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 Model EC130B4 and Model EC130T2 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 7, 2021 (86 FR 35695). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require, within 90 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of the AD, or before the next autorotation training flight, whichever occurs first, removing the protective boot along the collective and measuring the clearance between the collective tab hook (hook) and low pitch locking pin (pin). If the clearance is less than 5 mm (0.196 in), adjusting the clearance between the hook and the pin to prevent interference was proposed. The NPRM then proposed to require re-installing the protective boot in accordance with the manufacturer's service information. The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2017-0062, dated April 11, 2017 (EASA AD 2017-0062), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. EASA states that during an autorotation test conducted during an acceptance flight, the pilot felt a jamming sensation when pushing the collective to the low pitch position, and he subsequently was able to free the collective by pulling on it. According to EASA, an analysis determined that the hook and the pin were extremely close, and that a fold in the control lever boot may have become caught between the two components. EASA states that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in an untimely locking of the collective and subsequent reduced control of the helicopter.

Accordingly, EASA AD 2017-0062 requires inspecting and adjusting, if necessary, the clearance between the hook and the pin while in the low pitch position.

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

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these helicopters.

The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB No. EC130-67A019, Revision 0, dated February 23, 2016, which specifies inspecting and adjusting the clearance between the hook and pin.

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 EASA AD requires compliance within 165 hours TIS or 3 months, whichever occurs first. Since the unsafe condition occurred at a collective position commanded during an autorotation, this AD requires compliance within 90 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or before the next autorotation training flight, whichever occurs first. Based on the average fleet usage, 90 hours TIS corresponds with the 3-month compliance requirement of the EASA AD.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 214 helicopters of U.S. Registry. At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Removing the protective boot will require about 2 work-hours for a cost of $170 per helicopter and a cost of $36,380 for the U.S. fleet. Determining the clearance between the hook and pin will require about 0.5 work-hour, for a cost of $43 per helicopter and a cost of $9,202 for the U.S. fleet. If required, adjusting the clearance will take about 2 work-hours for a cost of $170 per helicopter. Re-installing the protective boot will require about 2 work-hours, for a cost of $170 per helicopter and a cost of $36,380 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 2018-0292, dated December 28, 2018 (EASA AD 2018-0292) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.a. (formerly Finmeccanica S.p.A, AgustaWestland S.p.A., Agusta S.p.A.; AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation, formerly Agusta Aerospace Corporation) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, all serial numbers. Although EASA AD 2018-0292 applies to all Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, this AD applies to helicopters with an affected part installed instead.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2021 (86 FR 33149). The NPRM was prompted by a report that, during a post-flight inspection of an in-service helicopter, a tail rotor slide assembly was found fractured, and the bushing and the actuator rod in the tail rotor servo were partially damaged. The subsequent investigation revealed that the failure was due to fatigue, initiated from corroded areas (corrosion craters) on the surface of the tail rotor slider assembly characterized by signs of circumferential refinishing. The corrosion craters originated along finishing signs consistent with low grit sanding operations, which can remove the passivation corrosion protection from the tail rotor slider assembly. Sanding is a maintenance activity that is not included in the maintenance manual for Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters and is not allowed on in-service helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the rail rotor tail rotor slider assembly for corrosion and signs of circumferential refinishing and, depending on the findings, replacement of the tail rotor slider assembly with a serviceable part or repetitive inspections of the tail rotor slider assembly for corrosion and signs of circumferential refinishing, as specified in EASA AD 2018-0292.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address corrosion in the tail rotor slider assembly caused by improper refinishing (characterized by signs of circumferential refinishing consistent with sanding). The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in fatigue crack and fracture of the tail rotor slider assembly, resulting in failure of the tail rotor controls and consequent loss of yaw control of the helicopter. See EASA AD 2018-0292 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 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. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

EASA AD 2018-0292 requires a detailed inspection of the tail rotor slide assembly for corrosion and sign of circumferential refinishing and, depending on the findings, applicable corrective actions. If there is any evidence of corrosion craters the corrective action is replacement of the affected part with a serviceable part. If there is any evidence of surface imperfections caused by circumferential refinishing but no evidence of corrosion, the corrective action is repetitive inspections of the tail rotor slide assembly for corrosion and signs of circumferential refinishing. Replacement of an affected part with a serviceable part is terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

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 129 helicopters of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Emergency AD 2021-0072-E, dated March 12, 2021 (EASA Emergency AD 2021-0072-E) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.a. (formerly AgustaWestland S.p.A., Agusta S.p.A., and Costruzioni Aeronautiche Giovanni Agusta) Model AB412 and AB412 EP helicopters, all serial numbers.

This AD was prompted by a report of a cracked hoist support assembly having part number (P/N) 212-8800-02-1 on a Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB412 military helicopter. The investigation is still on-going. This same part is installed on Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB412 civil helicopters. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking in a hoist support assembly which, if not addressed, could affect the structural integrity of the hoist support assembly, leading to in-flight detachment of the hoist assembly, and possibly resulting in damage to, and reduced control of, the helicopter. See the MCAI for additional background information.

EASA Emergency AD 2021-0072-E specifies procedures for a one-time inspection of any hoist support assembly having P/N 212-8800-02-1 for cracking and, depending on the findings, replacement with a serviceable part. EASA Emergency AD 2021-0072-E also specifies reporting the inspection results to Leonardo S.p.a.

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.

These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and are 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 after evaluating all pertinent information and determining that the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA Emergency AD 2021-0072-E, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities to use this process. As a result, EASA Emergency AD 2021-0072-E is incorporated by reference in this FAA final rule. This AD, therefore, requires compliance with EASA Emergency AD 2021-0072-E in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA Emergency AD 2021-0072-E that is required for compliance with EASA Emergency AD 2021-0072-E is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0724.

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

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

There are currently no domestic operators of these products. Therefore, the FAA finds that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). 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-2021-0724; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00321-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, 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 AD 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 AD.

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 Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, FAA, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7323; email Darren.Gassetto@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that 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.

There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.

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 Pkwy., 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 would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD would 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 this regulation:

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Emergency AD 2019-0191-E, dated July 31, 2019 (EASA Emergency AD 2019-0191-E), to correct an unsafe condition for Wytwórnia Sprzętu Komunikacyjnego (WSK) “PZL-Świdnik” Spółka Akcyjna (S.A.) Model PZL W-3A helicopters. EASA advises of a report of fractured bracket bolts. This condition, if not addressed, could result in detachment of the bracket resulting in movement of the hoist carrying assembly around the axis of the remaining two lower brackets, and subsequent damage to the helicopter and loss of hoisted load or person(s).

Accordingly, EASA Emergency AD 2019-0191-E requires repetitive inspections of the sealing compound around the affected brackets and, depending on the findings, accomplishing applicable corrective actions. EASA Emergency AD 2019- 0191-E also requires repetitive replacement of the affected bolts. EASA considers its AD an interim action and states that further AD action may follow.

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 is issuing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed WYTWÓRNIA SPRZĘTU KOMUNIKACYJNEGO “PZL-Świdnik” Spółka Akcyjna Mandatory Bulletin No. BO-37-19-296, dated July 30, 2019. This service information specifies procedures for repetitively inspecting the sealing compound along the edges of bracket part number (P/N) 39.30.205.03.01 and 39.30.213.00.00. If there is any cracked sealing compound, this service information specifies procedures for removing the hoist and prohibits installing and using the hoist until corrective action is available. If no cracks are found in the sealing compound, this service information specifies procedures for replacing the bolts with new bolts if the hoist is intended to be used and procedures for deactivating the hoist if the hoist is not intended to be used. This service information also specifies a life limit for the bracket bolts.

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

For helicopters with a hoist type 76378 installed, this AD requires repetitively cleaning and inspecting the sealing compound around the bracket edges and near each nut for cracked sealing compound. If there is any cracked sealing compound, this AD requires removing the hoist from service. If there is not any cracked sealing compound, this AD requires removing the bolts from service and installing new bolts. As an option to replacing the bolts, this AD allows deactivating the hoist, turning the circuit breaker panel switches to the OFF position, installing inoperative placards on the circuit breaker panel switches, and before each flight, inspecting the sealing compound. This AD also establishes a life limit for the bolts. Lastly, this AD prohibits installing an affected hoist or an affected bracket and hoist unless the actions required by this AD have been accomplished.

EASA Emergency AD 2019-0191-E requires using extraction naphtha, whereas this proposed AD would allow using aliphatic naphtha or extraction naphtha. This proposed AD would require removing each previously-installed bracket bolt, nut, washer, and cotter pin from service, whereas EASA AD 2019-0191-E does not. This proposed AD would count a cycle anytime the cable is extended and then retracted during flight or on the ground, whereas EASA Emergency AD 2019-0191-E does not clarify the conditions used for cycle counting. EASA Emergency AD 2019-0191-E allows, in lieu of replacing bolts or removing the hoist, operation of a helicopter with the hoist installed, provided the hoist is deactivated and its use is prohibited and the sealing compound of the affected bracket is inspected before each flight. This AD allows that provision only if there is not any cracked sealing compound.

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

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 no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). 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 data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0721; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00616-R” 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 Fred Guerin, Aerospace Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 2200 S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (202) 267-7457; email fred.guerin@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 Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.

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, I certify that this AD:

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0002, dated January 4, 2018 (EASA AD 2018-0002) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 7, 2021 (86 FR 35690). The NPRM was prompted by reports of spurious in-flight disconnections of the AFCS. The NPRM proposed to require updating certain “Primus Epic” system software, as specified in EASA AD 2018-0002.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address spurious degradation or unavailability of the full AFCS. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in temporary impairment of the automated flight aid for control of the helicopter and increase the flightcrew's workload. See EASA AD 2018-0002 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 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. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

EASA AD 2018-0002 requires installation of certain “Primus Epic” system software, depending on the helicopter configuration. EASA AD 2018-0002 allows installation of “Primus Epic” system software on a helicopter after that helicopter has had the software upgrade installed.

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 128 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued AD 2021-16-02, Amendment 39-21663 (86 FR 46771, August 20, 2021) (AD 2021-16-02), for certain Airbus Helicopters Model SA330J, AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters. AD 2021-16-02 required inspecting the locking safety mechanism of the LH side stairway door handle and depending on the results, corrective action. AD 2021-16-02 also required modifying that locking safety mechanism.

AD 2021-16-02 was prompted by EASA AD 2020-0087, dated April 15, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0087), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters (AH), formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, Aerospatiale, Sud Aviation, Model SA330J, AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters, if equipped with an LH side stairway door, except helicopters modified in accordance with AH modification (MOD) 07 28281 (AS 332, EC 225) or MOD 07 27338 (SA 330). EASA issued EASA AD 2020-0087 to supersede EASA Emergency AD 2014-0241-E, dated November 4, 2014 (EASA AD 2014-0241-E).

The FAA issued AD 2021-16-02 to address incorrect locking of the LH side stairway door, which could result in an in-flight opening of the door and subsequent damage to the helicopter or injury to persons on the ground. See EASA AD 2020-0087 for additional background information.

Since AD 2021-16-02 was issued, the FAA has determined that is necessary to clarify a required exception. As published, paragraph (h)(7) of AD 2021-16-02 could cause confusion with paragraph (h)(5) of AD 2021-16-02. Paragraph (h)(7) of this AD clarifies that the terminating action for the repetitive inspections as required by paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0087 does not apply to this AD. The repetitive inspections as required by paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0087 are not required by paragraph (h)(5) of this AD, and accordingly, this AD cannot provide terminating action for those repetitive inspections.

EASA AD 2020-0087 requires repetitively inspecting the locking safety mechanism of the LH side stairway door handle for correct operation and depending on the results, reconditioning the locking safety mechanism or contacting the Airbus Helicopters Support and Services Department. EASA AD 2020-0087 also requires modifying the locking safety mechanism, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

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.

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 is issuing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2020-0087, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD and except as discussed under “Differences Between this AD and the EASA AD.”

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0087 is incorporated by reference in this FAA final rule. This AD, therefore, requires compliance with EASA AD 2020-0087 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 2020-0087 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 referenced in EASA AD 2020-0087 for compliance will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating FAA-2021-0785.

Where EASA AD 2020-0087 refers to the effective date of EASA AD 2014-0241-E or its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD. Where EASA AD 2020-0087 refers to Group 1 and 2 helicopters, this AD does not refer to any groups of helicopters. Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0087 allows the pilot to perform the requirements of the ASB, this AD requires the requirements to be performed by a qualified mechanic. Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0087 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0087 specifies to discard certain parts, this AD requires removing those parts from service instead. EASA AD 2020-0087 requires repeating the inspection before next flight after each application of painting on the LH side stairway door or its external door handle, whereas this AD does not. EASA AD 2020-0087 allows a terminating action for the repetitive inspections, whereas this AD does not. EASA AD 2020-0087 requires contacting the Airbus Helicopters Support and Services Department if it is impossible to recondition the locking safety mechanism by moving the door handle, whereas this AD requires, before further flight, accomplishing paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2020-0087 or accomplishing corrective action using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA. The Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.

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.

This AD clarifies an exception in AD 2021-16-02 that could affect compliance and the public was previously provided opportunity for comment on the costs of the AD and required actions.

Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The 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-2021-0785; Project Identifier AD-2021-00989-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, 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 AD 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 AD.

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 Hal Jensen, Aerospace Engineer, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 950 L'Enfant Plaza N SW, Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202) 267-9167; email hal.jensen@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that 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.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 37 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 operation of the locking safety mechanism on the LH side stairway door handle takes about 0.1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $9 per helicopter and $333 for the U.S. fleet. Moving the external door handle from the “Locked” to the “Unlocked” position to determine if the safety mechanism on the LH side stairway door handle can lock automatically takes about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter. Modifying the locking safety mechanism on the LH side stairway door handle takes about 8 work-hours and parts cost about $5,000 for an estimated cost of $5,680 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.

The FAA determined that this AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD would 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 this regulation:

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0202, dated August 19, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0202), to correct an unsafe condition for PZL Swidnik S.A. Model PZL W-3A and PZL W-3AS helicopters all manufacturer serial numbers. Model PZL W-3AS helicopters are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those helicopters in the applicability.

EASA advises that an occurrence was reported where displaced teeth were detected on the moveable assemblies of an MR blade droop stop part number (P/N) 37.21.800.00.00). This condition, if not addressed, could result in erroneous operation of MR blade droop stop teeth during engine start-up or shut-down, or dynamic drop-down of an MR blade, resulting in contact of the affected MR blade with the tail boom, and possibly resulting in injury of occupants or persons on the ground.

Accordingly, EASA AD 2019-0202 requires removal of each affected part from any helicopter on which it is installed and prohibits installation of any affected MR blade droop stop or any moveable assembly of an affected MR blade droop stop on any helicopter.

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 is issuing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed WYTWÓRNIA SPRZĘTU KOMUNIKACYJNEGO “PZL-Świdnik” Spółka Akcyjna Mandatory Bulletin No. BO-37-18-302, Revision 1, dated July 11, 2019. This service information specifies procedures for removing the moveable assemblies of the MR blade droop stops. The service information specifies that the MR blade droop stop consists of four retaining washers that are installed on the MR hub flapping hinges and four moveable MR blade droop stop assemblies installed on the retaining washers.

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 WYTWÓRNIA SPRZĘTU KOMUNIKACYJNEGO “PZL-Świdnik” Spółka Akcyjna Mandatory Bulletin No. BO-37-18-302, dated June 19, 2019. This service information also specifies procedures for removing the moveable assemblies of the MR blade droop stops but does not include the detailed effectivity and scope of compliance that is included in WYTWÓRNIA SPRZĘTU KOMUNIKACYJNEGO “PZL-Świdnik” Spółka Akcyjna Mandatory Bulletin No. BO-37-18-302, Revision 1, dated July 11, 2019.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described.

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 no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). 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 data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0723; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00268-R” 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 Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7330; email andrea.jimenez@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 Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.

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, I certify that this AD:

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bell Textron Canada Limited (Bell) Model 429 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2021 (86 FR 33918). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive torque checks of the tail rotor gearbox attachment hardware, and corrective action if necessary. The NPRM was prompted by Canadian AD CF-2018-35, dated December 19, 2018 (Canadian AD CF-2018-35), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, to correct an unsafe condition for Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 429 helicopters. Transport Canada advises that there have been reports of tail rotor gearbox assemblies found loose on the gearbox support. Transport Canada issued Emergency Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2018-18, dated July 11, 2018, which corresponds to FAA AD 2018-16-51, Amendment 39-19421 (83 FR 53171, October 22, 2018), to address the immediate safety concern. An ongoing investigation determined that this condition-loose tail rotor gearbox assemblies-could return even after the corrective actions by the previous AD have been completed. This condition, if not addressed, could result in structural damage and possible loss of control of the helicopter.

Accordingly, Canadian AD CF-2018-35 requires repetitive torque checks of the tail rotor gearbox attachment hardware and corrective actions if necessary. The corrective action is doing additional repetitive torque checks at intervals of 10 to 25 hours air time until the torque stabilizes on all the nuts .

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

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, its technical representative, has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these helicopters. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Bell Alert Service Bulletin 429-18-41, dated July 24, 2018. This service information specifies procedures for repetitive torque checks of the tail rotor gearbox attachment hardware.

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.

Where Canadian AD CF-2018-35 refers to “200-hour” inspections and “10 to 25 hours air time” for the torque checks, for this AD use “time-in-service” instead.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 98 helicopters of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

On August 13, 2020, Commerce published proposed amendments to its existing regulations, 19 CFR part 351, to strengthen and improve the administration and enforcement of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. 1 On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the Final Rule. 2 In the Final Rule, Commerce established revised regulations (19 CFR 351.225) which describe the applicable procedures and standards concerning scope inquiries and scope rulings regarding whether a product is covered by the scope of a particular antidumping or countervailing duty order. In addition, Commerce established new regulations for circumvention inquiries conducted under section 781 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) (new 19 CFR 351.226).

Revised section 351.225(c) details the procedures and requirements for an interested party to fill out and submit a scope ruling application, and further provides that Commerce will make a scope ruling application available to the public. In accordance with revised section 351.225(d), if a completed scope ruling application is accepted, Commerce will initiate a scope inquiry.

Commerce is notifying parties that the scope ruling application may be found at https://www.trade.gov/review-or-submit-adcvd-proceedings-documents or https://access.trade.gov/Resources/ADCVD_Resources.aspx.

Revised § 351.225(c) and (n)(1) provide that an interested party that submits a scope ruling application must serve a copy of the application on all persons on the annual inquiry service list for that order, as well as any companion order covering the same merchandise from the same country of origin, as described in revised section 351.225(m)(2). Revised § 351.225(n)(2) and (3) describe the procedures for the “annual inquiry service list,” discussed further below. Similarly, new § 351.226(c) and (n)(1) state that an interested party that submits a request for a circumvention inquiry must serve a copy of the request on all persons on the annual inquiry service list for that order, as well as any companion order covering the same merchandise from the same country of origin, as described in new § 351.226(m)(2). Lastly, revised section 351.225(n)(4) and new § 351.226(n)(2) provide that once a scope or circumvention inquiry has been initiated, a segment-specific service list will be established.

As discussed in the Final Rule, Commerce is notifying parties of the initial procedures for the establishment of the annual inquiry service list for each antidumping and countervailing duty order. 3 Upon publication of this document, Commerce will begin to create an annual inquiry service list for each active antidumping and countervailing duty order and suspended investigation in its online e-filing and document management system, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Electronic Service System (ACCESS), available at https://access.trade.gov. Each annual inquiry service list will be saved in ACCESS, under each case number, and under a specific segment type called “AISL-Annual Inquiry Service List.”  4

Beginning September 27, 2021, and until October 27, 2021, an interested party may request to be added to the annual inquiry service list by submitting in ACCESS an entry of appearance in the annual inquiry service list segment of any order in which it qualifies as an interested party under 19 CFR 351.102(b)(2)(i) through (ix). Instructions on how to submit an entry of appearance are available at https://access.trade.gov/help/Rel_4_External_User_Guide.pdf. No later than November 4, 2021 (the effective date of the Final Rule for 19 CFR 351.225 (scope) and 19 CFR 351.226 (circumvention)), Commerce will generate an annual inquiry service list for each order and suspended investigation based on the entries of appearance submitted by the interested parties. As discussed further below, to be included in the initial creation of the annual inquiry service list, all interested parties, including petitioners and governments of foreign countries must follow these procedures and submit an initial entry of appearance.

After the initial creation of the annual inquiry service lists for all active orders and suspended investigations, Commerce will update each annual inquiry service list on an annual basis beginning January 2022. Each year during the anniversary month of an order or suspended investigation, Commerce will include in the monthly Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review published in the Federal Register ( Opportunity Notice ), a notification to all interested parties of their opportunity to submit an entry of appearance to be placed on the annual inquiry service list for those orders included in that month's Opportunity Notice. Any interested party that did not previously appear on the annual inquiry service list can submit a new entry of appearance at this time.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(n)(3), with the exception of petitioners and foreign governments (discussed below), all interested parties who previously appeared on an annual inquiry service list and wish to appear on the list for the next year will need to submit an amended entry of appearance in ACCESS after the Opportunity Notice publishes. Commerce will change the status of all entries of appearance filed in ACCESS during the initial creation of the annual inquiry service list from “Active” to “Needs Amendment.” Each interested party may take this opportunity to make any necessary amendments ( e.g., changes to client list, lead attorney or contact person) at this time. If no amendments are needed, but the interested party wishes to be added to the list for the next year, it must indicate in the electronic entry of appearance form that it is renewing its request to be added to the annual inquiry service list for the next year, and then submit it. At that time, the status will be changed to “In Progress.” When Commerce approves the amended entry of appearance, it will change the status to “Active” and add the interested party to the annual inquiry service list.

Similar to the deadlines to submit requests for administrative review set out in the Opportunity Notice, interested parties will have until the last day of the anniversary month to submit a new entry of appearance for the annual inquiry service list or to amend its existing entry of appearance to be included in the new annual inquiry service list. If an interested party does not amend or resubmit its existing entry of appearance, the status will be set to “Inactive,” and the interested party will be omitted from the annual inquiry service list for the next year. No later than five business days after the last day of the anniversary month, Commerce will update the annual inquiry service lists for all orders included in the Opportunity Notice.

In the Final Rule, Commerce stated that, “after an initial request and placement on the annual inquiry service list, both petitioners and foreign governments will automatically be placed on the annual inquiry service list in the years that follow.”  5 Accordingly, as stated above, petitioners and foreign governments should submit their initial entry of appearance after publication of this notice in order to appear in the first annual inquiry service list for those orders for which they qualify as an interested party. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(n)(3), petitioners and foreign governments will not need to resubmit their entries of appearance each year to continue to be included on the annual inquiry service. However, petitioners and foreign governments are responsible for making amendments to their entries of appearance during the annual update to the annual inquiry service list in accordance with the procedures described above.

For new orders and suspended investigations whose Federal Register notices are published after the date of this document, Commerce will create an annual inquiry service list segment in ACCESS within five business days of publication of the notice of order or suspended investigation. Interested parties will have 30 days after the date of publication to submit an entry of appearance to be added to the new annual inquiry service list, and Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned above, these new lists will be updated the next year, when the Opportunity Notice for the relevant anniversary month is published, as described above.

Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove interested parties or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website at https://access.trade.gov.

Parties are also reminded that the procedures detailed above only pertain to the annual inquiry service list described in revised § 351.225(n) and new § 351.226(n). There are separate procedures for segment-specific service lists for scope and circumvention inquiries. Segment-specific service lists are established and revised as parties file their entries of appearance in that segment. These procedures are detailed in revised § 351.103(d), revised § 351.225(n)(4) (scope), and new § 351.226(n)(2) (circumvention).

E&C's website at https://www.trade.gov/2021-adcvd-regulations-update will contain additional information regarding the Final Rule. In addition, the website will provide information on dates and times of informational sessions regarding the Final Rule which Commerce intends to provide to the public, as well as information on how to register for, and participate in, those informational sessions. Whether the sessions are virtual or in person, there will be a limited number of spots available for participation. Therefore, the public should review the information set forth on the website regarding availability.

Since 2008, HCV program funding has provided rental assistance under a supportive housing program for homeless veterans authorized by section 8(o)(19) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(19). The HUD-VASH program combines HUD HCV rental assistance for homeless veterans with case management and clinical services provided at VA Medical Centers, Community-Based Outpatient Clinics, or through a designated service provider (DSP) as approved by the VA Secretary (herein referred to generally as VAMC or DSP). Through the HUD-VASH program, HUD and VA increase access to affordable housing for homeless veterans and provide the support necessary to obtain and maintain permanent housing in the community.

Based on a review of existing permanent supportive housing (PSH) models, typical acuity levels of veterans in the program, and the availability of providers within VAMCs and in the community who can augment care provided by HUD-VASH case managers, the Secretaries of HUD and VA jointly determined that the appropriate caseload ratio in HUD-VASH is a weighted average of 25 veterans per case manager. However, actual caseload sizes can vary considerably, based primarily on the needs of the veterans being served. Veterans in HUD-VASH are weighted based on their stage in the program, with higher weightings applied to veterans in more intensive stages of the program, and lower weightings applied to those who have stabilized. These weightings and target caseload ratios ensure that all veterans in receipt of a HUD-VASH voucher are seen as needed by their case manager.

The initiative known as the HUD-VASH program was authorized pursuant to Division K, Title II, of The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Pub. L. 110-161) (“2008 Appropriation Act”) enacted on December 26, 2007 (see proviso (7) under the heading “Tenant-Based Rental Assistance”). All Congressional Appropriations Acts since 2008 have continued to authorize this program. Therefore, the implementation requirements will remain in effect until the HUD-VASH program is no longer authorized by Congress or the authorization requirements change.

The Appropriations Acts have required HUD to “make such funding available, notwithstanding section 204 (competition provision) of this title, to PHAs that partner with eligible VAMCs or other entities as designated by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, based on geographical need for such assistance as identified by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, PHA administrative performance, and other factors as specified by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

Based on this language, the allocation of HUD-VASH vouchers have been a collaborative, data-driven effort conducted by HUD and the VA. The HUD-VASH allocation formula relies on several pieces of data which include HUD's point-in-time data submitted by Continuums of Care and VA data on contacts with homeless veterans. PHA and VA performance is also taken into consideration.

Additional information on program requirements and procedures may be found on the HUD-VASH website at HUD-VASH website.

This section sets forth the design features of the HUD-VASH program, including family eligibility, portability, case management, and the turnover of these vouchers. This document replaces the special rules published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2012 (77 FR 17086). The FY2008-2021 Appropriations Acts stated “that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs) may waive, or specify alternative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development administers in connection with the use of funds made available under this paragraph (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment) upon a finding by the Secretary that any such waivers or alternative requirements are necessary for the effective delivery and administration of such voucher assistance: Provided further, that assistance made available under this paragraph shall continue to remain available for homeless veterans upon turnover.”

This document outlines below the waivers or alternative requirements determined by the Secretary to be necessary for the effective delivery and administration of the HUD-VASH program. These waivers or alternative requirements are exceptions to the normal HCV requirements, which otherwise govern the provision of HUD-VASH assistance. In addition, a PHA may request additional statutory or regulatory waivers that it determines are necessary for the effective delivery and administration of the program. These requests may be submitted to the Secretary for review and decision through the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing through the regular waiver process.

HUD-VASH vouchers under this part are administered in accordance with the HCV tenant-based and project-based rental assistance regulations set forth at 24 CFR part 982 and 983, respectively. In both programs, the PHA pays monthly rental subsidies so that eligible families can afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing, secure from threats of danger, harm, or loss. HUD provides housing assistance funds to the PHA, as well as funds for PHA administration of the program.

Under the HCV program, families select rent units that meet program housing quality standards (HQS). If the PHA approves a family's unit and tenancy, the PHA contracts with the property owner to make monthly subsidy payments (housing assistance payments) directly to the owner on behalf of the family . The family enters a lease with the owner and pays its share of the rent to the owner in accordance with the lease. Under the HCV tenant-based voucher (TBV) program, the housing assistance payments (HAP) contract between the PHA and the owner covers only a single unit and a specific assisted family. If the family moves out of the leased unit, the HAP contract with the owner terminates. The family may generally move to another unit with continued assistance so long as the family is complying with program requirements.

Under the project-based voucher (PBV) program, families occupy units under a PBV HAP contract. Generally, there are multiple units under the PBV HAP contract. In many cases supportive services are provided on-site. All the PBV requirements in 24 CFR part 983 apply except where waived as described below.

Unless expressly noted below, all regulatory requirements and HUD directives regarding the HCV TBV and PBV programs are applicable to HUD-VASH vouchers, including the use of all HUD-required contracts and other forms. The PHA's local discretionary policies adopted in the PHA's written administrative plan apply to HUD-VASH vouchers unless such local policy conflicts with the requirements of the HUD-VASH vouchers outlined below.

PHAs are required to maintain records that allow for the easy identification of families receiving HUD-VASH vouchers. PHAs must identify these families in the Information Management System/Public and Indian Housing Information Center (IMS/PIC). This record-keeping will help ensure that, in accordance with appropriations renewal language, HUD-VASH vouchers that are in use will remain available for homeless veterans upon turnover.

The alternative requirements established in this Notice apply to all PHAs that administer HUD-VASH vouchers, including those that have not received an allocation of HUD-VASH vouchers, but administer these vouchers as a receiving PHA under the portability feature of the HCV program.

The new waivers and program flexibilities include: (1) New authorization allowing a PHA to act in the role of the VAMC or DSPs for the purposes of family selection in cases where the PHA has been previously approved for this authority (section II.a.); (2) new allowance for a PHA and owner to agree to amend a PBV HAP contract to re-designate a regular PBV unit as a unit specifically designated for HUD-VASH families (section II.k); (3) new authorization for PHAs to apply separate payment standards for HUD-VASH families without additional HUD approval (section II.o.); and (4) new requirement that PHAs must allow Special Housing Types for HUD-VASH (section II.p.).

The updates made to existing requirements include: (1) Allowing PHAs to house HUD-VASH veterans referred by the VA in a project-based voucher unit without selecting from the PHA's waiting lists or applying local preferences (section II.a); (2) additional explanation regarding the process for portability moves for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking (section II.f); (3) additional details regarding case management requirements from the VAMC or DSP (section II.g); (4) explanation that, in the case of a family break-up, the HUD-VASH assistance must stay with the HUD-VASH veteran; however, in the case of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking in which the HUD-VASH veteran is the perpetrator, the victim must continue to be assisted (section II.h.); (5) explanation that a Moving to Work (MTW) PHA can apply their approved MTW provisions to their HUD-VASH program with approval from HUD's Housing Choice Voucher office (section II.j.); (6) explanation regarding the application of HUD-VASH waivers and flexibilities to HUD-VASH PBV (section II.k); (7) explanation of HUD-VASH PBV exceptions under the Housing Opportunities Through Modernization Act (HOTMA) (section II.k.); (8) explanation that when a HUD-VASH family is eligible to move from its PBV unit the family must be able to move with a HUD-VASH tenant-based voucher (section II.k.); and (9) additional explanation of the HUD-VASH reallocation process through voluntary moves between PHAs and voucher recapture for future reallocation (section II.m.).

This document does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition or new construction, or establish, revise or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this document is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

HUD-VASH eligible families consist of homeless veterans and their families. The Appropriations Acts have provided for statutory or regulatory waivers or alternative requirements upon a finding by the Secretary that such waivers or alternatives are necessary for the effective administration and delivery of voucher assistance (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment). The December 17, 2007, Explanatory Statement for the 2008 Appropriation Act provides, “The Appropriations Committees expect that these vouchers will be made available to all homeless veterans, including recently returning veterans.”  1 Section 8(o)(19) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (USHA of 1937), which requires homeless veterans to have chronic mental illnesses or chronic substance use disorders with required treatment of these disorders as a condition of receipt of HUD-VASH assistance, is waived.

By agreeing to administer the HUD-VASH program, the PHA is relinquishing its authority to determine the eligibility of families in accordance with regular HCV program rules and PHA policies with the exceptions of income eligibility and lifetime sex offender status. Specifically, under the HUD-VASH program, PHAs will not have the authority to screen any potentially eligible family members or deny assistance for any grounds permitted under 24 CFR 982.552 (broad denial for violations of HCV program requirements) and 982.553 (specific denial for criminal activity and alcohol abusers), with one exception. PHAs will still be required to prohibit admission if any member of the household is subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a state sex offender registration program. However, unless the family member that is subject to lifetime registration under a state sex offender registration program is the homeless veteran (which would result in denial of admission for the family), the remaining family member/s may be served if the family agrees to remove the sex offender from its family composition. Accordingly, HUD is exercising its authority to waive 42 U.S.C. 1437d(s); 42 U.S.C. 13661(a), (b), and (c); and 24 CFR 982.552 and 982.553 regarding the denial of admission, except for 982.553(a)(2)(i), which requires denial of admission to certain registered sex offenders. These provisions also apply to PBV assistance.

Eligibility determination and veteran selection is done by the VAMC, DSP, or the PHA, as described later in this section. In the case of the VAMC or DSP, HUD-VASH eligible families are referred to the partnering PHA for the issuance of a voucher or selection for a PBV unit. As stated above, the PHA must accept these referrals, and written documentation of these referrals must be maintained in the tenant file at the PHA.

PHAs are not authorized to maintain a waiting list or apply local preferences for the HUD-VASH program. Instead, VA case managers refer HUD-VASH eligible families to the PHA for the issuance of a HUD-VASH voucher or project-based assistance. If a HUD-VASH-eligible family is referred and there is an available PBV unit that is not exclusively made available to HUD-VASH families, the PHA may also offer to refer the family to the owner for occupancy of that unit if allowable under the selection policy applicable to that project, and the owner and PHA may amend the PBV HAP contract to designate the PBV unit as a HUD-VASH PBV unit. Accordingly, sections 8(o)(6)(A) and (B) and 8(o)(13)(J) of the USHA of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(6)(A) and (B) and (o)(13)(J), regarding preferences, have been waived to provide for the effective administration of the program. In addition, 24 CFR 982.202, 982.204, 982.207, and 983.251 relating to applicant selection from the waiting list and local preferences, are also waived. Section 983.251(a)(4), which disallows renting to relatives except when it may be necessary as a reasonable accommodation, is not waived. Note that 24 CFR 982.202(b)(3) (Family characteristics); 24 CFR 982.202(d) (Admission policy); and 24 CFR 983.251(a)(3) (VAWA applies to admission to the project-based voucher program) continue to apply. Sections 982.203, 982.205, and 982.206 regarding special admissions, cross-listing of the waiting list, and opening and closing the waiting list do not apply to the HUD-VASH program.

The VA may approve a PHA with unleased HUD-VASH vouchers as a DSP for the purposes of veteran selection and intake. This DSP approval allows a PHA to issue a HUD-VASH voucher to a veteran without a referral from the VA. The PHA is responsible for determining the veteran is eligible for VA HUD-VASH case management. The PHA must refer the veteran to the VA for case management and must provide temporary case management until the VAMC has completed intake of the veteran. PHAs approved under this authority must ensure that while using unleased HUD-VASH vouchers, they maintain sufficient HUD-VASH vouchers available to immediately issue a HUD-VASH voucher to veterans referred by the VA. HUD and the VA will publish further guidance on the requirements for a PHA to be approved and additional details necessary for PHAs to implement this provision. Until such guidance is issued, PHAs may not be approved as DSPs.

Regarding verifying Social Security Numbers (SSN) for homeless veterans and their family members, an original document issued by a federal or state government agency which contains the name of the individual and the SSN of the individual along with other unique identifying information of the individual is acceptable in accordance with 24 CFR 5.216(g). In the case of the homeless veteran, the PHA must accept the Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD-214) or the VA-verified Application for Health Benefits (10-10EZ) as verification of SSN and cannot require the veteran to provide an SSN card. These documents must also be accepted for proof of age purposes in lieu of birth certificates or other PHA-required documentation. Please note that veterans are also issued photo identification cards by the VA. If such identification is required by the PHA, these cards must be accepted by the PHA in lieu of another type of government-issued photo identification. These cards may also be used to verify SSNs and date of birth.

When adding a family member after the HUD-VASH family is admitted to the program, the rules of § 982.551(h)(2) apply. Other than the birth, adoption, or court-awarded custody of a child, the PHA must approve additional family members and may apply its regular screening criteria in doing so.

*** Civil rights requirements cannot be waived. The HUD-VASH program is administered in accordance with applicable civil rights and fair housing requirements. These include applicable authorities under 24 CFR 5.105(a) and 24 CFR 982.53 including, but not limited to, the Fair Housing Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and HUD's Equal Access Rule. 2

When HUD-VASH applicants or recipients include veterans with disabilities or family members with disabilities, HUD's reasonable accommodation requirements apply. These standards require PHAs to make a reasonable adjustment to rules, policies, practices, and procedures when it may be necessary to enable an applicant or resident with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, the common areas of a dwelling, or participate in or access a recipient's programs and activities. These standards extend to various aspects of program implementation, including, for example, denial or termination of assistance, initial search term of the HCV, initial lease term, and informal reviews and hearings. In the case of project-based assistance, this also includes providing structural changes to a unit or public or common use area when they may be needed as a reasonable accommodation for an applicant or participant or their household members with a disability. Other obligations include, for example, effective communication with persons with disabilities, physical accessibility requirements, and overall nondiscrimination in the administration of the program.*

The PHA must determine income eligibility for HUD-VASH families in accordance with 24 CFR 982.201. Income targeting requirements of section 16(b) of the USHA of 1937, as well as 24 CFR 982.201(b)(2), do not apply for HUD-VASH families so that participating PHAs can effectively serve the eligible population specified in the Appropriations Acts; that is, homeless veterans, who may be at a variety of income levels, including low-income. The PHA may, however, choose to include the admission of extremely low-income HUD-VASH families in its income targeting numbers for the fiscal year in which these families are admitted. In conformance with normal program rules, PHAs may not deny admission to a family with zero income and must consider hardship circumstances before charging a minimum rent in accordance with 24 CFR 5.630(b).

Recognizing the challenges that HUD-VASH participants may face with their housing search, HUD-VASH vouchers must have an initial search term of at least 120 days. Therefore, 24 CFR 982.303(a), which states that the initial search term must be at least 60 days, shall not apply, since the initial term must be at least 120 days. Any extensions, suspensions, and progress reports will remain under the policies in the PHA's administrative plan but will apply after the minimum 120-day initial search term. Extensions of search terms may also be needed as a reasonable accommodation for a household with a member with a disability, such as for example, due to the difficulty in finding a unit that meets one's disability-related needs, e.g., physically accessible unit, unit near accessible transportation, unit near medical or other facilities.

Under the HCV program, voucher participants must enter an initial lease with the owner for at least one year, unless a shorter term would improve housing opportunities for the tenant and the shorter term is a prevailing market practice. To provide a greater range of housing opportunities for HUD-VASH voucher holders, initial leases may be less than 12 months; therefore, both section 8(o)(7)(A) of the USHA of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(7)(A), and 24 CFR 982.309(a)(2)(ii) are waived. Note that this waiver does not apply to PBVs.

HUD-VASH families will be permitted to live on the grounds of a VA facility in units developed to house homeless veterans. This applies to both tenant-based assistance and PBV. Therefore, 24 CFR 982.352(a)(5) and 983.53(a)(2), which prohibit units on the physical grounds of a medical, mental, or similar public or private institution, are waived for that purpose only.

An eligible family issued a HUD-VASH voucher must receive case management services provided by the partnering VAMC or DSP. Therefore, special mobility and portability procedures must be established. HUD-VASH participant families may reside only in those jurisdictional areas that are accessible to case management services as determined by the VAMC or DSP. Since the VAMC or DSP will be identifying homeless veterans eligible to participate in the HUD-VASH program, section 8(r)(1)(B)(i) of the USHA of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 1437f(r)(1(B)(i), which restricts portability in cases where the family did not reside in the jurisdiction of the PHA at the time of application for HCV assistance, and 24 CFR 982.353(a), (b), and (c), which affects where a family can lease a unit with HCV assistance, do not apply. HUD may publish PIH notices from time to time to further explain portability requirements under the HUD-VASH program.

If the family initially leases up, or moves, under portability provisions, but the initial PHA's partnering VAMC or DSP will still be able to provide the necessary case management services due to the family's proximity to the partnering VAMC or DSP, the receiving PHA must process the move in accordance with the portability procedures of 24 CFR 982.355. However, since the initial PHA must maintain records on all HUD-VASH families receiving case management services from its partnering VAMC or DSP, receiving PHAs without a HUD-VASH program must bill the initial PHA. Therefore, 24 CFR 982.355(d), which gives the receiving PHA the option to absorb the family into its own HCV program or bill the initial PHA, is not applicable.

The receiving PHA may bill the initial PHA or absorb the family into its own HUD-VASH program if the VAMC or DSP providing the initial case management agrees to the absorption by the receiving PHA and the transfer of case management. The absorption will also entail the availability of a HUD-VASH voucher and case management provision by the receiving PHA's partnering VAMC or DSP.

If a family wants to move to another jurisdiction where it will not be possible for the initial PHA's partnering VAMC or DSP to provide case management services, the VAMC or DSP must first determine that the HUD-VASH family could be served by another VAMC or DSP that is participating in this program, and the receiving PHA must have a HUD-VASH voucher available for this family. In these cases, the family must be absorbed by the receiving PHA either as a new admission (upon initial participation in the HUD-VASH program) or as a portability move-in (after an initial leasing in the initial PHA's jurisdiction). Upon absorption, the initial PHA's HUD-VASH voucher will be available to lease to a new HUD-VASH eligible family, as determined by the partnering VAMC or DSP, and the absorbed family will count toward the number of HUD-VASH slots awarded to the receiving PHA.

When the receiving PHA completes the Family Report (HUD-50058) under the scenario described above, the action type that must be recorded on line 2a is “1” for a new admission (a family that is new to the HCV program) or “4” for a portability move-in (a family that was previously leased up in the jurisdiction of the initial PHA). Whether the family is a new admission or portability move-in, in section 12 of the HUD-50058, line 12d is always marked “Y.” In cases of portability where families move out of the catchment area of the initial PHA, 12e must be 0 since the family must be absorbed, and 12f must be left blank.

Veterans who request to port beyond the catchment area of the VAMC or DSP where they are receiving case management to protect the health or safety of a person who is or has been the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and who reasonably believes him- or herself to be threatened with imminent harm from further violence by remaining in the dwelling unit (or any family member has been the victim of a sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-calendar-day period preceding the family's move or request to move), may port prior to receiving approval from the receiving VAMC or DSP. The initial PHA must follow its emergency transfer plan as described in 24 CFR 5.2005(e). PHAs may require verbal self-certification or a written request from a participant seeking a move beyond the catchment area of the VAMC or DSP.

The verbal self-certification or written request must include either, a statement expressing why the participant reasonably believes that there is a threat of imminent harm from further violence if the participant were to remain in the same dwelling unit assisted under the PHA; or a statement that the tenant was a sexual assault victim and that sexual assault occurred on the premises during the 90-day period preceding the participant's request for the move. The veteran escaping violence must be admitted to the VAMC or DSP's caseload. The participant must still port to a PHA that has a HUD-VASH program; if the receiving PHA does not have a HUD-VASH voucher available to lease, they may bill the initial PHA until a HUD-VASH voucher is available, at which point the porting veteran must be absorbed into the receiving PHA's program.

If the family no longer requires case management, as determined by the VAMC or DSP, there are no portability restrictions. PHAs must follow the regulatory requirements for portability found at 24 CFR 982.355. When completing the HUD-50058, the family will continue to be coded “VASH” on line 2n unless the family has been moved to a regular voucher, in which case the code in 2n would be left blank.

The VAMC or DSP's responsibilities include: (1) The screening of homeless veterans to determine whether they meet the HUD-VASH program participation criteria established by the VA national office; (2) assisting veterans with the PHA application and assisting the veteran family with obtaining needed PHA documentation to ensure rapid voucher issuance; (3) referrals of homeless veterans to the PHA; (4) providing case management and supportive services to potential HUD-VASH program participants, as needed, prior to PHA issuance of rental vouchers; (5) providing housing search assistance to HUD-VASH participants with rental vouchers; (6) identifying the social service and medical needs of HUD-VASH participants and providing, or ensuring the provision of, regular ongoing case management, outpatient health services, hospitalization, and other supportive services, as needed, throughout this initiative; and (7) maintaining records and providing information for evaluation purposes, as required by HUD and the VA.

As a condition of HCV rental assistance, both tenant-based assistance and PBV, a HUD-VASH eligible veteran must receive the case management services noted above, as needed, directly from or arranged by, the VAMC or DSP. The VAMC or DSP, in consultation with the veteran, is responsible for determining if case management is required and if the case management requirement is satisfied.

If a veteran no longer requires case management, but maintains their HUD-VASH voucher assistance, the VAMC or DSP will maintain contact with the veteran family to provide support and planning assistance with the recertification and reinspection process. The VAMC or DSP case manager will remain available to provide support to the veteran family, as needed.

There are two alternative requirements for termination of assistance for HUD-VASH participants. As detailed above, HUD-VASH voucher assistance is contingent upon participation in case management, as required by the VAMC or DSP. If the VAMC or DSP has determined that a veteran is not participating in required case management, without good cause, the PHA must terminate the family from the HUD-VASH program. However, a VAMC or DSP determination that the veteran does not require or no longer requires case management is not grounds for termination of voucher or PBV assistance. In such case, and at its option, the PHA may offer the family continued assistance through one of its regular vouchers, to free up the HUD-VASH voucher for another eligible family referred by the VAMC or DSP. If the PHA has no voucher to offer, the family will retain its HUD-VASH voucher, or PBV unit, until such time as the PHA has an available voucher for the family. If the family no longer requires case management, there are no portability restrictions. Normal portability rules apply.

Second, PHAs may terminate a family evicted from housing assisted under the program for a serious violation of the lease, but they are not required to do so. As such, the regulation at 24 CFR 982.552((b)(2) is amended to state, “The PHA may terminate program assistance for a family evicted from housing assisted under the program for serious violation of the lease.” Prior to terminating HUD-VASH participants, HUD strongly encourages PHAs to exercise their discretion under 24 CFR 982.552(c)(2) and consider all relevant circumstances of the specific case, as well as including the role of the case manager and the impact that ongoing case management services can have on mitigating the conditions that led to the potential termination, prior to determining whether to terminate assistance. PHAs also must grant reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities in accordance with 24 CFR part 8. In addition, a HUD-VASH participant family must not be terminated after admission, for a circumstance or activity that occurred before admission and was known to the PHA but could not be considered at the time of admission due to the HUD-VASH Operating Requirements. The PHA can only terminate the family's assistance for program violations that occur after the family's admission to the voucher program.

Generally, in the case of a family break-up, the HUD-VASH assistance must stay with the HUD-VASH veteran. However, in the case of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, in which the HUD-VASH veteran is the perpetrator, the victim must continue to be assisted. Upon termination of the perpetrator's HUD-VASH voucher due to the perpetrator's acts of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, the victim must be given a regular HCV if one is available, and the perpetrator's HUD-VASH voucher must be used to serve another eligible veteran family. If a regular HCV is not available for the victim, the perpetrator must be terminated from assistance, and the victim will continue to utilize the HUD-VASH voucher.

In accordance with the Appropriations Acts, upon turnover, HUD-VASH vouchers must be issued to homeless veteran families as identified by the VAMC or DSP, as noted above.

HUD-VASH vouchers may be administered in accordance with flexibilities approved under PHA's Standard MTW Agreement or MTW Operations Notice with approval from HUD's Housing Choice Voucher office. PHAs must submit a request through their local field office to operate HUD-VASH in accordance with approved MTW flexibilities. Requests will be approved provided the flexibilities to not conflict with the stated HUD-VASH program requirements. However, these vouchers are never eligible for MTW fungibility. HUD-VASH vouchers must be reported in the IMS/PIC system on either the regular HUD-50058 or HUD-MTW 50058 for vouchers under the agency's MTW Agreement.

Section 8(o)(13)(D) of the USHA of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437(o)(13)(D)), as amended by Section 106(a)(3) of the Housing Opportunities Through Modernization Act (HOTMA) (Pub. L. 114-201, 130 Stat. 782), is waived for HUD-VASH vouchers so that all units exclusively made available to HUD-VASH families in a PBV project are exempted from the PBV income-mixing requirements (project cap). The project cap refers to the number of units in a project that may receive PBV assistance and is generally the higher of 25 units or 25 percent of units in the project. Units exclusively made available to HUD-VASH families are excluded from (do not count against) this PBV project cap. Additionally, HUD-VASH supportive services only need to be provided to all HUD-VASH families in the project, not all families receiving PBV assistance in the project. If a HUD-VASH family does not require or no longer requires case management, the unit continues to count as an excepted PBV unit for as long as the family resides in that unit. Likewise, Section 8(o)(13)(B) of the USHA of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)(B)), as amended by Section 106(a)(2) of HOTMA, is waived for HUD-VASH vouchers so that HUD-VASH units made available under a competitive PIH notice for HUD-VASH PBV units, are exempt from the PBV program limitation. This exception only applies to HUD-VASH PBV vouchers awarded through the HUD-VASH PBV set-aside process. All other HUD-VASH vouchers that the PHA opts to project-base, are still subject to the PBV program limitation.

Pursuant to the HUD-VASH case management and termination requirements, a HUD-VASH family's PBV assistance must be terminated for failure to participate in case management as required by the VAMC or DSP. Upon notification by the VAMC or DSP of the family's failure to participate, without good cause, in case management, the PHA must provide the family a reasonable time period (as established by the PHA) to vacate the unit. The PHA must terminate assistance to the family at the earlier of (1) the time the family vacates or (2) the expiration of the reasonable time period given to vacate (the lease terminates at the same time as termination of assistance per 24 CFR 983.256(f)(3)(v)). If the family fails to vacate the unit within the established time, the owner may evict the family. If the owner does not evict the family, the PHA must remove the unit from the HAP contract or amend the HAP contract to substitute a different unit in the project if the project is partially assisted. A PHA may add the removed unit to the HAP contract after the ineligible family vacates the property.

If a HUD-VASH family is eligible to move from its PBV unit and there is no HUD-VASH tenant-based voucher available at the time the family requests to move, the PHA may require a family that still requires case management to wait for a HUD-VASH tenant-based voucher for a period not to exceed 180 days. If a HUD-VASH tenant-based voucher is still not available after that time period, the family must be allowed to move with its HUD-VASH voucher. Alternatively, the PHA may allow the family to move with its HUD-VASH voucher without having to meet this 180-day waiting period. In either case, the PHA may either replace the assistance in the PBV unit with one of its regular vouchers if the unit is eligible for a regular PBV (for instance, so long as the unit is not on the grounds of a medical facility and so long as the unit is eligible under the PHA's program and project caps) or the PHA and owner may agree to temporarily remove the unit from the HAP contract. If a HUD-VASH veteran has been determined to no longer require case management, the PHA must allow the family to move with the first available tenant-based voucher if no HUD-VASH voucher is immediately available and cannot require the family to wait for a HUD-VASH voucher to become available.

Under HOTMA, PHAs no longer need authorization from HUD to convert tenant-based HUD-VASH vouchers to project-based HUD-VASH vouchers. However, PHAs must consult with the partnering VAMC or DSP to ensure approval of the project. PHAs and the partnering VAMC or DSP are expected to communicate regarding the PBV planning and development. PHAs may project-base HUD-VASH vouchers in projects alongside other PBV units (the other PBV units must be attached in accordance with PBV requirements) and may execute a single HAP contract covering both the HUD-VASH PBVs and the other PBVs. In the description of units in Exhibit A of the HAP contract, PHAs must indicate the number of units that will be exclusively made available to HUD-VASH families. The PHA must refer only HUD-VASH families to PBV units exclusively made available to HUD-VASH families and to PBV units funded through a HUD- VASH PBV set-aside award. The PHA and owner may agree to amend a PBV HAP contract to re-designate a regular PBV unit as a unit specifically designated for HUD-VASH families, so long as the PHA first consults with the VAMC or DSP. Additionally, the PHA and owner may agree to amend a PBV HAP contract to re-designate a unit specifically designated for HUD-VASH families as a regular PBV unit, so long as the unit is not funded through a HUD-VASH PBV set-aside award and is eligible for a regular PBV (for instance, the unit is not on the grounds of a medical facility and the unit is eligible under the PHA's program and project caps).

PBV project selection for HUD-VASH must follow all regular project selection regulations.

HUD-VASH vouchers will remain excluded from the SEMAP leasing indicator. Therefore, 24 CFR 985.3(n)(1)(i) and (ii) are still waived. During a HUD-VASH PHA's calendar year, the prorated budget authority available for HUD-VASH vouchers and the units associated with that budget authority will be excluded from the denominators for both units leased, and dollars expended.

Under the Appropriation Acts, Congress has directed VA and HUD to collaboratively allocate HUD-VASH vouchers based on current geographical need for such assistance. In recognition that there may be changes and shifts in the population of homeless veterans over time, it may become necessary for the VA and HUD to jointly reallocate HUD-VASH vouchers to better address the current needs of the homeless veteran population. This reallocation may be done in one of two ways. If there is continued need at the VAMC or DSP, HUD-VASH vouchers may be voluntarily moved between PHAs administering HUD-VASH programs within the same VAMC or DSP catchment area. Alternatively, if it has been determined that a VAMC or DSP no longer has sufficient need and will not be able to utilize their available HUD-VASH vouchers, HUD and VA may choose to jointly recapture HUD-VASH vouchers from the VAMC or DSP and any partnering PHA(s). Recaptured vouchers, and any associated funding, will be reallocated through a national allocation process, to areas with current need. HUD will issue additional PHA guidance on both HUD-VASH voucher voluntary moves within a VAMC or DSP and the HUD-VASH recapture processes.

To expedite the leasing process for tenant-based HUD-VASH, PHAs may pre-inspect available units that veterans may be interested in leasing to maintain a pool of eligible units. If a HUD-VASH family selects a unit that passed a HQS inspection (without intervening occupancy) within 45 days of the date of the Request for Tenancy Approval (form HUD-52517), the unit may be approved as long as it meets all other conditions under 24 CFR 982.305. As required by 24 CFR 982.353(e), a PHA is prohibited from directly or indirectly reducing the family's opportunity to select among all available units. All regulatory requirements pertaining to HQS found at 24 CFR 982.401 apply to HUD-VASH.

Many housing markets with a high need for HUD-VASH are very competitive with a shortage of affordable rental units. In addition, landlords may be reluctant to rent to homeless individuals due to poor credit history or other issues. To assist HUD-VASH participants in finding affordable housing, especially in competitive markets, HUD is waiving 24 CFR 982.503(a)(3) to allow a PHA to establish a HUD-VASH exception payment standard. Without this waiver, a PHA is required to establish a single payment standard amount for each unit size. Additionally, 982.503(b)(iii) is waived so that PHAs may go up to, but no higher than 120 percent of the published metropolitan area-wide FMRs or Small Area FMRs (based on which FMRs the PHA is applying) specifically for HUD-VASH families. A PHA that wants to establish a HUD-VASH exception payment standard over 120 percent must still request a waiver from HUD through the regular waiver process outlined in notice PIH 2018-16, or any successor notices. Exception payment standards implemented by the PHA under this Section also apply in determining rents for PBV projects with units exclusively made available to HUD-VASH families (see 24 CFR 983.301).

Special housing types can be particularly useful to HUD-VASH clients, as it can increase the availability of housing, and for some veterans, can be a better housing environment than a single-family unit. As such, PHAs must permit HUD-VASH clients to use the following special housing types for tenant-based HUD-VASH assistance, regardless of whether these types are permitted in their administrative plan for other families: single room occupancy (SRO); congregate housing; group home; shared housing; and cooperative housing. Regulations for these housing types can be found at 24 CFR part 982, subpart M.

Consistent with the regulations, HUD-VASH PBV can never be applied to shared housing.

The VASH code was established for use on line 2n of the Family Report (form HUD-50058) or 2p of the MTW 50058, to indicate if the family participates in a special program. The information collection requested on both Family Reports has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and given OMB control number 2577-0083. No person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. This code must remain on the HUD-50058 and MTW 50058 for the duration of the HUD-VASH family's participation in the program. The PHA that administers the HUD-VASH voucher on behalf of the family (regardless of whether the PHA has received an allocation of HUD-VASH vouchers) must enter and maintain this code on the HUD-50058 or MTW 50058.

Data will also be captured in the Voucher Management System (VMS) on monthly leasing and expenditures for HUD-VASH vouchers.

For any additional systems reporting requirements that may be established, HUD will provide further guidance.

On November 26, 2019, we published in the Federal Register (84 FR 65045) an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking request for comments and on March 9, 2020, we published in the Federal Register (85 FR 13517) notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for comments that allowed the city to test the new schedule and allow residents to comment all summer. The comments we received from these document led us to publish in the Federal Register (86 FR 20344, April 19, 2021) a notice of proposed rulemaking. Several comments were directed at the operation of the Canadian Pacific Railroad Bridge, mile 1.05, over the Menomonee River. Most of the comments were complaints filed on Coast Guard Delay reports that claims the Canadian Pacific Railroad Bridge, mile 1.05, over the Menomonee River, did, on August 6, 2020, on or about noon that day fail to respond to signals for opening and fail to open the bridge within the 2-hour requirement. The tender stated the request for advance notice for bridge opening was not passed on by the previous drawtender and that priority was given to working on a train and not tending to the bridge. This resulted in three large vessels stuck between bridges waiting for the railroad bridge to open for two hours and forty-five minutes past the arrival time provided by the vessels. We received a separate report that the bridge was out of service for four days, no report was given to the U.S. Coast Guard Command Center and at least one vessel was delayed for four days. We received another report that the bridge was unable to open on October 6, 2020, because the bridge supervisor directed the drawtender to a different location for the day and no other operators were available until the following day. We received a separate report on the same day of October 6, 2020, from a second vessel that was told railroad had been attempting to call in another drawtender from 4:30 a.m. to 8:19 a.m. without success and the bridge would not open for maritime traffic. On or about June 13, 2020, three sailing vessels were observed waiting at the Canadian Pacific Railroad Bridge at 3:23 p.m. and were not provided an opening until after 5:30 p.m.

The second report was a comment submitted to the regulations.gov portal that requested the schedules to return to the original schedules citing vessels were using excessive speed to go through the river to make the new schedule. The speed limits in the harbor needs to be addressed by the agency responsible for posting the speed limits in the harbor and the author did not consider the needs of all modes of transportation involved with the decision.

On March 30, 2021, we received a report from a public vessel that the drawtender did inform the vessel that requested an opening that a new law required the bridge to remain closed if ice was present.

Separately we discussed with residents who comments on the two hour advance notice required by some bridges, a carryover of the original 1984 regulation that mariners didn't notice before or that was not enforced locally.

Milwaukee Harbor is host to several different vessels and having a large recreational or commercial vessel station keeping between two bridges could be a danger to other vessels traveling between the bridges. The exemption prevents vessels from using excessive speed to clear the bridges before the special bridge hours go into effect and prevents vessels from endangering others waiting for the bridges to open.

After careful review of the comments received against the 50 ton proposed rule we decided that vessels with a documented capacity of 12 tons or greater could cause significant danger to life and property if trapped between two bridges and caused to station keep, especially with other vessels nearby.

We explained this is not an exclusion for documented vessels 12 tons and larger. This provision is allowing vessels of this size to complete their passage in or out of the Milwaukee Harbor. A vessel at dock or not yet in the river, would be required to wait.

Our office did engage with residents verbally over the phone on several occasions to answer questions and encouraged them to leave comments on the regulations.gov website. Most of these engagements were with citizens that did not fully read the previous documents concerning the regulation change.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.

The Milwaukee River is approximately 104 miles long. Beginning in Fond du Lac County the river flows easterly to a low head dam just above the Humboldt Avenue Bridge at mile 3.22 in downtown Milwaukee, WI. From here the river flows south to Lake Michigan. This southerly course of the Milwaukee River divides the lakefront area from the rest of the city. The Menomonee River joins the Milwaukee River at Mile 1.01 with the Kinnickinnic River joining the Milwaukee River at Mile 0.39. 21 bridges cross the Milwaukee River from mile 0.19 to mile 3.22. In the early 20th Century, the Milwaukee River was heavily used to support the industries in and around the Great Lakes. Today, the river has been redeveloped as a tourist and recreational destination. From its confluence with the Milwaukee River the Menomonee River flows west for 33 miles. The lower three miles of the Menomonee River is passable by vessels over 600 feet in length. Seven bridges cross the navigable portion of the Menomonee River.

The South Menomonee Canal and the Burnham Canal were both excavated during a waterways improvement project in 1864. Both man-made canals are tributaries of the Menomonee River branching just above its mouth. The South Menomonee Canal is crossed by two bridges and the Burnham Canal is crossed by three bridges.

The Kinnickinnic River flows north through the southern portion of the City of Milwaukee connecting with the Milwaukee River near Lake Michigan. Only the lower 2.30 miles of the river have been improved for vessel use. Five bridges cross the river with the Lincoln Avenue Bridge at the head of navigation. Freighters up to 1,000 feet in length transfer cargoes at the confluence of the Kinnickinnic and Milwaukee Rivers. Most of the recreational vessels in Milwaukee moor in the lake front marinas and only transit the rivers. Boat yards on the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic rivers haul out and store most of the recreational vessels in the fall and winter months and launch the vessels in the spring. This action contributes to a considerable surge in drawbridge openings in the fall and spring.

The following bridges will be included in the rule: The Union Pacific Railroad Bridge, mile 0.59, over the Milwaukee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 7 feet above internet Great Lakes Datum of 1985 (IGLD85). The Broadway Street Bridge, mile 0.79, over the Milwaukee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 14 feet above IGLD85. The Water Street Bridge, mile 0.94, over the Milwaukee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 14 feet above IGLD85. The St. Paul Avenue Bridge, mile 1.21, over the Milwaukee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 14 feet above IGLD85. The Clybourn Street Bridge, mile 1.28, over the Milwaukee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 14 feet above IGLD85. Michigan Street Bridge, mile 1.37, over the Milwaukee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 12 feet above IGLD85. The Wisconsin Avenue Bridge, mile 1.46, over the Milwaukee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 12 feet above IGLD85. The Wells Street Bridge, mile 1.61, over the Milwaukee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 12 feet above IGLD85. The Kilbourn Avenue Bridge, mile 1.70, over the Milwaukee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 14 feet above IGLD85. The State Street Bridge, mile 1.79, over the Milwaukee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 14 feet above IGLD85. The Highland Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, mile 1.97, over the Milwaukee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 12 feet above IGLD85. The Juneau Avenue Bridge, mile 2.06, over the Milwaukee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 14 feet above IGLD85. The Knapp Street/Park Freeway Bridge, mile 2.14, over the Milwaukee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 16 feet above IGLD85. The Cherry Street Bridge, mile 2.29, over the Milwaukee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 14 feet above IGLD85. The Pleasant Street Bridge, mile 2.58, over the Milwaukee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 14 feet above IGLD85. The Canadian Pacific Railroad Bridge, mile 1.05, over the Menomonee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 8 feet above IGLD85. The North Plankinton Avenue Bridge, mile 1.08, over the Menomonee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 14 feet above IGLD85. The North Sixth Street Bridge, mile 1.37, over the Menomonee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 23 feet above IGLD85. The Ember Lane Bridge, mile 1.95, over the Menomonee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 12 feet above IGLD85. The Sixteenth Street Bridge, mile 2.14, over the Menomonee River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 35 feet above IGLD85. The South Sixth Street Bridge, mile 1.51, over the South Menomonee Canal with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 8 feet above IGLD85. The Union Pacific Railroad Bridge, mile 1.19, over the Kinnickinnic River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 8 feet above IGLD85. The Kinnickinnic Avenue Bridge, mile 1.67, over the Kinnickinnic River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 8 feet above IGLD85. The Canadian Pacific Railroad Bridge, mile 1.67, over the Kinnickinnic River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 15 feet above IGLD85. Finally, the South First Street Bridge, mile 1.78, over the Kinnickinnic River with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 14 feet above IGLD85. These bridges currently operate under title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR), § 117.1093.

There is a typographical error in the NPRM describing the operation of the Sixth Street Bridge as remaining closed by regulation and that should have read as the Sixteenth Street Bridge. A typographical error referring to the Canadian Pacific Railroad Bridge as the Canadian National Railroad Bridge have been corrected in this copy. All other comments have been addressed previously.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard did not receive any comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The PVA claimed that this rule would have a significant impact on one or more of its members. We assisted the PVA and its members to submit documentation to the Local Milwaukee office of the Small Business Administration and made ourselves available for any questions they may have. They did not have any concerns and they did not have any questions for us. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section 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, call1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

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

We did not receive any comments from local Indian tribes during any comment periods for this rule.

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 did not receive any comments.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has 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 promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.

Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.

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

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

On October 16, 2020, we published a notice of temporary deviation in the Federal Register (85 FR 19658) from regulations; request for comments. This deviation was effective from midnight on May 1, 2020, to midnight on October 15, 2020. Due to COVID-19 Staffing, an issue publishing was delayed; but we utilized local stakeholder and Local Notice to Mariner outreach to solicit comments. We did not receive any comments. On July 6, 2021, we published in the Federal Register (86 FR 23880) a notice of proposed rulemaking and we received no comments during the 60-day comment period.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. Rainy River and Rainy Lake serve as the border between the United States of America and Canada. This bridge is a single leaf, bascule type railroad bridge that provides a horizontal clearance of 125 feet. The water level on Rainy Lake and under the bridge is controlled by a hydro-electric dam facility at International Falls, Minnesota, thus charted datum is based on the water level surface of Rainy Lake when the gauge at Fort Frances, Canada, reads 1107.0 feet resulting in a variable vertical clearance of 6 to 10 feet in the closed position. The railroad bridge carries significant train traffic across the international border. Rainer, Minnesota, is a customs port-of-entry.

As discussed in section II we published two documents in the Federal Register soliciting comments from the public and did not receive any comments.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice or on signal depending on the season.

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

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section 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 calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has 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 promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.

Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. This temporary final rule is an extention in order for the company to complete their project scope taking into account any delays due to heavy weather or vessel issues that are out of their control. Delaying this rule to allow for a notice and full comment period would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public from the potential hazards associated with the continuation of the aforementioned operation on October 1, 2021, with a new prospective completion date of November 30, 2021.

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 . For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, delaying the continuation effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the work, inspections, and surveying of underwater infrastructure.

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 Sault Sainte Marie (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the work, inspection, and surveying of underwater infrastructure in the Straits of Mackinac starting April 20, 2021, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of the tugs and barges. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the operation is conducted.

This rule establishes a continuation safety zone from October 1, 2021, to November 30, 2021. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the tugs and barges being used to work, inspect, survey and remove/replace cables in the Straits of Mackinac. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the operation is conducted. 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 and location of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the Straits of Mackinac. 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 that will prohibit entry within 500 yards of tugs and barges used to work, inspect, survey and remove/replace cables in the Straits of Mackinac. 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 Postal Service has long maintained regulations on hazardous, restricted, and perishable mail. For many years, those regulations were located in Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (“DMM”). The DMM is a regulation of the Postal Service. 39 CFR 211.2(a)(2). Annual editions of the DMM are incorporated by reference into 39 CFR 111.1. As explained in Postal Service regulations, interim regulations are published in the DMM pending the next volume's incorporation into the Code of Federal Regulations, and changes to the DMM are announced in the Federal Register . 39 CFR 111.3. As an additional reference, the Postal Service developed Publication 52, Hazardous, Restricted, and Perishable Mail.

On July 28, 2014, as part of a continuing initiative to reduce the size of the DMM, the Postal Service removed from that publication the detailed mailing standards relating to hazardous, restricted, and perishable materials. In place of these detailed provisions, revised DMM 601.8.0 advised that mailing standards specific to hazardous, restricted, and perishable mail would be incorporated into Publication 52, and could be found on the Postal Explorer website at pe.usps.com. The Postal Service subsequently promulgated new regulations incorporating an edition of Publication 52 by reference into 39 CFR 113.2. See 83 FR 1189 (2018).

The Postal Service, in consultation with the Office of the Federal Register, has determined that clarification of the status of Publication 52 would be helpful, particularly in order to ensure that changes to Publication 52 are comprehensively noticed in the Federal Register . To that end, the Postal Service hereby makes certain changes to its rules.

First, DMM section 601.8.1 is amended to clarify that the substantive mailability rules in Publication 52, as in effect and available on the Postal Service's website at any given time, are incorporated by reference into that DMM section.

Second, 39 CFR 211.2(a) will be amended to clarify that Publication 52 contains regulations of the Postal Service. In connection with this change, language in 39 CFR 211.2(a) regarding publication in the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations will be moved to more clearly express the intent that any regulations of the Postal Service may, where appropriate, be published in those outlets. Moreover, 39 CFR 211.2(a)(3) is expanded somewhat to clarify that Publications and Memoranda of Policy may also qualify as regulations, and that status as regulations depends not on the formal designation of a document, but on its statement of binding rules of future effect beyond those stated elsewhere in Postal Service regulations.

Third, 39 CFR part 113, which includes the incorporation by reference of Publication 52 (39 CFR 113.2), is removed. The temporary rules in 39 CFR 113.3 regarding COVID-19 related Category B infectious substances are duplicative of rules in Publication 52, and so it is unnecessary to maintain such rules in the Code of Federal Regulations. Compare 85 FR 23745 with Postal Bulletin 22544 (Apr. 23, 2020), at 6-7 (amending Publication 52 appendix C, USPS Packaging Instruction 6C).

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service amends 39 CFR parts 111, 113, and 211 as follows:

On May 24, 2021 (86 FR 27823), the Postal Service published a proposed rule to update Postal Service regulations regarding the screening of mail. The circumstances which created the need for the update were as follows: (1) 39 CFR 233.11 was published as a final rule on February 28, 1996; (2) since the publication of 39 CFR 233.11, no updates had been made; (3) after February 28, 1996, changes were made to 49 U.S.C. 44901 requiring the screening of all items, including United States mail, transported via aircraft; and (4) an update is required to ensure it is consistent with title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as it pertains to mail being transported via aircraft.

The regulations published on August 20, 2021 (86 FR 38413), modified the Postal Service regulations regarding the screening of mail to make said regulations: (1) More consistent with aviation regulations regarding the transportation of mail via aircraft; (2) continue to enhance the security and ensure the safety of all persons and property onboard aircraft carrying mail; and (3) continue to prevent and deter the carriage of unauthorized explosives, incendiaries, or other destructive substances or items in the mail or in postal products transported onboard aircraft. This final rule amends the regulations as published on August 20, 2021, in order to correct a citational error.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Postal Service amends 39 CFR part 233 as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

On May 10, 2021, the EPA proposed to approve, under CAA section 110(k)(3), and to conditionally approve, under CAA section 110(k)(4), two SIP submittals from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) addressing planning obligations for the West Mojave Desert  1 as a Severe-15 nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 2 The first, submitted June 2, 2017, includes attainment plans prepared by the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) and the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) (collectively, “Districts”), an accompanying staff report prepared by CARB (“CARB Staff Report”), and other supporting documents. 3 We refer to all the documents submitted to the EPA on June 2, 2017, as the “2016 WMD Attainment Plan.”

The second submittal, sent on December 11, 2018, is the “2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan” (“2018 SIP Update”). 4 CARB adopted the 2018 SIP Update on October 25, 2018. CARB developed the 2018 SIP Update in response to the court's decision in South Coast II   5 vacating the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule (“2008 Ozone SRR”)  6 with respect to the use of an alternate baseline year for demonstrating reasonable further progress (RFP), and to address contingency measure requirements in the wake of the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bahr v. EPA (“ Bahr ”). 7 The 2018 SIP Update includes updates for eight different California ozone nonattainment areas. We have previously approved portions of the 2018 SIP Update related to other nonattainment areas. 8 For the West Mojave Desert, the 2018 SIP Update includes an RFP demonstration using the required 2011 baseline year and revised motor vehicle emission budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 9

In our proposed rule, we provided background information on the ozone standards, 10 area designations, and related SIP revision requirements under the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations for the 2008 ozone standards, referred to as the 2008 Ozone SRR. To summarize, the West Mojave Desert is classified as Severe-15 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and CARB's submittals were developed to address the statutory and regulatory requirements for revisions to the SIP for the West Mojave Desert Severe-15 ozone nonattainment area.

Under the 2008 Ozone SRR, areas classified as Severe-15 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS must demonstrate attainment within 15 years of the effective date of the nonattainment designation, July 20, 2027, and states must implement all control measures needed for attainment no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. 11 The attainment year ozone season is defined as the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's outermost attainment date, or 2026.

Our proposed conditional approval of the contingency measures element of the 2016 WMD Attainment Plan relied on specific commitments: (1) The MDAQMD would submit a board resolution further detailing the circumstances, timing, and procedure for implementing this contingency measure, within 11 months of the EPA's final conditional approval of the contingency measures element of the 2016 WMD Attainment Plan, 12 and (2) CARB would submit the adopted board resolution to the EPA as a SIP revision within 12 months of the EPA's final action. 13 For more information on these SIP submittals and related commitments, please see our proposed rule.

In our proposed rule, we reviewed the various SIP elements contained in CARB's submittals, evaluated them for compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, and concluded that they meet all applicable requirements, except for the contingency measure requirement, for which the EPA proposed conditional approval. More specifically, in our proposed rule, we based our proposed actions on the following determinations:

• CARB and the Districts met all applicable procedural requirements for public notice and hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of the 2016 WMD Attainment Plan and the 2018 SIP Update;  14

• The 2012 base year emissions inventory from the 2016 WMD Attainment Plan is comprehensive, accurate, and current, and therefore meets the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1115. Additionally, the future year baseline projections reflect appropriate calculation methods and the latest planning assumptions and are properly supported by the SIP-approved stationary and mobile source measures;  15

• The emissions statement element of the 2016 WMD Attainment Plan meets the requirements for emissions statements under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;  16

• The process followed by the Districts to identify reasonably available control measures (RACM) is generally consistent with the EPA's recommendations; the Districts' rules provide for the implementation of RACM for stationary and area sources of oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC);  17 CARB and the Districts provide for the implementation of RACM for mobile sources of NO X and VOC; there are no additional RACM that would advance attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the West Mojave Desert by at least one year; and therefore, the 2016 WMD Attainment Plan provides for the implementation of all RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c);  18

• The photochemical modeling in the 2016 WMD Attainment Plan shows that existing CARB and District control measures are sufficient to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, July 20 2027; given the documentation in the 2016 WMD Attainment Plan of modeling procedures and good model performance, the modeling is adequate to support the attainment demonstration; and therefore the 2016 WMD Attainment Plan meets the attainment demonstration requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1108;  19

• The RFP demonstration in the 2018 SIP Update provides for emissions reductions of VOC or NO X of at least 3 percent per year on average for each three-year period, beginning 6 years after the baseline year until the attainment date, and thereby meets the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(ii);  20

• The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) emissions offset demonstration shows that CARB and the Southern California Association of Governments have adopted sufficient transportation control strategies and transportation control measures to offset the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the West Mojave Desert, and thereby complies with the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1102 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;  21

• The motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2018 SIP Update are consistent with the RFP demonstration, are clearly identified and precisely quantified, and meet all other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements in 40 CFR 93.118(e), including the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5);  22 and

• Through previous EPA approvals of California's vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, the 1994 “Opt-Out Program” SIP revision, the 1993 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station SIP revision, and the 2020 annual monitoring network plan for the West Mojave Desert, the 2016 WMD Attainment Plan adequately addresses, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the enhanced I/M requirements in CAA section 182(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1102; the clean fuels fleet program in CAA sections 182(c)(4) and 246 and 40 CFR 51.1102; and the enhanced ambient air monitoring requirements in CAA section 182(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1102. 23