and Three Lakes in Utah) and one introduced population (Upper Elves Canyon in Arizona) established with individuals translocated from Vasey's Paradise (Service 2011, p. 6).

The Vasey's Paradise population was discovered in 1991 (Spamer and Bogan 1993, p. 47). Vasey's Paradise is a riverside spring located approximately 33 miles (mi) (53 kilometers (km)) downstream of Lee's Ferry on the Colorado River, in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona (Spamer and Bogan 1993, p. 37). Occupied and potential habitat at Vasey's Paradise is 9,041 square feet (ft 2 ) (840 square meters (m 2 )) (Service 1995, p. ii). The population is protected by National Park Service regulations and the presence of poison ivy, which deters visitors (Stevens et al. 1997, p. 12; Sorensen 2016, pers. comm.).

Monitoring of the Vasey's Paradise population from 2007 to present has relied on timed counts of live snails observed among the traditionally sampled vegetation patches. The timed count sampling provides a catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) estimate of relative abundance of the snails in each survey. Over the past decade, there have been seasonal and annual variations in CPUE estimates of the Vasey's Paradise population. Overall the relative abundance of this Kanab ambersnail population has declined substantially from the levels observed in the late 1990s and prior to 2002, when drought conditions and reduced spring flow became particularly severe (Sorensen 2015, p. 10; Sorensen 2020, p. 1). This decline has continued since 2011 (Sorensen 2015, p. 10; Sorensen 2020, p. 1).

The most recent population estimate is from 2002, which estimated 3,124 individuals and noted that population numbers could be highly variable from year to year (Gloss et al. 2005, p. 3). Fourteen individuals were collected in 2008, for genetic analysis (Culver et al. 2013, p. 7). A survey in 2016 found only one snail, but search conditions were difficult and time was limited (Sorensen 2016, pers. comm.).

The Three Lakes population is a series of small ponds on private land approximately 6 mi (10 km) northwest of Kanab, Utah (Clarke 1991, p. 28; Service 1995, p. 3). Occupied and potential habitat is approximately 4.94 acres (ac) (2 hectares (ha)) (Service 1995, p. 3). Available habitat is wet meadow and marsh. The habitat was greatly reduced in size and the population declined beginning in 1991, due to preparations for anticipated development, which resulted in the original emergency listing (57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992). The development anticipated at the time of listing has not occurred, and Kanab ambersnails were found there in 2008 (Culver et al. 2013, p. 6) and 2016 (Sorensen 2016, pers. comm.).

A timed count survey of the Three Lakes population was conducted in early October 2011 by Service, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and Arizona Fish and Game Department biologists. The Three Lakes Kanab ambersnail population was robust with a CPUE estimate of 10.47 snails per 10 minutes searched (Sorensen 2011, p. 14). In 2016, the land was sold to Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, which has expressed a willingness to preserve the habitat. A followup survey of the Three Lakes Kanab ambersnail population was conducted by the same partners in early May 2017, with an estimated CPUE of 158.75 snails per 10 minutes searched (Sorensen 2017, pers. comm.).

Upper Elves Canyon is located approximately 83 mi (134 km) downstream of Vasey's Paradise on the Colorado River, in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona (Sorensen 2016, p. 1). Occupied and potential habitat is adjacent to a perennial seep and is 1,068 ft 2 (99.2 m 2 ) (Sorensen 2005, p. 3). This population is protected by National Park Service regulations, as well as by its inaccessibility (Service 2011, p. 7). This population was established by the Arizona Fish and Game Department between 1998 and 2002, by translocating 340 individuals from the Vasey's Paradise population. Since 2005, this population has been considered self-sustaining with an estimated population of approximately 700 individuals (Sorensen 2005, p. 9). Between 2009 and 2015, timed count surveys of the translocated population at Upper Elves Chasm were conducted by Arizona Game and Fish Department, National Park Service biologists, and volunteers. Surveys over this timeframe documented a small but relatively stable Kanab ambersnail population at the site, with CPUE estimates between 0.85 to 4.15 snails per 10 minutes searched (Sorensen 2015, p. 12).

Kanab ambersnails were first collected in 1909, by James Ferriss from an area called “The Greens,” a vegetated seep approximately 6 mi (10 km) north of Kanab in Kanab Creek Canyon, Utah (57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992; Service 1995, p. 2). However, ambersnails have not been found at the type locality since 1991 (Meretsky et al. 2002, p. 314; Culver et al. 2013, p. 6).

The snails collected by James Ferriss in 1909 were initially placed in the species Succinea hawkinisi, but Pilsbry (1948, p. 797) placed them in Oxyloma and created the subspecies kanabensis under the species haydeni (57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992). The subspecies kanabensis classification was considered to be temporary at the time, and the author recommended that the taxonomic status be reconsidered in the future (Pilsbry 1948, p. 798; Clarke 1991, p. 23; 57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992).

We have assessed all available genetic information for the Kanab ambersnail (Miller et al. 2000, entire; Stevens et al. 2000, entire; Culver et al. 2013, entire). Since the listing of Kanab ambersnail in 1992 (57 FR 13657; April 17, 1992) and the publication of the Kanab ambersnail recovery plan in 1995 (Service 1995, entire), several studies on subspecies distribution, morphological characteristics, and genetic relationships to other Oxyloma species have been completed. We briefly describe these studies below. At this time, these studies represent the best scientific information available in order for us to analyze the Kanab ambersnail's distribution and taxonomic changes.

Various analyses can be done to determine genetic structure of a species, including analyses of: (1) Mitochondrial DNA, which is rapidly evolving and useful to determine recent populations; (2) nuclear microsatellite DNA, which has high amounts of genetic variation and can be used to look at populations within a species; (3) nuclear DNA, which is inherited equally from both parents (unlike mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited maternally); and (4) amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLP), which are used to sample multiple loci across the genome.

Miller et al. (2000) used AFLP to determine intra- and inter-population genetic information for four Oxyloma species in Utah and Arizona. Among these, two Niobrara ambersnail ( Oxyloma haydeni haydeni ) locations were studied at Indian Gardens (Arizona) and Minus Nine Mile Spring (Arizona), and two Kanab ambersnail populations were studied at Three Lakes (Utah) and Vasey's Paradise (Arizona) (Miller et al. 2000, pp. 1845-1946). From this study, the ambersnail population at Three Lakes appears more closely related to the Niobrara ambersnail population at Indian Gardens than to the ambersnail population at Vasey's Paradise (Miller et al. 2000, p. 1852). Upper Elves Canyon was not included in this study.

Stevens et al. (2000) used mitochondrial DNA and morphological analysis to distinguish Succineidae ( Oxyloma, Catinella, and Succinea ) populations in the United States and Canada. The authors collected over 450 samples from seven U.S. States and Canadian provinces, including from 63 different populations or locations of snails (Stevens et al. 2000, p. 4). Determining Oxyloma species based on morphology was shown to be inaccurate (Stevens et al. 2000, pp. 4-5, 42). Vasey's Paradise did not cluster with the Three Lakes ambersnail population or the two sampled Niobrara ambersnail populations, leading the authors to suggest Vasey's Paradise might represent a unique species (Stevens et al. 2000, p. 41). However, a later, more comprehensive study found that Vasey's Paradise clustered closely enough with samples from other surrounding Oxyloma populations for them all to be considered part of the same Oxyloma species (Culver et al. 2013, p. 57).

In this most recent and detailed peer-reviewed study, ambersnails were collected from 12 locations in Arizona and Utah, with each location providing at least 14 ambersnail specimens (Culver et al. 2013, p. 5). Samples consisted of Kanab ambersnail, Niobrara ambersnail, blunt ambersnail ( Oxyloma retusum ), undescribed species of Oxyloma, and individuals from Catinella (used to provide an outgroup comparison) (Culver et al. 2013, p. 6). This study included samples from all three extant populations identified as Kanab ambersnail. Between the Oxyloma populations, shell morphology did not have the variation usually associated with different species, leading the authors to state that none of the 12 populations sampled was reproductively isolated from the others (Culver et al. 2013, p. 52). This information supports the finding that the three populations identified as Kanab ambersnail do not alone comprise a discrete taxon.

Genetic results indicated that there was gene flow among all the populations sampled, most likely due to short- or long-distance dispersals from other populations (Culver et al. 2013, p. 57). Additionally, Kanab ambersnail samples from Vasey's Paradise did not cluster with the other two Kanab ambersnail populations (Culver et al. 2013, pp. 51, 55). The authors concluded that the three populations of Kanab ambersnail are not a valid subspecies of Oxyloma haydeni and should instead be considered part of the same taxa as the ambersnails from the eight other populations of Oxyloma in Utah and Arizona that were sampled for comparison (Culver et al. 2013, entire). This study declined to positively identify a species-level taxon for these 11 populations of ambersnail, due to lack of genetic information on the genus (Culver et al. 2013). The primary author stated later that her expert opinion was they should all, including those previously identified as Kanab ambersnail, be considered Niobrara ambersnail ( Oxyloma hadenyi ) (Culver 2016, pers. comm.). The authors stated that specimens from the type locality of the Niobrara ambersnail in Nebraska could be examined for comparison to verify this conclusion (Franzen 1964, p. 73; Culver et al. 2013, p. 57; Culver 2016, pers. comm.), but to date, no such analysis has been done.

The above-described Culver et al. (2013) study was released as a United States Geological Survey (USGS) Scientific Investigations Report, and the review approach was similar to that of manuscripts published by scientific journals. The report was initially reviewed by five reviewers and required subsequent revision. The report received an additional review following revision due to the complex subject matter. The response to reviewer comments and subsequent revised manuscript were reviewed by another independent geneticist to ensure that the author adequately addressed issues and comments brought up by reviewers (Sorensen 2014, pers. comm.). The subsequent revision that occurred after 2011 resulted in more genetic information added to the final 2013 manuscript, which further substantiated the authors' findings (Sorensen 2014, pers. comm). As a result, we have a high level of confidence in the results of the Culver et al. (2013) genetic study.

For the Kanab ambersnail to be considered a distinct subspecies, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA tests should show that the three populations cluster together when compared to other populations of ambersnails (Culver et al. 2013, p. 55). However, the Vasey's Paradise population does not cluster with the other two Kanab ambersnail populations and the degree of variation shown in Vasey's Paradise from the other populations is not unique enough to constitute a subspecies on its own, as it shares markers with several nearby populations of non-listed Oxyloma snails (Stevens et al. 2000, p. 41; Culver et al. 2013, pp. 55-57).

The genetic uniqueness in Vasey's Paradise may be attributable to flooding, which can erode away ideal vegetation or habitat, leaving only a few individuals able to survive and reestablish the population at that site, creating genetic bottlenecks. Genetic diversity at these types of sites will often be lower than at sites that have experienced short- or long-distance dispersals (Culver et al. 2013, p. 55). Furthermore, ambersnails have the ability to self-reproduce, allowing for colonization of new areas by only one individual. This ability may explain how many genetically distinct populations of Oxyloma developed in a relatively short time period (Culver et al. 2013, p. 56). At least one or more bottleneck events in the past, likely due to flooding, caused unusual population genetic events (Culver et al. 2013, p. 55).

Overall, these studies show that shell morphology and anatomical characteristics that were once considered diagnostic do not alone reliably correspond with the results from genetic analyses of Succineidae snails (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 519; Pigati et al. 2010, p. 523). Samples originally identified as different species or subspecies based on physical differences are consistently found to be related closely enough to qualify as members of the same species based on genetic studies (Culver et al. 2013, entire; Miller et al. 2000, entire; Stevens et al. 2000, entire). Traditionally, shell morphology, such as their slender and drawn-out spire and short shell aperture, was used to distinguish the Kanab ambersnail from other members of Oxyloma (Pilsbry 1948, pp. 797-798). However, shell shape can vary as much within a population as within a species (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 519). Therefore, it is important to consider other factors such as genetics, anatomy, and habitat to determine a species within Oxyloma (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 519; Sorensen and Nelson 2002, p. 5).

In addition to shell morphology, reproductive anatomy (phallus shape) was previously a main determining factor of the Oxyloma genus (Miller et al. 2000, p. 1853). However, anatomical descriptions used to classify the Kanab ambersnail had no quantifying factors, such as prostate gland length, and soft tissues were difficult to measure objectively (Pilsbry 1948, p. 798; Culver et al. 2013, pp. 52-53). It is difficult to achieve standard anatomical measurements with repeatability because of the flexibility and elasticity of soft tissues (Culver et al. 2013, p. 18). Overall, anatomical characteristics have been found to vary greatly within Oxyloma (Culver et al. 2013, p. 52).

There have been at least two instances when a species of snail was placed in the wrong genus due to relying solely on the reproductive anatomy (Johnson et al. 1986, p. 105; Miller et al. 2000, p. 1853). In another case, variation in anatomical structure was found in the blunt ambersnail, leading the authors to conclude that the species was not restricted geographically as initially believed (Franzen 1963, p. 94). Previous Oxyloma studies have used only one or two specimens to determine the species' taxonomic status, which makes it difficult to properly assess the true status (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 515).

Standards for quantifying anatomy are minimal and not descriptive enough, with the use of such words as small, medium, and large, which are vague terms and not measurable (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 478). Anatomical characteristics should not be the only factor to determine a species within Oxyloma, even with an understanding of the individual and geographical variation (Franzen 1963, p. 83). Variation between populations, anatomical differences among individuals, overlapping habitat, and minimal repeatability with measurements of anatomical features make it difficult to rely on anatomical descriptions to determine species classification (Franzen 1964, p. 80; Sorensen and Nelson 2002, pp. 4-5). Overall, reproductive anatomy is likely not a good species indicator in snails; instead, genetic relationships provide the most reliable method of classifying taxa.

In summary, these analyses present multiple interpretations of the taxonomy of the Kanab ambersnail, none of which correlates to that of our original listing. Although the exact taxonomy of the genus Oxyloma and its constituent species remains uncertain, it is clear that the populations designated as the Kanab ambersnail do not make up, together or separately, a valid subspecies. The 1992 final listing rule for the Kanab ambersnail (57 FR 13657; April 17, 1992) relied on the best available information at the time, and included only snails found in Vasey's Paradise in Arizona and Three Lakes and Kanab Creek in Utah. This situation has changed with the addition of the 2013 genetic study of the Oxyloma genus in Utah and Arizona (Culver et al. 2013, entire).

The various published and unpublished genetics reports described above offer different conclusions about how Succineid snails should be classified, particularly within the genus Oxyloma. However, none of the genetic studies provides support for Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis as a valid subspecies. Additionally, available genetic evidence suggests that at least one population identified as Kanab ambersnail is more closely related to other nearby Oxyloma populations than it is to the other two Kanab ambersnail populations.

Therefore, we are delisting the Kanab ambersnail due to new taxonomic information that indicates that it is not a valid taxon, based on the best available science. The currently listed entity for the Kanab ambersnail, restricted to Vasey's Paradise and Upper Elves Canyon, Arizona, and Three Lakes, Utah, is not a valid taxonomic subspecies. We are unable to evaluate the populations identified as the Kanab ambersnail relative to the larger entity because the larger entity has not yet been defined from a taxonomic perspective. If we had additional updated information available about the taxonomy of the Oxyloma genus, we would conduct a status assessment of the larger entity, but in this case we do not have enough information to conduct that analysis. We do not consider the absence of information on the larger taxonomy of a group to be sufficient reason to keep an invalid subspecies listed as endangered.

In the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 6, 2020 (85 FR 487), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on our proposal to delist the Kanab ambersnail by March 6, 2020. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Salt Lake Tribune and Saint George News. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided during the comment period was either incorporated directly into this final rule or is addressed below.

In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and our August 22, 2016 memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing actions under the Act (USFWS 2016, entire), we solicited expert opinion from seven knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise and familiarity with the Kanab ambersnail, its habitat, its taxonomy, its biological needs and potential threats, or principles of conservation biology. We received responses from five peer reviewers. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing determinations are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses.

We reviewed and addressed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed delisting of the Kanab ambersnail. The peer reviewers provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rule, which we include in this rule or address in the responses to comments below. One of the reviewers expressed support for the proposed action. The other four did not state support or opposition to the proposed changes. All reviewers found that, with their suggested changes: The proposed rule was accurate; we provided adequate analysis to support our proposed determination; there were no significant oversights, omissions, or inconsistencies; our conclusions were logical and supported by the evidence provided; and we included all pertinent literature to support our arguments, assumptions, and conclusions.

All changes suggested by reviewers were incorporated into the text of this final rule. Such changes include additional details of population monitoring at all populations, an explanation of the rigorous review process for USGS reports, and a clarification on how shell morphology supports the conclusions in the Culver et al. 2013 study. Other minor editorial clarifications and corrections were also made based on peer reviewer comments.

We received seven letters from the public that provided comments on the proposed rule. Two of the commenters expressed their support for the proposed delisting and corroborated information we supplied in the rule. Four commenters expressed their opposition to it. Of these four, none presented substantive information to support their opposition. In all cases, the opposition was based on the importance of protecting rare species and ecosystems. While we agree that protecting rare species and the habitats in which they occur is important, it is not a relevant factor in this determination because Kanab ambersnail is not a valid taxon and is being delisted on that basis.

One commenter provided some additional historical background regarding the naming and sampling of certain ambersnail sites mentioned in the proposed rule, but stated that this information did not affect the validity of the proposed action. We agree and thank the commenter for the additional detail and have added it to the record, but do not include it in our final rule as it does not impact our conclusions on taxonomy.

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. “Species” is defined by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). We may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(e) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species does not meet the definition of an endangered or a threatened species; or (3) the listed entity does not meet the statutory definition of a species.

For the Kanab ambersnail, we conclude that the existing best available scientific information demonstrates that Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis does not represent a valid taxonomic entity and, therefore, does not meet the definition of “species” as defined in section 3(16) of the Act. Therefore, Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis no longer warrants listing under the Act. The Kanab ambersnail does not require a post-delisting monitoring plan because the requirements for a monitoring plan do not apply to species that are delisted for not meeting the statutory definition of a species.

This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove the Kanab ambersnail from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Because no critical habitat was ever designated for this subspecies, this rule does not affect 50 CFR 17.95.

The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act no longer apply to the snail previously identified as the Kanab ambersnail. Interstate commerce, import, and export of the snails previously identified as the Kanab ambersnail are not prohibited under the Act. In addition, Federal agencies are no longer required to consult under section 7 of the Act on actions that may affect the snails previously identified as Kanab ambersnail or their habitat.

We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), need not be prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes.

The populations that were listed as Kanab ambersnail do not occur on Tribal land. We have determined that while no Tribes will be directly affected by this action, the delisting may result in changes to the flow regime for the Colorado River in and adjacent to the Grand Canyon. Several Tribes have an historic affiliation with the Grand Canyon and could be affected by flow changes, should they occur. The potentially impacted Tribes are the Chemehuevi, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Hualapai, the Hopi, the Kaibab Band of Paiute, the San Carlos Apache, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Navajo, and the Zuni. These Tribes were notified in advance of the publication of the proposed rule and have been informed of the finalization of the delisting.

A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2019-0055 or upon request from the Utah Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

The primary authors of this rule are staff members of the Service's Utah Ecological Services Field Office.

The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Martha Williams, Principal Deputy Director Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this document on June 14, 2021, for publication.

Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

Amendment 18 expands Section 4.5 of the CPS FMP to include the rebuilding plan for Pacific sardine. There are no implementing regulations associated with Amendment 18, therefore NMFS did not promulgate proposed and final rules to implement this amendment.

NMFS published a Notice of Availability for Amendment 18 on March 16, 2021 (86 FR 14401), and solicited public comments through May 17, 2021. NMFS received five public comments in support of Amendment 18, one from a student and four from prominent fishing industry groups. The industry groups included the California Wetfish Producers Association, the West Coast Pelagic Conservation Group, the Sportfishing Association of California, and the West Coast Seafood Processors Association. NMFS received three public comments opposing Amendment 18, one from a private citizen and two from the environmental non-governmental organization Oceana. Oceana submitted two letters, one containing its public comment and the other containing a list of names that signed a petition campaigning against Amendment 18. NMFS summarizes and responds to the public comments below. NMFS responded to comments related to NEPA compliance in the final EA prepared for Amendment 18 (see ADDRESSES ).

Comment 1: Oceana argues that by adopting the recommended management strategy for the rebuilding plan (Alternative 1 Status Quo Management) considered in the supporting EA for Amendment 18 (see ADDRESSES ), NMFS is continuing failed policies that led to the overfished determination.

Response: This comment misunderstands the biology of Pacific sardine, the structure of the CPS FMP, and the extraordinary and precautionary measures that the Council has built into the framework for managing CPS. Pacific sardines are well known to experience dramatic swings in abundance in response to environmental conditions, even in the absence of fishing pressure. The recent population decline of Pacific sardine appears to be due to poor recruitment. Specifically, the Southwest Fisheries Science Center's (SWFSC) 2020 stock assessment states that recruitment has declined since 2005-2006 except for a brief period of modest recruitment success in 2009-2010, with the 2011- 2018 year-classes being among the weakest in recent history. Such declines in population are by no means unprecedented. The Pacific sardine has undergone large population fluctuations for centuries even in the absence of industrial fishing as evidenced by historical records of scale deposits. Although this decrease in biomass triggered the requirement to declare the stock overfished, overfishing has never occurred for this stock, as Pacific sardine catch has been well below both the acceptable biological catch (ABC) and the overfishing limit (OFL) in every year.

Most stocks managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) are managed with the goal of maintaining a fixed biomass level and use a constant exploitation rate to achieve that management goal. This is not the case for Pacific sardines, which as stated above, are well known to experience dramatic swings in abundance in response to environmental conditions and in the absence of fishing pressure. In addition, Pacific sardine are important forage species and play a critical role in the marine ecosystem. Accordingly, management for Pacific sardine does not rely on a fixed exploitation rate or a single set of management measures. Instead, the Council has crafted a management framework that does two critical things: (1) The harvest control rule incorporates the stock's current levels of productivity to adjust the exploitation rate based on whether the stock is experiencing high or low recruitment, and (2) implements stringent management measures as soon as the stock exhibits signs that it is entering a significant downswing in biomass. With respect to this latter element, the FMP takes the very precautionary step of mandating a closure of the primary directed fishery, when the stock reaches 150,000 metric tons (mt), a level three times higher than the overfished threshold. The primary directed fishery is the main driver of fishing mortality for Pacific sardines and its closure creates an automatic reduction in removals, even in the absence of changes to the annual catch limit (ACL). This FMP provision has kept the primary directed fishery closed since 2015 (7 years so far), which was 4 years before the stock was even declared overfished. In addition, when the stock reached its overfished level of 50,000 mt in 2019, the FMP automatically required a reduction on incidental catch limits of Pacific sardines in other CPS fisheries from 40 percent to 20 percent, which also has major impacts on fishing mortality. The FMP explicitly acknowledges that this framework could constitute a rebuilding plan without further adjustment. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides Councils with 2 years to develop a rebuilding plan once a stock is declared overfished (a process which itself takes several months). Sometimes, if a Council fails to develop a rebuilding plan and NMFS must develop and implement its own plan, it can take more than 2 years to implement a plan. The Council took the extraordinary step to anticipate population fluctuations for this cyclical stock and not wait to respond to low productivity and decreasing stock size. Instead, the Council automatically implemented provisions that would be found in a rebuilding plan as soon as the stock passed certain biomass thresholds. This represents an extremely precautionary approach to management.

Comment 2: Oceana claimed that Amendment 18 violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act because the recommended management strategy for the rebuilding plan (Alternative 1 Status Quo Management) considered in the supporting EA for Amendment 18 (see ADDRESSES ) does not provide at least a 50 percent probability of rebuilding the stock within the modeled rebuilding timeframe (through 2050). Relevant to this, Oceana also claims that NMFS did not use the best scientific information available for evaluating the effects Alternative 1 Status Quo Management in the EA. Furthermore, Oceana claims that NMFS mischaracterizes Alternative 1 Status Quo Management to achieve a particular conclusion.

Response: NMFS has determined that the information and analysis used to determine a rebuilding timeline based on status quo management is supported by the best scientific information available and that status quo management has not been mischaracterized for a specific outcome. To support their claim, Oceana highlights the results of the preliminary model run for Alternative 1 Status Quo Management provided in the SWFSC's Pacific Sardine Rebuilding Analysis (Appendix A of the EA), which had an output that the stock would not rebuild before 2050. However, NMFS does not rely on these initial modeling results because they do not realistically reflect the biological impacts that would result from management under Alternative 1 Status Quo Management. Instead, NMFS relied on several sources of information when selecting T target ( i.e., the target rebuilding time frame). First, additional modeling results using a 2,200 mt constant catch level predict that the stock has at least a 50 percent chance of rebuilding in 17 years, only one year later than the 16 years predicted under Alternative 3 (Five Percent Fixed U.S. Harvest Rate). Second, both rebuilding timelines under Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 are likely overestimated by the modeling results since both alternatives do not account for the fact that in recent years only a small portion of the already-small U.S. Pacific sardine landings are from the northern subpopulation of Pacific sardine ( i.e., the population managed under the CPS FMP), with a greater proportion coming from the southern subpopulation. Third, NMFS took into account the biology of the sardine stock and its changing productivity based on ocean conditions. In addition, Alternative 1 Status Quo management allows the stock to rebuild on a similar timeline as Alternative 3, but also prevents further economic harm to the fishing industry, which has already been declared a Federal disaster since 2015 when NMFS closed the primary directed fishery. NMFS believes that the stock has at least a 50 percent chance of rebuilding by the Council's recommended T target of 14 years (reduced from the modeled 17 years for 2,200 mt constant catch to account for the fact that only a small portion of the 2,200 mt is from the northern subpopulation, discussed more further below).

When analyzing the effects of Alternative 1 Status Quo Management, NMFS relied on several sources of information to support its conclusion. These are not separate characterizations of the alternative, as the comment suggests. Instead, NMFS recognized that the model available was not capable of capturing all aspects of the Pacific sardine stock and that other sources of information should be used to evaluate the alternatives and select rebuilding criteria, including the additional model results for a constant catch of 2,200 mt (intended to represent expected average catch by fishery during the rebuilding period), the mixed stock composition of Pacific sardine landings, and the biology of the sardine stock and its changing productivity based on ocean conditions. The initial model run calculated rebuilding probabilities as though the full ABC is harvested, which has never been the case due the non-discretionary harvest restrictions already in place pursuant to the CPS FMP that purposefully restrict the fishery from catching the full ABC. These include the continued closure of the primary directed fishery ( i.e., the largest fishery that takes the majority of Pacific sardine catch) and restrictions on incidental harvest of Pacific sardine in other CPS fisheries (which are currently less than half of typical incidental limits). Therefore, although NMFS is required to set an OFL and ABC every year for Pacific sardine, those reference points have not been the drivers for annual catch levels. Instead, removals of Pacific sardine are driven by the management measures required by the FMP and included in this rebuilding plan. Therefore the Council and NMFS determined that analyzing removals at the level of the ABC would be inaccurate and fail to realistically evaluate the effectiveness of the rebuilding plan management strategies and their effects on fishing communities. The results of the final model run ( i.e., 2,200 mt constant catch) that the Council and NMFS find more representative of Alternative 1 Status Quo Management projects that the stock has at least a 50 percent chance of rebuilding in 17 years, which is in between the Council's recommended T min of 12 years and T max of 24 years.

NMFS' determination that 14 years is the time period that is as short as possible while taking into account the factors set forth by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the biology of the stock and the needs of fishing communities, was further informed by the stock composition of the removals counted against the ACL and included in the 2,200-mt average. There are two stocks of Pacific sardine that can occur off the U.S. West Coast, known as the northern subpopulation and the southern subpopulation. The northern subpopulation is the dominate stock off the U.S. West Coast, is the stock managed in the CPS FMP, and is the stock that is overfished and will be managed under this rebuilding plan. The southern subpopulation usually resides off the coast of Mexico, however in the summer months it usually migrates north into waters off southern California. Although the southern subpopulation prefers warmer water than the northern subpopulation, meaning the two subpopulations generally inhabit different geographic ranges, they do typically mix in the summertime and it is impossible to distinguish between the subpopulations at the time of landing. Therefore, in an abundance of caution, NMFS counts all landed Pacific sardine against the ACL (which is set based on the biomass of the northern subpopulation only), regardless of which subpopulation they might belong to. Since the closure of the primary Pacific sardine fishery, the remaining small levels of catch of Pacific sardine have occurred in the summertime when the southern subpopulation is mixing with the northern subpopulation in the Southern California Bight. Post-season reconstruction, for purposes of assigning landings in stock assessments, has demonstrated that in recent years, only 472 mt on average of the 2,200-mt average catch are assumed to be from northern subpopulation. The Council recognized, therefore, that the modeled 2,200 mt was significantly overestimating the impact of the fishery on the northern subpopulation and adjusted the T target accordingly. NMFS notes that the rebuilding timeline under Alternative 3 is also likely overestimated for the same reasons, however this does not change the fact that the modeling shows Alternative 3 only rebuilding slightly faster than Alternative 1.

Comment 3: Oceana claims that harvest levels allowed under Alternative 1 Status Quo Management will not allow the stock to rebuild because the sea surface temperature index used to calculate the E MSY parameter ( i.e., the exploitation rate at maximum sustainable yield) in the OFL harvest control rule causes the OFL, and hence other harvest specifications, to be inflated. Oceana supports this claim by citing recent Council documents and a 2019 scientific paper from NMFS' SWFSC that indicates that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a better predictor of sea surface temperature than the currently used 3-year average of California Cooperative Fisheries Investigation (CalCOFI) sea surface temperature measurements. Relevant to this, Oceana claims that NMFS should calculate E MSY based on the mean E MSY from recent stock assessments rather than the 3-year average of CalCOFI sea surface temperature measurements.

Response: Changing how E MSY is calculated is outside the scope of this action, however NMFS would still like to provide a response to this comment. NMFS is aware of the scientific publications and ongoing Council discussions related to E MSY , and is committed to participating in these ongoing discussions about new science and whether that new science justifies a change for how E MSY is calculated for management purposes. Regarding recent Council discussion: The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), which is the scientific advisory body responsible for recommending changes to E MSY , has the ability to recommend changes to E MSY at any time. The Council's SSC has not done this since 2014 when they recommended that NMFS switch from using the 3-year average of Scripps Institution of Oceanography sea surface temperature measurements to using the 3-year average of CalCOFI sea surface temperature measurements to inform E MSY . During this time, NMFS used a static E MSY of 18 percent that was produced by a management strategy evaluation. The implementation of Status Quo Management during the rebuilding period for Pacific sardine will not supersede the ability to change E MSY if and when a recommendation from the Council is made. Regarding the recent 2019 paper from the SWFSC: Research regarding the appropriate temperature index to inform E MSY is ongoing, and the SWFSC has not yet determined whether a change in how E MSY is calculated is necessary for management purposes based on this publication. The best predictor of sea surface temperature will likely change with time as equilibrium ocean conditions shift with climate change. The recent 2019 paper highlights new sea surface temperature-sardine recruitment relationships, however it does not actually provide a new method to calculate E MSY for management purposes. NMFS and the SWFSC will continue to collaborate on whether this new publication warrants a change in management. If a change is determined to be necessary, NMFS will promulgate a new action that will go through the proper Council process and will include public input during the Council process and during NMFS' subsequent rulemaking process.

Comment 3: Oceana stated that NMFS must base its analysis on a productivity scenario representing the best known long-term boom and bust dynamics of the sardine population. Oceana points out several shortcomings of the Rebuilder tool that was used to analyze rebuilding timelines under certain management alternatives, including the fact that it analyzes a limited range of years for recruitment scenarios.

Response: NMFS acknowledges and agrees that the boom and bust dynamics of Pacific sardines are critical to analyzing rebuilding for this stock. Consideration of this biological characteristic of the stock was an important part of NMFS' analysis. The Council analyzed two productivity scenarios for each management alternative. The model used data inputs from the 2020 benchmark stock assessment that covers the time period 2005-2020. The two modeled time periods, 2005-2018 and 2010-2018, were chosen to represent different levels of potential future productivity ( i.e., recruitment scenarios) for this stock. Each of these productivity scenarios was also analyzed with two Mexican harvest scenarios including a fixed tonnage (6,044 mt) and a fixed rate (9.9 percent of Pacific sardine biomass). The Council's CPS Management Team chose to include only the modeling results for the 2005-2018 productivity scenario as part of its rationale for its recommendations because this time period represents a broader range of recruitment observed for this stock than the modeled subset of years 2010 to 2018, which include only years with low Pacific sardine productivity. The modeling results for 2010-2018 also provided a relatively low spawning stock biomass target ( i.e., the model's estimated rebuilding target under this productivity scenario) of only 38,122 mt, which is less than the overfished threshold of 50,000 mt in the CPS FMP. As a result, the CPS Management Team determined that the model results from the low productivity scenario do not adequately represent the fluctuating Pacific sardine population, and therefore relied on analysis of the model results for the moderate productivity scenario when developing management alternatives. The decision was also made to consider the modeling runs based on the fixed rate assumption for Mexico versus a fixed catch level on the presumption that it is reasonable to assume Mexican catch might go up and down based on stock size. Despite the model's limitations (discussed above in the response to Comment #2), it is the best model available to project Pacific sardine biomass forward in time, taking into account recruitment, fishing mortality, etc. and was an appropriate source of information for NMFS to rely on when reaching its decision. Furthermore, the Council's SSC endorsed the use of the model for this purpose.

However, NMFS acknowledges the limitations of the model and took that into account in reaching its decision by relying on other sources of information to inform its decision. When evaluating the Council's recommendation, NMFS took several other aspects into consideration, including the basic biology and life history of Pacific sardine estimates of its large population fluctuations over thousands of years, and the history of the Pacific sardine fishery on the west coast of North America. One of the primary drivers of Pacific sardine biology that the model cannot take into account is the wider-scale oceanographic conditions that drive Pacific sardine recruitment. There is no model that exists that can accurately predict when ocean conditions will ultimately allow for more favorable Pacific sardine recruitment. NMFS understands these limitations and explained the caveats of the modeling results and analyzed them holistically with other non-model based considerations. NMFS notes that the shortcomings of the Rebuilder Tool and the SWFSC's resulting Pacific Sardine Rebuilding Analysis highlighted by Oceana apply to all of the alternatives analyzed.

Comment 4: Oceana claims that NMFS must establish a rebuilding biomass level target consistent with the long-term B MSY ( i.e., the biomass at maximum sustainable yield) from previous management strategy evaluations. In addition to a 2014 management strategy evaluation, Oceana also cites a value from a 2012 SWFSC scientific paper for consideration of a B MSY . Relevant to this, Oceana also claims that the proposed B MSY of 150,000 mt age 1+ biomass in Amendment 18 is too low because below that threshold, the primary directed fishery for Pacific sardine is prohibited from operating.

Response: NMFs has determined that the established rebuilding target is supported by the best scientific information available and represents a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield under prevailing environmental conditions. Because Pacific sardine biomass fluctuates drastically with prevailing oceanographic conditions, B MSY also fluctuates with the stock's productivity. This is why so many values that could potentially be used for B MSY exist in relevant literature, and also why the Council and NMFS have never explicitly defined a single B MSY reference point for Pacific sardine. The two values that Oceana implies NMFS should consider using for B MSY are based on older stock assessment data. In recommending a rebuilt level of 150,000 mt age 1+ biomass, the Council and NMFS used the most recent data from the 2020 Pacific sardine stock assessment which includes the recent decline in the population and recent low recruitments. The Council's SSC endorsed using the 2020 stock assessment and the model for this purpose.

Regarding Oceana's claim that 150,000 mt age 1+ biomass is too low because it represents a level where “the population is too low to support a commercial fishery,” the comment misunderstands the structure of the CPS FMP and the precaution built into its framework. The Council chose a “CUTOFF” threshold at which it would automatically close the primary directed fishery not because the stock could not support a fishery at that level, but in order to provide additional protections to the stock as biomass began decreasing in response to environmental conditions. This CUTOFF threshold is part of the optimum yield considerations built into the Pacific sardine harvest guideline control rule. A stock on an upward trend does not require the same safeguards. In addition, NMFS notes that the CUTOFF value is three times the overfished biomass level, demonstrating both how precautionary the automatic closure level is and that it represents the level at which the stock will produce maximum sustainable yield. Additionally, when developing a rebuilding plan it is important to consider the current environmental and/or reproductive conditions the stock is experiencing, which is why the model used to project rebuilding timelines used the most recent stock assessment. Although history and science have shown that the Pacific sardine population can recover quickly when conditions are favorable, as previously stated it is unknown when those conditions will change. If the modeling analysis to determine an appropriate rebuilt level or the rebuilding plan included high biomass levels and high recruitment levels witnessed in the past as suggested by Oceana, then the model could potentially over assume the level of catches that could occur for rebuilding.

Comment 5: Oceana claims that NMFS fails to use the best scientific information available on international catch levels in its consideration of Amendment 18. Specifically, Oceana claims that the Distribution parameter in the Pacific sardine harvest control is inconsistent with recent high catch levels by Mexico published in the 2020 Pacific sardine stock assessment.

Response: NMFS notes that changes to the management framework of Pacific sardine and to the Pacific sardine harvest control rules are set in the CPS FMP and are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, NMFS would like to respond to this comment.

The value for the Distribution parameter in the Pacific sardine harvest control rules has recently been reviewed. In 2015, a 3-day meeting was held that included agency and non-agency scientists to review the Distribution parameter. The results of this workshop were then presented to the Council and its advisory bodies, including the SSC. The Council subsequently concluded that there was no superior data to inform this parameter. Additionally, NMFS notes that the Distribution parameter in the various Pacific sardine control rules is not a required element dictated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act or National Standard 1. Instead, it is an additional precautionary policy adopted and used by the Council to further reduce the harvest of Pacific sardine beyond what is required. Amendment 18 does not supersede the Council's ability to recommend a change to the Distribution parameter if and when they deem it necessary.

Comment 6: Oceana claims that NMFS has not, and therefore must analyze the effects of each alternative on essential fish habitat (EFH) for salmon, groundfish, and highly migratory species.

Response: NMFS notes that this action is a rebuilding plan intended only to continue limiting fishing mortality in order to allow the Pacific sardine population to rebuild. The closure of the primary directed fishery is maintained through this action. There are no anticipated impacts to EFH that have not already been considered in prior EFH consultations on the Pacific sardine fishery, even when the primary directed fishery was open. Only the smaller sectors of the fishery with very limited take of Pacific sardine ( e.g., the live bait fishery) would occur under Amendment 18, as the primary directed fishery will remain closed until the stock reaches its rebuilding target.

Comment 7: Oceana claimed that NMFS has not adequately consulted on the potential effects from Amendment 18 on Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed predators, and that NMFS must reinitiate an ESA consultation for this action.

Response: Oceana did not introduce any new scientific information that would require NMFS to reinitiate consultation under the ESA. Prior ESA consultations on the Pacific sardine fishery concluded that there would be no significant impact to ESA-listed species, and those consultations analyzed effects when the primary directed fishery was open. Amendment 18 maintains the closure of the primary directed fishery and only allows a very limited amount of take for the remaining small sectors of the fishery. As it relates to this action, potential impacts to species listed under the ESA would be if this action somehow changed the type of gear used by the fishery, or the timing or location of fishing. This action does not do any of those things.