The 2021 Technical Update (2 CFR part 200, subpart F, and appendix XI to part 200) provides the following update to these two programs:

• The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Assistance Listing 93.498 Provider Relief Fund—the update is to remove Part 4—Section III(N)(1) Special Test and Provisions: Out-of-Network Patient Out-of-Pocket Expenses. HHS has determined that the review requirements are no longer meaningful and applicable to the oversight of this program.

• Treasury Assistance Listing 21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF)—the update is to provide in Part 4, Section IV—Other Information an alternative audit approach for eligible SLFRF recipients that would otherwise not be required to undergo an audit under 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, if it was not for the expenditures of SLFRF funds directly awarded by Treasury. This alternative is intended to reduce the burden of a full Single Audit or Program-Specific Audit on eligible recipients (estimated at more than 10,000 entities) and practitioners, as well as uphold Treasury's responsibility to be good stewards of federal funds.

It also provides an update to the Supplement Part 8 Appendix VII to add the alternative compliance examination engagement in accordance with the Government Accountability Office's Government Auditing Standards for eligible recipients of the SLFRF.

The NRC is amending its regulations in parts 1, 2, 20, 30, 40, 50, 55, 70, 73, and 170 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The NRC is making these amendments to correct an office title, a reference, a misspelling, and two administrative errors, and to update the street address for the NRC's Region I office.

Update Street Address. This final rule revises § 1.5(b)(1), appendix D to 10 CFR part 20, § 30.6(b)(2)(i) and (ii), § 40.5(b)(2)(i) and (ii), § 55.5(b)(2)(i), § 70.5(b)(2)(i) and (ii), and appendix A to 10 CFR part 73 to update the street address for the NRC Region I office.

Correct Office Title. This final rule amends the definition for Commission Adjudicatory Employee in § 2.4 by removing the text “Deputy General Counsel for Rulemaking and Policy Support” and adding in its place the text “Deputy General Counsel for Legislation, Rulemaking, and Agency Administration.” This change is made to reflect the realignment of the NRC's Office of the General Counsel.

Correct Administrative Error. This final rule amends § 2.101(a)(5) by removing “an application for a construction permit under part 52 of this chapter” and adding in its place “an application for a construction permit under part 50 of this chapter or a combined license under part 52 of this chapter.” Applications for construction permits are governed by 10 CFR part 50 and combined licenses by 10 CFR part 52. This final rule amends § 2.101(a)(5) to correct this error.

Correct Reference. This final rule amends footnote 1 to § 50.72 by removing the reference “72.216” and adding in its place the references “72.74, 72.75.” Section 72.216 was deleted in a 2003 final rule (68 FR 33611; June 5, 2003), and the immediate notification requirements are currently contained in §§ 72.74 and 72.75.

Correct Spelling. This final rule amends the introductory text of § 70.61(b) to remove the text “paragrahs” and add in its place the text “paragraphs.”

Correct Administrative Error. This final rule revises fee categories B and D in table 1 to § 170.21 to conform to a previous rulemaking. The 2007 final rule, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants” (72 FR 49351; August 28, 2007), added a new § 52.153, “Relationship to other subparts,” to explain how subpart F to 10 CFR part 52 relates to other licensing processes in 10 CFR parts 50 and 52, as well as to the regulatory approvals in 10 CFR part 52. The final rule removed the reference to “preliminary or final” design approvals contained in § 52.153(b) of the proposed rule, inasmuch as the final rule does not provide for preliminary design approvals. Therefore, this final rule makes conforming changes by revising fee categories B and D in table 1 to § 170.21 to remove the references to “preliminary or final” design approvals and replace them with references to “standard” design approvals. Fee category D is further revised to add a comma after the word “Amendment” in “Amendment, Renewal, Other Approvals” for conformity and clarity.

Under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.553(b)), an agency may waive publication in the Federal Register of a notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment requirements if it finds, for good cause, that it is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the NRC finds good cause to waive notice and opportunity for comment on these amendments, because notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary. The amendments will have no substantive impact and are of a minor and administrative nature dealing with corrections to certain CFR sections or are related only to management, organization, procedure, and practice. Specifically, the revisions correct an office title, a reference, a misspelling, and two administrative errors, and update the street address for the NRC's Region I office. The Commission is exercising its authority under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) to publish these amendments as a final rule. The amendments are effective May 9, 2022. These amendments do not require action by any person or entity regulated by the NRC and do not change the substantive responsibilities of any person or entity regulated by the NRC.

The NRC has determined that the corrections in this final rule would not constitute backfitting as defined in § 50.109, “Backfitting,” and as described in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.4, “Management of Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue Finality, and Information Requests.” These corrections also would not constitute forward fitting as that term is defined and described in MD 8.4 or affect the issue finality of any approval issued under 10 CFR part 52. The amendments are non-substantive in nature, including correcting an office title, a reference, a misspelling, and two administrative errors, and updating the street address for the NRC's Region I office. They impose no new requirements and make no substantive changes to the regulations. The corrections do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR chapter I, or that would be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. For these reasons, the issuance of this final rule would not constitute backfitting or be inconsistent with any of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. Therefore, the NRC has not prepared any additional documentation for this correction rulemaking addressing backfitting or issue finality.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).

The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in § 51.22(c)(2), which categorically excludes from environmental review rules that are corrective or of a minor, nonpolicy nature and do not substantially modify existing regulations. Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this rule.

This final rule does not contain a collection of information as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

This final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).

Under the “Agreement State Program Policy Statement” approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), NRC program elements (including regulations) are placed into compatibility categories A, B, C, D, NRC, or adequacy category Health and Safety (H&S). Compatibility Category A program elements are those program elements that are basic radiation protection standards and scientific terms and definitions that are necessary to understand radiation protection concepts. An Agreement State should adopt Category A program elements in an essentially identical manner in order to provide uniformity in the regulation of agreement material on a nationwide basis. Compatibility Category B program elements are those program elements that apply to activities that have direct and significant effects in multiple jurisdictions. An Agreement State should adopt Category B program elements in an essentially identical manner. Compatibility Category C program elements are those program elements that do not meet the criteria of Category A or B but contain the essential objectives that an Agreement State should adopt to avoid conflict, duplication, gaps, or other conditions that would jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of agreement material on a national basis. An Agreement State should adopt the essential objectives of the Category C program elements. Compatibility Category D program elements are those program elements that do not meet any of the criteria of Category A, B, or C and, therefore, do not need to be adopted by Agreement States for purposes of compatibility. Compatibility Category NRC program elements are those program elements that address areas of regulation that cannot be relinquished to the Agreement States under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or provisions of 10 CFR. These program elements should not be adopted by the Agreement States. Compatibility Category H&S program elements are program elements that are required because of a particular health and safety role in the regulation of agreement material within the State and should be adopted in a manner that embodies the essential objectives of the NRC program. The portions of this final rule that amend 10 CFR parts 20, 30, 40, and 70 are a matter of compatibility between the NRC and the Agreement States, thereby providing consistency among Agreement State and NRC requirements, and are listed in the following table. The changes to 10 CFR parts 1, 2, 50, 55, 73, and 170 categories are not subject to Agreement State jurisdiction and consequently are not required for compatibility.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 1, 2, 20, 30, 40, 50, 55, 70, 73, and 170:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-8F and 747-8 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 15, 2021 (86 FR 62960). The NPRM was prompted by a report of unusual flight instrument and EICAS behavior. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the left, center, and right EFIS/EIU for certain serial numbers and replacement if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the possible display of incorrect information in the integrated display system (IDS). This condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced ability of the flightcrew to maintain continued safe flight and landing of the aircraft.

The FAA received comments from three commenters, including Boeing, an individual, and Qatar Airways. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

Boeing and Qatar Airways requested a change to the proposed AD to add serial number 181MR2 to the list of affected EIUs. The commenters noted that the unit was inadvertently excluded from the affected serial number list in Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-31A2565 RB, Revision 1, dated September 14, 2021. Qatar Airways noted that Boeing stated that the service information will be revised to include this EIU serial number. Qatar Airways added that including the affected EIU will ensure that affected part does not remain in service while eliminating the need to obtain an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for accomplishing the actions required by this AD on that EIU.

The FAA agrees with the request. The FAA has confirmed that this is an affected EIU and that the operator with the EIU having serial number 181MR2 is aware that it is affected and plans to replace the unit as required by this AD. The FAA has added paragraph (h)(2) of this AD to clarify that serial number 181MR2 is also an affected EIU. The FAA has also redesignated paragraph (h) of the proposed AD as paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

An individual commenter asked how the information about the number of affected airplanes was gathered and how many non-U.S. registered planes are affected by the proposed AD.

The FAA gathers this information from public records and from the airplane manufacturer. According to those sources, 68 of the airplanes affected by this AD are registered outside of the United States.

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

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-31A2565 RB, Revision 1, dated September 14, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for doing an inspection or a review of the maintenance and delivery records of the left, center, and right EIUs for any affected serial number, and replacing each affected EIU.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements 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 these replacements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered Viking Air Limited (type certificate previously held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Model DHC-6-400 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2022 (87 FR 3238). The NPRM was prompted by MCAI originated by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. Transport Canada issued AD CF-2018-07, dated February 23, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address an unsafe condition on certain serial-numbered Viking Air Limited Model DHC-6-400 airplanes. The MCAI states:

The MCAI requires repetitively inspecting the fuel gallery for corrosion, rectifying any deficiencies, and accomplishing modifications to the fuel gallery system. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0007.

The FAA received one comment on the NPRM from an individual. The commenter supported the NPRM without change.

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 this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Service Bulletin No. V6/0044, Revision B, dated September 13, 2021. The service information specifies incorporating multiple design improvement modifications in the fuel gallery.

The FAA also reviewed Temporary Revision No. 241, dated July 27, 2021, to the Viking DHC-6 Inspection Requirements Manual, PSM 1-6-7. Items 15.(1) and 15.(2) of this service information specify rinsing and inspecting the entire fuel gallery for corrosion; removing corrosion; reapplying any protective finishes; and removing and replacing any damaged components. The temporary revision updates the fuel gallery inspection to include airplanes with a new fuel probe (Modification (MOD) 6/2395).

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 reviewed the following technical bulletins, which contain instructions for the different modifications to components in the fuel gallery:

• Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Technical Bulletin No. TBV6/00034, Revision NC, dated October 16, 2013 (MOD 6/2267);

• Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Technical Bulletin No. TBV6/00084, Revision A, dated May 26, 2017 (MOD 6/2299);

• Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Technical Bulletin No. V6/00099, Revision NC, dated December 23, 2016 (MOD 6/2389);

• Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Technical Bulletin No. TBV6/00094, Revision NC, dated November 1, 2016 (MOD 6/2390);

• Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Technical Bulletin No. V6/00100, Revision NC, dated February 20, 2017 (MOD 6/2393); and

• Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter Technical Bulletin No. V6/00152, Revision NC, dated January 29, 2021 (MOD 6/2464).

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The extent of corrosion damage found during the inspections may vary significantly from airplane to airplane. The FAA has no way of determining how much corrosion damage may be found on each airplane, the cost for repairing corrosion damage on each airplane, or the number of airplanes that may require repair.

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 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 Coast Guard will enforce safety zones in 33 CFR 165.1315 for the events specified below in Table 1, during the designated enforcement periods, and within a 450 yard radius of the launch site and the listed locations. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during these events.

Our regulation for fireworks displays within the Thirteenth Coast Guard District designates the regulated areas and identifies the approximate dates for these events. The specific dates and times are specified below. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 165.1315, persons and vessels are prohibited from being in the regulated areas unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River or a designated representative. These safety zones are subject to enforcement at least 1 hour prior to the start and 1 hour after the conclusion of the events.

All coordinates are listed in reference Datum NAD 1983.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of these enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast notice to mariners.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones in 33 CFR 165.918 as per the time, dates, and locations in Table 1.

This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks displays. The regulations for safety zones within the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie Zone, § 165.918, apply for these fireworks displays.

This notification of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.918 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety zone.

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 a power line is laying across the Columbia River, 10 feet above the waterline, and immediate action is needed to protect the public from dangers associated with its existence and repair. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone on April 4, 2022.

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

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 Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a damaged power line laying across the Columbia River, approximately 300 yards west of the John Day Lock and Dam, will be a safety concern for anyone within 200 yards of the power line. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the power line is repaired.

This rule establishes a safety zone from April 4, 2022, until April 10, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 200 yards of the power line laying across the Columbia River, approximately 300 yards west of the John Day Lock and Dam. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the power line is being repaired. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety 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 200 yards of a damaged power cable that is laying across the Columbia River, approximately 300 yards west of the John Day Lock and Dam. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L 60(c) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

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 Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (“CASE”) Act of 2020  1 directs the Copyright Office (“Office”) to establish the Copyright Claims Board (“CCB”), an alternative forum to federal court in which parties may seek resolution of copyright disputes that have a total monetary value of $30,000 or less. 2 The CCB has the authority to hear copyright infringement claims, claims seeking a declaration of noninfringement, and misrepresentation claims under 17 U.S.C. 512(f). 3 Participation in the CCB is voluntary for all parties  4 and all determinations are non-precedential. 5 The CASE Act directs the Register of Copyrights to establish the regulations by which the CCB will conduct its proceedings, subject to the provisions of chapter 15 and relevant principles of law under title 17 of the United States Code. 6 The CASE Act also provides that any party in a CCB proceeding may be represented by “a law student who is qualified under applicable law governing representation by law students of parties in legal proceedings and who provides such representation on a pro bono basis.”  7

In December 2021, the Office issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”), proposing regulations governing the representation of parties by qualified law students. 8 To facilitate law student representation before the CCB, the Office proposed setting threshold eligibility requirements for law students and their supervising attorneys and creating a voluntary public directory of law school clinics whose students are available to represent clients before the CCB. 9

The same NPRM also proposed regulations “governing the representation of corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and other unincorporated associations (collectively, `business entities')” in CCB proceedings. 10 Considering the small claims nature of the CCB and the fact that attorney representation is not mandatory, the Office proposed that, in addition to attorneys or law students, business entities may be represented in a CCB proceeding by a fiduciary or properly authorized employee, and proposed requirements that these representatives must follow. 11

Commenters were generally supportive of the proposed regulations, except as discussed in the sections below, and offered many suggestions that the Office is adopting in the final rule. Based on the comments received, the final rule will expand the scope of law student participation in CCB proceedings in several ways. The prerequisites for law students to appear before the CCB have been adjusted to provide law clinics more discretion. In addition, law students will be permitted to participate before the CCB not only through law school clinics but also through pro bono legal services organizations that have a connection with the student's law school. Accordingly, under the final rule, the Office will provide a public directory of both participating law school clinics and participating pro bono organizations. As in the proposed rule, a clinic or organization will not be required to be on the published CCB list to participate in CCB proceedings.

Commenters were also supportive of the proposed rule governing business entity representation. The final rule adopts the proposed rule's approach and permits business entities to be represented before the CCB by in-house attorneys, fiduciaries, and employees expressly authorized by the business entity to represent it in a particular proceeding. The final rule also includes a revision to clarify that a business entity's representative may submit a single valid certification that will remain effective throughout a proceeding, but such certification does not extend to future proceedings.

Most comments addressing law student representation before the CCB expressed support for the Office's proposed rule. 12 A typical comment, jointly submitted by “Law School Faculty With an Interest in CCB Procedures” (“Law School Faculty”), including professors and clinic directors from eight law schools, stated “[t]he Proposed Regulations properly take into consideration the need to ensure the quality of law student representation and the corresponding burdens placed on the law clinics and supervising attorneys.”  13 Many commenters further wrote in favor of expanding opportunities for student representation beyond the law school clinic environment, as further discussed below. 14

Some commenters requested that the Office consider defining the term “law school clinic” and proposed using the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Rule 48(a)(5) as a model. 15 After considering the variety of operating structures and practices employed by clinical programs at law schools throughout the country, 16 the Office declines to provide a specific, limiting definition of the term, to avoid unduly excluding capable clinics from participation. 17 A participating law student must comply with the applicable law of the jurisdiction that certifies the student to practice law in conjunction with a law school clinic. Further, the student's supervising attorney must also be qualified to practice under applicable law and must certify the student's eligibility to participate. The same commenters urged the Office to “allow law school clinics to set their own rules with regard to the handling of costs”  18 when defining “law school clinic.” As noted above, the Office does not purport to define that term at all.

The proposed rule did not include any limits on the number of proceedings in which a law student representative or clinic may participate. The Law School Faculty commenters asserted that the Office may lack the authority to impose such a limit. 19 The Office does not include any limitations in this final rule, but it intends to address the issue of limits, if any, on the number of proceedings that parties and their representatives may bring over a 12-month period in a separate rulemaking proceeding. 20

A few commenters expressed reservations or opposition to law student representation through clinics. Notably, a comment submitted jointly by directors of 12 intellectual property and technology law school clinics (“Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors”) stated “that CCB proceedings are not well-suited to clinic participation.”  21 These commenters cited CASE Act provisions that they believe limit the suitability of law school clinics' participation in CCB proceedings. Specifically, they contend that the voluntary nature of CCB proceedings, 22 which permit a respondent to “opt out” and have the proceeding dismissed without prejudice at the outset, 23 provide few learning opportunities for the law school clinic student. 24 In the view of these 12 clinic directors, this opt-out procedure poses “significant limitations on the kinds of clients that clinics can represent in CCB proceedings and the possibilities for pedagogically sound learning opportunities for law student attorneys.”  25 Because the parties to a CCB proceeding that is dismissed after a respondent opts out retain their rights to litigate in federal court, these commenters explained that their clinics were not well situated to engage in federal court copyright litigation in the event their client's CCB claim is dismissed after the respondent opts out. 26 They expressed concern that “[e]ven when cases present a viable set of representational and pedagogical circumstances to proceed to adjudication before the CCB, . . . the degree of complexity may be beyond the capacity of our clinics to handle without taking matters out of our law student attorneys' hands.”  27 Finally, noting the non-precedential nature of CCB decisions, they observed that “many clinics aim to square their public service missions with their limited capacity to serve deserving clients by taking on those whose cases are likely to advance the state of the law more broadly and advance the interest of others by setting precedent.”  28

Several reply comments responded directly to these concerns. 29 Reply comments submitted by Law School Faculty (including the directors of law school clinics) opined that the Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors' comments “seemed to more directly address the policy considerations underlying the CASE Act as a whole,” and were “less directly addresse[d to] the questions asked in the NPRM regarding the procedures governing the appearance of law student representatives before the CCB.” With regard to those broader policy considerations, the Law School Faculty reply comment noted that though “the matters raised by our colleagues are of deep concern to us as well . . . we do not believe these questions are within the scope of this NPRM and urge the [Office] to leave them within Congress's purview.”  30

Attorney Joel Rothman suggested that respondents are less likely to opt out than projected by the Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors' comment. By example, Mr. Rothman noted that infringement claims related to advertising uses of copyrighted works are likely to be covered by commercial general liability insurance, suggesting that insurance companies covering copyright claims for respondents have an incentive to participate in CCB proceedings, which offer lower exposure to significant damages and expenses than do cases before the federal courts. 31 While some commenters disagreed on whether CCB proceedings would raise questions too complex for law student representatives, Mr. Rothman pointed out that law school clinics routinely represent clients in complicated legal fields such as taxation, immigration, workers' compensation, social security disability, real estate, and bankruptcy law. 32

Law student representation is expressly envisioned by the CASE Act. The Act aims to increase access to justice, and as intellectual property law professor Marketa Trimble observed, “law school clinics typically provide an ideal setting for the type of representation envisioned by the proposed rules.”  33 As stated in the NPRM, “[c]onsistent with Congress's directive to develop a system that is accessible to `those with little prior formal exposure to copyright laws,' the Office is committed to facilitating law student representation through law school clinics, which play an important role in providing expanded legal access to often underserved members of the public.”  34

Commenters encouraged the Office to allow CCB participants to be represented by law students outside of law school clinics. The statute provides for representation by “a law student who is qualified under applicable law governing representation by law students of parties in legal proceedings and who provides such representation on a pro bono basis.”  35 It does not indicate that such representatives must be under the auspices of a law school clinic. Though the regulation proposed in the NPRM would have limited representation by eligible law students to those “affiliated with a law school clinic,”  36 several commenters persuasively urged the Office to expand the scope of law student representation beyond that environment. 37

The Office recognizes that “not all programs operated by law schools may be truly clinical in nature.”  38 The Office further recognizes that not all law schools have clinics focused on copyright, though many sponsor programs “in which attorneys who work on pro bono cases are paired with law students who assist with the cases under the attorneys' supervision and guidance.”  39 Such programs can ensure that parties in CCB proceedings are represented by law students who have sufficient training and oversight. The Office is persuaded that, if these programs have a connection with the student's law school, and they follow the same rules as any law school clinics would have to follow, they may also participate in CCB proceedings.

The Office believes that facilitating representation by qualified students, whether through law school clinics or comparable, law school-connected pro bono programs offering similar supervision and support, is consistent with the goal of expanding access to “those with little prior formal exposure to copyright laws.”  40 Such representation can help alleviate the concern, raised in the Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors' comment that “clinics likely will be unable to fill the significant access-to-justice gap that the opening of proceedings before the CCB may create.”  41 As the Law School Faculty comment noted, “[a]n expanded field of properly trained and supervised students will allow more students to help underserved communities and claimants, especially if the demand is high for law student representation or when there are few (or no) eligible legal clinics in a particular area, or during particular times of the year, like summer breaks.”  42

Accordingly, the final rule provides that a qualified law student must be affiliated with a law school clinic, or with a pro bono legal services organization that has a connection with the student's law school.

Finally, in addition to the qualified law student representation described in the rule, the Office encourages the participation of law students in CCB proceedings more broadly. For example, under the supervision of a licensed attorney, a law student may assist with drafting a pleading or other document to be filed before the CCB. In addition, a licensed lawyer representing a party before the CCB may have a law student intern or clerk attend any part of the party's proceeding.

The NPRM proposed a standard of competency for law student representatives that would require successful completion of both “[t]he first year of studies at an American Bar Association-accredited law school,” and “[a] copyright law course, formal copyright law training, or formal training in Board procedures.”  43 Commenters addressed the prerequisites and the Office is modifying the rule after consideration of those comments.

Commenters supported the requirement that law student representatives must have completed their first year of law school: “We do wholeheartedly agree that law students participating in this program should be required to complete their first year of studies at an American Bar Association (ABA)-accredited law school. To our knowledge this is a pre-requisite of all clinical programs.”  44 The Office believes that the completion of a first year of law school is a minimum requirement that is part of “an appropriate standard of competence”  45 for law student representatives and will retain that requirement.

Most commenters considered the Office's proposed law student competency prerequisites to be too restrictive and unnecessary. 46 Some deemed unclear what would constitute sufficient “formal” training in copyright law or CCB procedures. 47 Commenters also noted that administrative issues, such as the fact that some law schools may offer copyright law courses only at limited times, may hamper students' completion of the prerequisite in time to participate in the clinic. 48 Several commenters suggested that supervising attorneys charged with ensuring competent representation will take responsibility for providing students sufficient instruction in copyright, in a clinical setting or elsewhere, if the students have not completed a copyright law course beforehand, with one group noting, “[c]ompetent representation can be rendered through necessary study, and providing training in copyright advocacy and counselling may well be among the pedagogical goals of clinical programs that will be taking on CCB representations.”  49

The Office agrees. The CCB is designed to allow parties to represent themselves, or to be represented by an attorney or a pro bono law clinic. Neither parties, nor their representatives need to be versed in the entire body of copyright law to participate before the CCB. 50 Determining whether a student is sufficiently trained to represent a party in each proceeding can be entrusted to an attorney supervisor with access to information specific to the dispute, who can tailor any needed copyright training to the pertinent matters. Accordingly, the final rule will not require a copyright law course or “formal” copyright law training, but instead will require “training in relevant copyright law, as determined by the supervising clinic or pro bono organization.”

However, any CCB proceeding will also require party representatives to be familiar with, at a minimum, the language in the CASE Act and the governing CCB regulations. The Office expects that parties who secure pro bono law school student representation will likely be heavily reliant on the student representative's guidance on matters of CCB procedure. Therefore, the final rule includes a requirement that, to be competent to represent a party, a law student must first review the CASE Act's statutory text and the CCB's regulations. The legislative history of the CASE Act indicated that the Office may require that parties “have reviewed the [CCB's] procedural rules” to participate. 51 The Office acknowledges that reviewing detailed regulatory text could be challenging for pro se parties without legal training, and it is not imposing such a requirement on parties at this time. However, a review of the statute and regulations should not pose the same challenges for students who have completed a year or more of law school, and who can turn to a supervising attorney for help in understanding the rules.

In a joint comment, three law school professors suggested that the Office should set explicit standards of professional conduct for “anyone representing clients before the CCB,”  52 including requirements to “conduct proper investigations of the facts and law before filing a claim, similar to the duties specified in FRCP 11.”  53 The professors further asked the Office to set specific “consequences for representatives who repeatedly engage in improper conduct before the CCB,”  54 and establish disciplinary proceedings against such representatives. 55 Other commenters replied and opposed the Office establishing such a separate disciplinary system. 56 The Office agrees with the Copyright Alliance et al. reply comment noting that “[a]ttorneys are already subject to professional ethics standards” and that creating a separate disciplinary process relating to law student representatives under the Office would be “duplicative or conflict with preexisting systems.”  57 In addition, there is no basis in the statute to permit the CCB to establish a separate disciplinary standard for law students.

The three law school professors' comments regarding professional conduct apply to all party representatives appearing before the CCB, including attorneys, so they are necessarily broader than the issues of law student and business entity representations raised in this rule. The Office has discussed issues regarding truthful filings and professional conduct under earlier notices of proposed rulemaking. 58 This separate rulemaking when finalized will apply equally to all party representatives appearing before the CCB, including business entity and law student representatives. 59 The Office's intent is that the standards for conduct before the CCB as a whole should foster professional conduct as well as truthful and accurate submissions by all parties and their representatives.

The Office proposed that all law student representatives must be supervised by a licensed attorney. 60 No commenter disagreed with this requirement. Commenters generally stated that “the proposed regulations are well-drafted in terms of defining the role of a Supervisory Attorney to ensure proper guidance and direction to law student representatives.”  61

Commenters asked the Office to “clarify that law student representatives may be supervised by multiple attorneys” affiliated with a law school clinic. 62 The Office acknowledges that multiple attorneys may supervise students in some law school clinics, and nothing in the regulation limits their ability to do so. The Office simply requires that at least one attorney be identified as the supervising attorney on each document that the law student representative submits, even if several attorneys supervise the student's work. Any supervising attorney linked to the law student through the CCB's electronic filing system (“eCCB”) shall have responsibility over case management and professional responsibility for the law student representative's actions. 63 Furthermore, at hearings and conferences, one of the law student representative's supervising attorneys must attend with the student, and the Office is revising the proposed regulation to clarify that point. 64

The Office invited comments on “whether documents submitted to the CCB must be signed by both the supervising attorney and the law student representative,”  65 rather than by the student alone. The Office received one responsive comment, from the Copyright Alliance et al., stating, “we believe that both supervising attorneys and law student representatives should sign all legal filings submitted to the CCB,” without additional context. 66 The Office has set up eCCB to be as streamlined as possible, often with fillable templates to complete required forms, and so mandating multiple signatures at this time for every filing would interfere with the ease of eCCB use. Rather, while the final rule allows both the law student representatives and the supervisory attorney sign any document they submit, the final rules require a single signature. If the student representative is the sole signatory, that student must certify that the supervising attorney assented to the filing.

Commenters suggested that the Office issue a definition of the term “supervising attorney” that would mirror language in the proposed regulation regarding attorneys representing business entities, requiring the attorney to be a “member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a State, the District of Columbia, or any territory or commonwealth of the United States.”  67 A supervising attorney must comport with the applicable state laws governing a clinic or legal services organization in the jurisdiction where the attorney's clinic or organization is based. The Office believes that the current requirement addresses the appropriate qualifications for attorneys supervising law student representatives.

Professor Elizabeth Townsend Gard proposed that a supervising attorney should not be required to act as the pro bono client's attorney, but simply as a facilitator or teacher overseeing the student. 68 However, if the Office were to adopt this rule, it could violate the requirements of applicable law governing the clinic. In jurisdictions surveyed by the Office including California, New York, Tennessee, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, the supervisory attorney is generally required to assume professional responsibility for any activity performed by the law student. 69 The Office is therefore maintaining the requirement for a supervising attorney to be responsible for the actions and filings of a law student representative.

The proposed rule would have required a supervising attorney to accompany a law student representative to hearings on the merits, but not to conferences. 70 Several commenters advocated that “it should be mandatory for supervising attorneys to appear at both hearings and conferences”  71 or, going even further, that they must “be present in all situations where a client is represented, whether or not the situations are on the merits.”  72 There were no comments to the contrary. The Office agrees that direct supervision in such circumstances serves the interests of a law student's client and is appropriate in view of the supervising attorney's responsibility for case management. 73 The Office will require that a supervising attorney must appear at any hearing or conference absent leave from the CCB.

No commenters opposed the creation of a directory of pro bono representation. Professor Marketa Trimble proposed that the Office directory listings include “not only participating law school clinics, but also participating law school-sponsored pro bono programs.”  74 Because the Office will permit law student representation outside the clinical context with supervision through a law school-connected pro bono legal services organization, the Office agrees with Professor Trimble's proposal. The final rule provides for such organizations to be able to indicate, in the public directory, their availability to assist CCB parties.

Several commenters asked the Office to ensure “that clinics can choose whether to be listed in a directory of participating clinics separate from their ability to appear in any given proceeding.”  75 Clinics and legal services organizations that are eligible and available to facilitate pro bono student representation before the CCB are encouraged to make their availability known through a public directory listing, but the Office will not make inclusion in the directory a requirement. The regulation clarifies that the duty to maintain current information in the directory applies only to participants that have chosen to be listed, and that directory listing is not a requirement for representing clients in CCB proceedings.

The Law School Faculty commenters requested that participating clinics be permitted to submit directory listings that do not provide all of the information required in the proposed regulation, so that the clinics need “not to answer questions they do not wish to answer or feel they cannot adequately keep current under the guidelines.”  76 Some commenters took issue with requirements to disclose whether the clinic or organization has handled copyright matters in the last two years, and the nature of such matters, at a time when the CCB has not yet been in operation for two years. 77 A disclosure that there have been few or no recent copyright matters will not prohibit a law clinic's inclusion in the directory. Nothing stops a clinic or organization from explaining why it has limited experience, and the Office does not believe it should craft a regulation that it will need to change in the future. Since qualified clinics and public service organizations may fully participate in supervising law student representatives whether or not they are listed in the directory, those that choose to be listed must provide all information requested and can explain any perceived gaps in their experience. The Office believes that all such information would be relevant to a potential client seeking representation through the directory and notes that updates are required only once a year. 78

The Copyright Alliance et al. asked that the Office accept a general description of the nature of such recent copyright matters, and not require that the listing “divulge any specific details of prior client representations.”  79 The Office is not requesting or requiring disclosure of any confidential or privileged information for inclusion in the directory.

The final rule maintains the proposed disclosure requirements for law school clinics and requires the same disclosures of eligible legal services organizations, if they seek to be listed in the CCB pro bono representation directory.

The NPRM proposed that, in addition to attorneys or law students, business entities may be represented in a CCB proceeding by a fiduciary or properly authorized employee, and proposed requirements that these representatives must follow. 80 The comments received in response to the NPRM were supportive of the proposed rule, which expands access to the CCB by smaller business entities.

While two commenters took the position that the Office should require business entities to use in-house lawyers or outside counsel in order to appear before the CCB, 81 the CASE Act does not require business entities to be represented by counsel. 82 As other commenters noted, Congress envisioned the CCB as a forum that will enable parties to resolve low-value copyright claims without the expense of an attorney, and “intended [the CCB] to be accessible especially for pro se parties and those with little prior formal exposure to copyright laws who cannot otherwise afford to have their claims and defenses heard in federal court.”  83 Representation of business entities by their own fiduciaries and authorized employees is consistent with the CASE Act and with express Congressional intent.

Another commenter proposed that “lawyers with foreign credentials” be allowed to represent foreign authors, suggesting that such lawyers “have more knowledge than a student.”  84 The Office considers it impracticable to allow representation by such attorneys. An attorney representative in a CCB proceeding, including an attorney supervising a qualified law student, will be required to be in good standing to practice before the bar of the highest court of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or commonwealth of the United States. 85 While the Office can depend on a domestic state bar's professional responsibility requirements to ensure that the attorney's conduct before the CCB will comport with ethical standards for practice, 86 the Office would not have the capacity to ensure that attorneys admitted elsewhere are subject to the same ethical obligations.

The Copyright Alliance et al. suggested “that the Office amend [proposed 37 CFR] 232.6(c) so that the required certification for a particular business representative qualified under [proposed 37 CFR] 232.6(b)(3)-(4) can be valid for a period of up to one year.”  87 The certification requirement is on a per-proceeding basis, not an annual basis. To avoid any potential confusion, the Copyright Office is amending the proposed regulation to clarify that a business entity representative who certifies the entity's authorization in a particular CCB proceeding shall remain authorized for the duration of that proceeding, so long as the business entity continues to authorize the representative.

Finally, Professor Elizabeth Townsend Gard expressed support for opportunities to educate small businesses about copyright in ways that would not entail representation, such as workshops on copyright registration, and suggested that student or alumni groups could be organized to provide such legal information to the public. 88 Professor Townsend Gard also suggested creating CCB fellowships whereby faculty or student groups could apply to the Office with research proposals and have their research published on the CCB website. 89 The Office appreciates the suggestions of various methods of education and outreach to the public, as well as future research possibilities, but does not understand these suggestions to require the Office to promulgate any regulations.

For reasons stated in the preamble, the U.S. Copyright Office amends chapter II, subchapters A and B, of title 37 Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

On September 29, 2021 (86 FR 53872), EPA published a DFR approving elements of infrastructure SIP revisions submitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) on September 29, 2017, May 16, 2019, and September 22, 2020, to address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2012 PM 2.5 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, respectively. In the DFR, EPA also approved the infrastructure requirements related to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)  1 for 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , 2006 PM 2.5 , 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ), and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS. An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the SIP submission, and EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the DFR and will not be restated here.

In the DFR, EPA stated that if adverse comments were received by October 29, 2021, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. On October 27, 2021, EPA received one set of adverse comments and, as a result, revised its regulations on January 18, 2022 (87 FR 2554), because EPA was unable to withdraw the DFR before it took effect. EPA is addressing the comments in this final action based upon the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) also published on September 29, 2021. See 86 FR 53915.

A summary of the comments, and EPA's response, is provided below.

Comment: The commenters state that EPA should not have used a DFR for this action because EPA did not have good cause under 5 U.S.C. to forgo normal notice-and-comment procedures ( i.e., publishing an NPRM and accepting comments 30 days before the rule's effective date), because EPA allegedly did not find that compliance with the 30-day requirement was either “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” nor did EPA incorporate such a finding “and a brief statement of the reasons therefor” in the DFR. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). In the DFR, EPA stated that this action was a “noncontroversial amendment” to the existing Illinois SIP and that it anticipated no adverse comments. The commenters argue that these statements fail to satisfy the good cause exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553. The commenters assert that infrastructure SIP actions, even when the public fails to comment, are not necessarily “noncontroversial,” because such actions involve detailed reviews and have been subject to litigation. For this reason, the commenters argue EPA should never use DFRs to approve an infrastructure SIP submission. The commenters encourage EPA to commence a separate rulemaking to govern its use of DFRs.

Response: EPA disagrees that it was inappropriate to use a DFR for this infrastructure SIP action. Since September 1981, EPA has used DFRs for SIP actions that are noncontroversial and where it reasonably expects no adverse public comments. 2 These actions have included approvals of infrastructure SIP submittals. 3 EPA's current procedure for these types of actions, as described in the DFR, 4 has been to publish a DFR for the SIP action and at the same time commence a conventional rulemaking proceeding for the same rule by publishing a NPRM. 5 If EPA receives adverse comments within 30 days after publishing the DFR, it withdraws the DFR by publishing a withdrawal action in the Federal Register ; the substance of the DFR then serves as the detailed basis for the NPRM, and EPA addresses the adverse comments in the final rule. EPA believes this approach “can save time and resources while maintaining the public's right to comment.”  6

EPA viewed Illinois' infrastructure SIP submissions for these specific NAAQS as noncontroversial and anticipated no adverse comment for two reasons. First, EPA believed that Illinois' SIP submissions for these NAAQS straightforwardly met the relevant CAA infrastructure SIP requirements. Second, IEPA in its own state level rulemaking process to develop the infrastructure SIP submissions held 30-day periods for the public to comment on or to submit public hearing requests for the 2012 PM 2.5 and 2015 ozone NAAQS (on June 23, 2017 and November 16, 2018, respectively), but IEPA received no requests for a public hearing during the comment periods and no comments on the portions of the Illinois submission addressed in the DFR. 7 The DFR included these details on the state level actions. 8 Because IEPA received no comments on the portions of Illinois' submissions on which EPA is acting during its own public comment periods, EPA did not believe the proposed SIP revision was controversial and expected no public comments for this action.

As the commenters point out, and consistent with Agency policy, EPA made a brief statement in the DFR that it viewed the action as a noncontroversial SIP amendment and anticipated no adverse comments. 9 In response to the adverse comments, EPA removed the DFR and is addressing the comments in this rule. As the NPRM and the DFR appeared on the same day in the Federal Register (September 29, 2021), EPA's procedure preserved the public's opportunity to comment on this action.

Comment: The commenters argue that the EPA's proposed approval of Illinois' submittal, which considered the 2021 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan (the “plan”) for satisfaction of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B), should have considered the 2022 plan.

Response: EPA disagrees that approval of the monitoring plan requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) cannot be finalized without approval of the 2022 plan. At the time of the proposal, EPA was still in the process of reviewing the 2022 plan. The 2021 plan was the most recently approved plan, and hence was the correct plan to reference for satisfaction of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B). As the commenters suggest, EPA was working with IEPA to establish a lead monitor location for approval as part of the 2022 plan, but this change would not affect the ability of the State to monitor PM 2.5 and ozone; in fact, the number of ozone and PM 2.5 monitors will not change under the 2022 plan. 10 Further, IEPA's submittal satisfies other requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) as discussed in the proposal. To fulfill monitoring network obligations, the submission must demonstrate that the state: (i) Monitors air quality at appropriate locations throughout the state using EPA-approved Federal Reference Method or Federal Equivalent Method monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA's Air Quality System in a timely manner; and (iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with prior notification of any planned changes to monitoring sites or the network plan. 11 All of the above elements are met by IEPA's submittal. Therefore, EPA continues to find that Illinois has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2012 PM 2.5 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Comment: Lastly, the commenters claim that Illinois failed to provide necessary assurances under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) that the state will have adequate funding and personnel to carry out its approved SIP. In particular, the commenters claim that the assurances IEPA did provide are vague and limited to permitting activities. The commenters also allege that IEPA has for many years been understaffed and under-resourced to handle its existing volume of regulatory obligations.

Response: EPA disagrees that IEPA has not provided sufficient information about its funding and personnel to provide necessary assurances as required by section 110(a)(2)(E). EPA acknowledges that IEPA has had staff and funding declines over the years due to reduced legislative budget allocations, facility shutdowns that result in reduced permitting fees (particularly by large emitters such as coal-fired power plants), and other factors. However, EPA disagrees that IEPA's assurances to meet CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) are too vague and limited to permitting. In response to the commenter's concern, EPA has again evaluated the information provided concerning its funding and personnel for implementation of its SIP and has concluded that IEPA has provided necessary assurances sufficient to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2012 PM 2.5 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.

While CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires each state to provide necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP, it does not mandate a specific methodology for EPA to use when evaluating the adequacy of resources to implement the SIP. See 76 FR 42549, 42554 (July 19, 2011). Even so, the commenters only highlight budget cuts at IEPA leading up to 2018, but do not consider increases in IEPA's revenue and budget. For instance, as discussed in IEPA's referenced submissions, Public Act 097-0095/House Bill 1297  12 was signed into effect in 2011 by the Illinois Governor to increase operating permit fees. More recently, EPA notes the increase in enacted funding for IEPA to $380 million in 2019, $450 million in 2020, and $514 million in 2021. 13 Further, staff in IEPA's Bureau of Air has increased from 164 to an estimated 185 (with 194 targeted for FY 2022), and the enacted appropriation for the Bureau of Air has increased from $147,825,800 in FY 2020 to $156,808,200 in FY 2021 (with $158,536,300 proposed for FY 2022). 14

While the commenters expressed concern that that IEPA's statement about its current number of full-time permit engineers and the revenue stream from permit fees is unreasonably vague and can't be relied upon for SIP approval, EPA did not rely solely on this statement in evaluating Illinois' submittal with respect to funding and personnel. In addition to the budget figures cited above and other sources of funding available to the State under State statutes and rules pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA considered IEPA's fulfillment of its obligations under the Performance Partnership Agreement with EPA. 15 EPA also considered IEPA's fulfillment of its grant obligations under CAA section 105, which provides monies to help support the foundation of the state's air quality program, including air monitoring, enforcement, and SIP development. States are required to provide matching monies to receive their grant, and EPA evaluates the performance of the State each year. EPA determined in July 2021 that, as of fiscal year 2020, Illinois has satisfactorily completed its air program obligations as called for under the CAA section 105 grant, including meeting specific measures related to maintenance of an EPA-approved statewide air quality surveillance network required by section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA.

If, in the future, EPA determines that Illinois does not have adequate personnel or funding to carry out its SIP, or for any other reason fails to meet any requirement of its approved SIP, then EPA may exercise its authority pursuant to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E), 179, or 110(k)(5) to impose sanctions and other remedies on the State as allowed by the CAA. The action that EPA is taking here does not limit EPA's authority pursuant to those CAA sections. 16

EPA is approving the majority of two infrastructure SIP submissions from IEPA to address the required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2012 PM 2.5 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. 17 The table below summarizes EPA's actions on Illinois' submittal in satisfaction of the infrastructure SIP requirements pursuant to section 110(a)(2). 18 Additionally, EPA is approving Illinois' submission as meeting the infrastructure SIP requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) pertaining to PSD requirements with respect to the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM 2.5 , 2006 PM 2.5 , 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, 2010 NO 2 , and 2010 SO 2 NAAQS.

In the above table, the key is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 7, 2022. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-40.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0495 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 7, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b), although EPA strongly encourages those interested in submitting objections or a hearing request to submit objections and hearing requests electronically. See Order Urging Electronic Service and Filing (April 10, 2020), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-05/ documents/2020-04-10_-_order_urging_electronic_service_and_filing.pdf. At this time, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the judges and staff of the Office of Administrative Law Judges are working remotely and not able to accept filings or correspondence by courier, personal delivery, or commercial delivery, and the ability to receive filings or correspondence by U.S. Mail is similarly limited. When submitting documents to the U.S. EPA Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), a person should utilize the OALJ e-filing system at https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/EAB/EAB-ALJ_upload.nsf.

Although EPA's regulations require submission via U.S. Mail or hand delivery, EPA intends to treat submissions filed via electronic means as properly filed submissions during this time that the Agency continues to maximize telework due to the pandemic; therefore, EPA believes the preference for submission via electronic means will not be prejudicial. If it is impossible for a person to submit documents electronically or receive service electronically, e.g., the person does not have any access to a computer, the person shall so advise OALJ by contacting the Hearing Clerk at (202) 564-6281. If a person is without access to a computer and must file documents by U.S. Mail, the person shall notify the Hearing Clerk every time it files a document in such a manner. The address for mailing documents is U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Administrative Law Judges, Mail Code 1900R, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0495, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In the Federal Register of December 21, 2020 (85 FR 82998) (FRL-10016-93), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance exemption petition (PP 9F8816) by AFS32321 Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 14069, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the bactericide and fungicide Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 in or on all food commodities. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner AFS32321 Crop Protection, Inc. and available in the docket via https://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received on the notice of filing.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA evaluated the available toxicological and exposure data on Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the document entitled “ Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 (PC Code: 006072) Human Health Risk Assessment in support of Section 3 Product Registration under PRIA Action Code B590—New active ingredient; food use; petition to establish a tolerance exemption” ( Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 Human Health Risk Assessment). This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES .

The available data and rationale demonstrated that, with regard to humans, Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 is not toxic, pathogenic, or infective via the oral route of exposure when administered by oral gavage at a single dose of 5.4 x 10 8 colony-forming units per test animal; is not anticipated to be toxic, pathogenic, or infective via the pulmonary route of exposure; is not anticipated to be toxic via the dermal route of exposure; and is moderately irritating via the dermal route of exposure. Additionally, the acute oral toxicity/pathogenicity study demonstrated a pattern of clearance of Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 from the organs and feces of the test animals. Although there may be some dietary and non-occupational exposures to residues of Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices, there is not a concern due to the lack of potential for adverse effects. For example, no significant adverse effects have been associated with dietary exposure to Bacillus subtilis group strains, of which this active ingredient is a part, and these organisms are often present in agricultural settings ( i.e., water, soil, and plant roots) and are commonly found on various types of fresh produce. Because there are no threshold levels of concern with the toxicity, pathogenicity, or infectivity of Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321, EPA determined that no additional margin of safety is necessary to protect infants and children as part of the qualitative assessment conducted. Based upon its evaluation in the Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 Human Health Risk Assessment, which concludes that there are no risks of concern from aggregate exposure to Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321.

An analytical method is not required for Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 because EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply.

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

I. General Information

Entities that may be affected by this action include: (a) Industry: Manufacturers, handlers, transporters, and other users of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substances, (b) State, local, or Tribal governments: State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs), Tribal Emergency Response Commissions (TERCs), Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), Tribal Emergency Planning Committees (TEPCs), (c) First responders: fire departments, (d) Federal government: National Response Center, any federal agency that has regulations based on the CERCLA regulation, and any federal agency that may release or respond to releases of these substances.

This technical amendment is modifying 40 CFR 302.4 and Table 302.4 “List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities.” Table 302.4 provides a list of hazardous substances as defined by the statute [CERCLA section 101(14); 42 U.S.C. 9601(14)] to include the following substances: (1) Clean Water Act (CWA) Hazardous Substances per section 311(b)(2) of the CWA [40 CFR 116.4; 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(2)(A)], (2) CWA Toxic Pollutants per section 307(a) of the CWA [40 CFR 401.15, 40 CFR part 423 Appendix A, and 40 CFR 131.36; 33 U.S.C. 1317(a)], (3) Clean Air Act ( CAA) Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) per section 112(b) of the CAA [42 U.S.C. 7412(b); Pub. L. 101-549 November 15, 1990]  1 , and (4) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hazardous Wastes per section 3001 of the RCRA [40 CFR part 261 Subpart D—Lists of Hazardous Wastes; 42 U.S.C. 6921].

This technical amendment is revising the list of CERCLA hazardous substances in 40 CFR part 302, Table 302.4 to be consistent with the statutory provisions that currently comprised this list (CWA Hazardous Substances, CWA Toxic Pollutants, CAA HAPs, and RCRA Hazardous Wastes). As further described below, the EPA is updating various CASRNs in this action so that they are consistent with the hazardous substance listing authorities and align with the Chemical Abstract Service, which is a division of the American Chemical Society and is the authoritative source for CASRNs. The entire Table 302.4 is being reprinted in this FR notice due to the complexity of transcribing the technical changes. The following is a list of the technical amendments that are being made within Table 302.4:

(a) Adding the CAA HAP 1-Bromopropane (1-BP) (CASRN 106-94-5) and its synonym n-Propyl bromide (nPB), pursuant to CERCLA section 101(14) and the establishment of a one-pound reportable quantity (RQ), per the statutory default set in CERCLA section 102(b). Also, adding the statutory code “3” indicating that this is a CAA HAP. This technical amendment is due to 1-Bromopropane being added as a CAA HAP. [87 FR 393, January 5, 2022]

(b) Deleting the RCRA Hazardous Waste vacated K-Code substances: K064, K065, K066, K090, and K091. This technical amendment is due to removal of these five waste codes from the list of RCRA Hazardous Wastes. [75 FR 12993, March 18, 2010; 64 FR 56470, October 20, 1999; 63 FR 28599, May 26, 1998]

(c) Removing the CWA Toxic Pollutants Statutory Code “2” for Dichloromethyl ether (CASRN 542-88-1) and its synonyms: Methane, oxybis(chloro- and Bis(chloromethyl) ether. This technical correction is being made due to a clerical error; Dichloromethyl ether is not and has not been listed as a CWA Toxic Pollutant. [40 CFR 401.15, 40 CFR part 423 Appendix A, and 40 CFR 131.36]

(d) Removing the CWA Toxic Pollutants Statutory Code “2” for “4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol, and salts” and its synonym “Phenol, 2-methyl-4,6-dinitro-, & salts” (CASRN 534-52-1). And, adding the CWA Priority Toxic Pollutant “4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol” and its synonym “Phenol, 2-methyl-4,6-dinitro-.” These technical corrections are being made due to a clerical error; the words “, & salts” do not and have not appeared in the CWA Toxic Pollutants lists. [40 CFR 401.15, 40 CFR part 423 Appendix A, and 40 CFR 131.36]

(e) Adding the CWA Toxic Pollutants Statutory Code “2” for the CWA Toxic Pollutants: Dichlorobenzene (25321-22-6), Dichloropropane (CASRN 26638-19-7), Dichloropropene (CASRN 26952-23-8), and Trichlorophenol (CASRN 25167-82-2). This technical correction is due to a clerical error; these substances are CWA Toxic Pollutants. [44 FR 44503, July 30, 1979; 40 CFR 401.15, 40 CFR part 423 Appendix A, and 40 CFR 131.36]

(f) Removing the CAA HAP statutory Code “3” for Methyl ethyl ketone (CASRN 78-93-3), its entry under F005, and its synonyms: 2-Butanone and MEK. This technical correction is being made because Methyl ethyl ketone was removed from the list of HAPs. [70 FR 75047, December 19, 2005]

(g) Removing the RCRA Hazardous Waste Code “4” and the RCRA waste number “U204” from Selenium oxide (CASRN 12640-89-0). These technical corrections are due to a technical error. Selenium oxide is not considered a RCRA Hazardous Waste. [40 CFR part 261 subpart D]

(h) Adding the RCRA Hazardous Waste Code “4” for “4,4′-DDE” (72-55-9) and its synonym “DDE.” This technical correction is due to a clerical error. 4,4-DDE is a RCRA Hazardous Waste. [40 CFR part 261 subpart D]

(i) Adding CASRNs for “Chlordane, alpha & gamma isomers” (5103-71-9) and (5103-74-2), Dichlorobenzidine (1331-47-1), Diphenylhydrazine (38622-18-3), and Nitrophenols (25154-55-6). These CASRNs are provided in Table 302.4 and Appendix A to Table 302.4 to facilitate identification of substances.

(j) Correcting CASRNs for the following substances: Updating “Arsenic disulfide” 1303-32-8 to 12044-79-0; removing “Chromic acid” 11115-74-5 as it has been replaced with 7738-94-5, which is already listed; updating “Cupric oxalate” 5893-66-3 to 55671-32-4; and removing “Lead stearate” 52652-59-2 as it has been replaced with 56189-09-4, which is already listed. These technical corrections align Table 302.4 with the current CASRNs for these substances.

(k) Reordering the following hazardous substances, that are names of categories of chemicals, prior to the names of hazardous substances that fit into these broader categories: “ANTIMONY AND COMPOUNDS”, “Antimony Compounds”, “Aroclors”, “ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS”, “Arsenic Compounds (inorganic including arsenic)”, “BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS”, “CADMIUM AND COMPOUNDS”, “CHLORDANE (TECHNICAL MIXTURE AND METABOLITES)”, “CHROMIUM AND COMPOUNDS”, “Chromium Compounds”, “COPPER AND COMPOUNDS”, “CYANIDES”, “ENDOSULFAN AND METABOLITES”, “ENDRIN AND METABOLITES”, “HEPTACHLOR AND METABOLITES”, “LEAD AND COMPOUNDS”, “MERCURY AND COMPOUNDS”, “Mercury Compounds”, “NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS”, “NITROPHENOLS”, “SELENIUM AND COMPOUNDS”, “Selenium Compounds”, “SILVER AND COMPOUNDS”, “THALLIUM AND COMPOUNDS”, “Xylene (mixed)”, “Xylenes (isomers and mixture)”, and “ZINC AND COMPOUNDS”. These technical corrections make the list easier to read.

(l) Reordering the following hazardous substances grouped as isomers and homologs to be in alphabetical and numerical order: 1,2-Dichloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropene, 2,4-Dinitrophenol, and 3,4-Dinitrotoluene. These technical corrections make the list easier to read.

(m) Indenting hazardous substances that are isomers, homologs, or formulations under their parent compounds, where they were not already indented [Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260; Cresols m-, o-, and p-; Dichlorobenzenes 1,2- (o-), 1,3- (m-), and 1,4- (p-); 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine; Dichloropropanes 1,1- and 1,3-; 3-Dichloropropene; 2,4-Dinitrophenol; Dinitrotoluenes 2,4- and 2,6-; Endosulfans alpha- and beta; Nitrophenols 2- (o-) and 4- (p-); Trichlorophenols 2,4,5- and 2,4,6-; and m-Xylenes m-, o-, and p-]. These technical corrections make the list easier to read.

(n) Providing isomers that were already indented with the statutory codes, RCRA waste numbers, and the reportable quantity values of their parent hazardous substance (Amyl acetates iso-, sec-, and tert-; Butyl acetates iso-, sec-, and tert-; Butylamines iso-, sec-, and tert-; iso-Butyric acid, 2,3-Dichloropropene; Dinitrobenzenes m-, o-, and p-; Dinitrophenols 2,5- and 2,6-; 3,4-Dinitrotoluene; m-Nitrophenol; Nitrotoluenes m-, o-, and p-; and Trichlorophenols 2,3,4-, 2,3,5-, 2,3,6-, and 3,4,5-). These technical corrections make the list easier to read.

(o) Reformatting the CASRNs to add hyphens where they are missing. Hyphens were added to the hazardous substances in Table 302.4 on July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45316). On August 16, 2016 (71 FR 47106), 57 hazardous substances were added to Table 302.4 without hyphens. Adding hyphens to the CASRNs for those 57 hazardous substances as follows: A2213 (30558-43-1); Aldicarb sulfone (1646-88-4); Barban (101-27-9); Bendiocarb (22781-23-3); Bendiocarb phenol (22961-82-6); Benomyl (17804-35-2); 1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl- (22961-82-6); 1,3-Benzodioxol-4-ol, 2,2-dimethyl-, methyl carbamate (22781-23-3); 7-Benzofuranol, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl- (1563-38-8); Benzoic acid, 2-hydroxy-, compd. with (3aS-cis)-1,2,3,3a,8,8a-hexahydro-1,3a,8-trimethylpyrrolo[2,3-b]indol-5-yl methylcarbamate ester (1:1) (57-64-7); Carbamic acid, 1H-benzimidazol-2-yl, methyl ester (10605-21-7); Carbamic acid, [1-[(butylamino)carbonyl]-1H-benzimidazol-2-yl]-,methyl ester (17804-35-2); Carbamic acid, (3-chlorophenyl)-, 4-chloro-2-butynyl ester (101-27-9); Carbamic acid, [(dibutylamino)-thio]methyl-, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl ester (55285-14-8); Carbamic acid, dimethyl-,1-[(dimethyl-amino)carbonyl]-5-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl ester (644-64-4); Carbamic acid, dimethyl-, 3-methyl-1-(1-methylethyl)-1H-pyrazol-5-yl ester (119-38-0); Carbamic acid, methyl-, 3-methylphenyl ester (1129-41-5); Carbamic acid, [1,2-phenylenebis(iminocarbonothioyl)]bis-, dimethyl ester (23564-05-8); Carbamic acid, phenyl-, 1-methylethyl ester (122-42-9); Carbamothioic acid, bis(1-methylethyl)-, S-(2,3,3-trichloro-2-propenyl) ester (2303-17-5); Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-(phenylmethyl) ester (52888-80-9); Carbendazim (10605-21-7); Carbofuran phenol (1563-38-8); Carbosulfan (55285-14-8); m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate (64-00-6); Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate (5952-26-1); Dimetilan (644-64-4); 1,3-Dithiolane-2-carboxaldehyde, 2,4-dimethyl-, O-[(methylamino)-carbonyl]oxime (26419-73-8); Ethanimidothioic acid, 2-(dimethylamino)-N-hydroxy-2-oxo-, methyl ester (30558-43-1); Ethanimidothioic acid, 2-(dimethylamino)-N-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]-2-oxo-, methyl ester (23135-22-0); Ethanimidothioic acid, N,N′- [thiobis[(methylimino) carbonyloxy]]bis-, dimethyl ester (59669-26-0); Ethanol, 2,2′-oxybis-, dicarbamate (5952-26-1); Formetanate hydrochloride (23422-53-9); Formparanate (17702-57-7); Isolan (119-38-0); 3-Isopropylphenyl N-methylcarbamate (64-00-6); Manganese, bis (dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S′)- (15339-36-3); Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate (15339-36-3); Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N′-[3-[[(methylamino)-carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]-, monohydrochloride (23422-53-9); Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N′-[2-methyl-4- [[(methylamino) carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]- (17702-57-7); Metolcarb (1129-41-5); Oxamyl (23135-22-0); Phenol, 3-(1-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate (64-00-6); Phenol, 3-methyl-5-(1-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate (2631-37-0); Physostigmine (57-47-6); Physostigmine salicylate (57-64-7); Promecarb (2631-37-0); Propanal, 2-methyl-2-(methyl-sulfonyl)-, O-[(methylamino)carbonyl] oxime (1646-88-4); Propham (122-42-9); Prosulfocarb (52888-80-9); Pyrrolo[2,3-b]indol-5-ol, 1,2,3,3a,8,8a- hexahydro-1,3a,8-trimethyl-, methylcarbamate (ester), (3aS-cis)- (57-47-6); Thiodicarb (59669-26-0); Thiophanate-methyl (23564-05-8); Tirpate (26419-73-8); Triallate (2303-17-5); Zinc, bis(dimethylcarbamodithioato-S,S′)- (137-30-4); and Ziram (137-30-4). Also, the EPA is updating the entire Appendix A to Table 302.4 to add the CASRNs throughout the appendix. These technical corrections make the list easier to read.

(p) Removing the duplicate entries for Zinc cyanide (CASRN 557-21-1) and “Phenol, 3-(1-methylethyl)-, methyl carbamate (m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate)” (CASRN 64-00-6) from Appendix A to Table § 302.4. This is a technical correction to make the list easier to read.

(q) Moving the Final RQ for Propionaldehyde (CASRN 123-38-6) “1000 (454)” from the “RCRA waste No.” column to the “Final RQ [pounds (kg)]” column. This technical correction is being made due to a clerical error that placed the value in the wrong column.

(r) Removing “1,2,4” from the Final RQ column in Table 302.4 for Titanium tetrachloride (CASRN 7550-45-0). This technical correction is being made due to a clerical error, these values do not belong in this column, nor are they statutory codes for this hazardous substance.

(s) Correcting the spelling of “Dichloromethoxy ethane” from “Dichloromethoxyethane” to be consistent with the listing for the substance as a RCRA Hazardous Waste. [40 CFR part 261 subpart D]

In addition to these technical amendments, the EPA is making six other technical corrections:

(1) Revising the heading title of 40 CFR 302.4 from “Designation of Hazardous Substances” to “Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities.” This technical correction to the title accurately represents the contents of the section; section 302.4 does not designate hazardous substances, but rather provides a list of hazardous substances as defined by the statute [CERCLA 101(14)].

(2) Revising the language in the note preceding Table 302.4 to add guidance on the applicability of the CASRNs that are provided in Table 302.4 and to provide citations to the regulatory lists that comprise the table, in addition to their statutory sources. These technical corrections are being made to provide a clear understanding of the usefulness of CASRNs and to provide a direct reference for users of the lists that comprise Table 302.4.

(3) Deleting one of the duplicate notes with the single dagger note symbol (†). This technical correction is being made due to a clerical error.

(4) Replacing the dagger note symbols (†, ††, and †††) with roman numeric superscripts ( II , III , and IV ). This technical correction is being made to allow for the addition of notes and to make the notes easier to identify and read.

(5) Revising the language in the note preceding Table 302.4 to provide a clarifying statement regarding CASRN limitations, adding the numeric note reference symbol “ I ” to the header for “CASRN,” and adding the numeric note reference “ II ” to the notes at the end of the table. These technical corrections are being made to clarify the limitations of CASRNs.

(6) Revising the header “Final RQ pounds (Kg)” to “Final RQ [pounds (kg)].” This technical correction is being made to add clarity to the table by separating the title of the column from the units of the values within the column.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this technical amendment final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because such notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary for the following two reasons. First, 40 CFR 302.4 contains substances that are listed or designated as provided in CERCLA section 101(14). [48 FR 23554, May 25, 1983] These statutory provisions are currently (1) CWA Hazardous Substances, (2) CWA Toxic Pollutants, (3) CAA HAPs, and (4) RCRA Hazardous Wastes. Technically, once substances are added to or removed under these four statutory provisions, they are automatically considered or not considered as CERCLA hazardous substances. Of note, no revisions or changes are being made in this action under CERCLA section 9602 listing authority. Therefore, the addition and removal of substances from 40 CFR 302.4 is merely administrative and does not affect any substantive requirements. Secondly, the other modifications in this action are minor and non-substantive technical corrections. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

Section 553(d)(3) of the APA provides that final rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register “except . . . as otherwise provided by the Agency for good cause.” The purpose of this provision is to “give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.” Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). Thus, in determining whether good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay, an agency should “balance the necessity for immediate implementation against principles of fundamental fairness which require that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the effective date of its ruling.” Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d at 1105. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this final rule effective immediately because it merely modifies 40 CFR 302.4 to be consistent with the list of substances from the statutes it is comprised of, corrects CASRN numbers to be accurate, and adjusts the formatting to make the lists easier to read. For this reason, the Agency finds that good cause exists under APA section 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective immediately upon publication.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review. Additionally, this action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. Because this action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) or Sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act(2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not create new binding legal requirements that substantially and directly affect tribes under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action does not have significant Federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Because this final rule is not subject to review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). Continuous release reporting is covered under OMB Control Number 2050-0086. This final rule does not contain any changes to the information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as discussed in Section III of the preamble, including the basis for that finding.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: