AMS proposed revisions to the assessment collection procedures that would require market agencies to collect the full assessment on sales of live lambs, including the first-handler assessment portion, for remittance to the Board. The proposed assessment collection change would only apply to lambs sold through market agencies ( e.g., commission merchant, auction market, or livestock market). Other modes of sale, such as traditional markets ( e.g., first handler purchases from a producer or feeder, independent of a market agency, direct sales) would continue to have assessments remitted through the pass-through collection process.

This document notifies the public of the reopening of the comment period from February 22, 2021 to March 24, 2021. Comments previously submitted during the initial 60-day comment period [October 5, 2020, through December 4, 2020] need not be resubmitted, as these comments are already incorporated into the public record and will be considered in the final rule.

AMS received 11 comments from stakeholders during the initial sixty-day comment period. These comments represent the perspectives of various organizations and individuals within the stakeholder community and provided AMS additional context for decision making. AMS is reopening the comment period to encourage additional input on a topic identified by one commenter during the initial comment period.

The commenter requested AMS consider allowing flexibility in the remittance of collected assessments by lower-volume or seasonal market agencies. The commenter suggested that requiring smaller market agencies to remit assessments every month, regardless of their sales volume, could be burdensome for those entities with very small volumes. The commenter asked AMS to consider additional flexibility for small market agencies by allowing them to remit accumulated assessments on a quarterly or annual basis. The proposed rule would require that remittances occur by the 15th day of the month following the month in which lambs were purchased for slaughter or export, regardless of sales volume for that month. The commenter suggested such flexibilities for small market agencies could be based on the average head of lamb sold annually, allowing markets below a specific threshold to remit on a quarterly or annual basis.

AMS seeks additional information from stakeholders to consider this type of flexibility. AMS seeks comments on the following questions:

1. What level or threshold should AMS consider as a low-volume market agency that might be eligible for additional flexibility?

2. Approximately how many market agencies would fit into such a category?

3. How would this type of flexibility reduce regulatory burden for those market agencies?

AMS seeks input on other appropriate thresholds—such as monthly or quarterly sales volume—to identify market agencies that might be eligible for regulatory flexibility regarding assessment remittance under the amended regulations. Any comments should be supported by data that is clearly quantified and explained.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0292 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0292.

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

• Attention: The Public Document Room (PDR), where you may examine and order copies of public documents, is currently closed. You may submit your request to PDR staff via email at pdr.resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0292 in the subject line of your comment submission in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission publicly available in this docket.

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

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

The NRC is proposing to amend the licensing, inspection, special project, and annual fees charged to its applicants and licensees. These proposed amendments are necessary to implement Public Law 115-439, NEIMA (42 U.S.C. 2215), which the President signed into law on January 14, 2019. The NEIMA fee-related changes, effective October 1, 2020, include (1) repealing the prior fee-recovery framework and replacing it with a revised framework and (2) requirements to improve the invoice accuracy for service fees.

Effective October 1, 2020, NEIMA repealed Section 6101 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended (OBRA-90) (42 U.S.C. 2214) and put in place a revised fee-recovery framework for FY 2021 and subsequent fiscal years, requiring the NRC to recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its total budget authority for the fiscal year, less the budget authority for excluded activities. For FYs 2005 through 2020, OBRA-90 required the NRC to recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority for the fiscal year, less amounts for the activities excluded from fee recovery under OBRA-90 or other legislation, through fees. The 10 percent of the remaining budget authority not recovered through fees was historically referred to as fee-relief activities. In this proposed rule, the NRC would establish a revised fee-recovery framework, which would eliminate the 10 percent limit on fee-relief activities. Accordingly, the NRC would no longer provide a fee-relief credit (when the amount budgeted for fee-relief activities is less than the 10 percent threshold, which would have decreased annual fees for licensees) or assess a fee-relief surcharge (when the amount budgeted for fee-relief activities is greater than the 10 percent threshold, which would have increased annual fees for licensees) as part of the calculation of annual fees for each licensee fee class.

In FY 2021, the NRC's fee regulations are primarily governed by two laws: (1) The Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701), and 2) NEIMA (42 U.S.C. 2215). The IOAA authorizes and encourages Federal agencies to recover—to the fullest extent possible—costs attributable to services provided to identifiable recipients. Under NEIMA, the NRC must recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its annual budget, less the budget authority for excluded activities. Under Section 102(b)(1)(B) of NEIMA, “excluded activities” include any fee-relief activity as identified by the Commission, generic homeland security activities, waste incidental to reprocessing activities, Nuclear Waste Fund activities, advanced reactor regulatory infrastructure activities, Inspector General services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, research and development at universities in areas relevant to the NRC's mission, and a nuclear science and engineering grant program.

In FY 2021, the fee-relief activities identified by the Commission are consistent with prior final fee rules and include Agreement State oversight, regulatory support to Agreement States, medical isotope production infrastructure, fee exemptions for non-profit educational institutions, costs not recovered from small entities under 10 CFR 171.16(c), generic decommissioning/reclamation activities, the NRC's uranium recovery program and unregistered general licenses, potential U.S. Department of Defense Program Memorandum of Understanding activities (Military Radium-226), and non-military radium sites. In addition, for FY 2021, the Commission identified international activities, not including the resources for import and export licensing, as fee-relief activities to be excluded from the fee-recovery requirement.

Under NEIMA, the NRC must use its IOAA authority first to collect service fees for NRC work that provides specific benefits to identifiable recipients (such as licensing work, inspections, and special projects). The NRC's regulations in part 170 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Fees for Facilities, Materials, Import and Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended,” explain how the agency collects service fees from specific beneficiaries. Because the NRC's fee recovery under the IOAA (10 CFR part 170) will not equal 100 percent of the agency's budget authority for the fiscal year, the NRC also assesses “annual fees” under 10 CFR part 171, “Annual Fees for Reactor Licenses and Fuel Cycle Licenses and Materials Licenses, Including Holders of Certificates of Compliance, Registrations, and Quality Assurance Program Approvals and Government Agencies Licensed by the NRC,” to recover the remaining amount necessary to comply with NEIMA.

In addition, Section 102(b)(3)(B)(i) of NEIMA establishes a new cap for the annual fees charged to operating reactor licensees; under this provision, the annual fee for an operating reactor licensee, to the maximum extent practicable, shall not exceed the annual fee amount per operating reactor licensee established in the FY 2015 final fee rule (80 FR 37432; June 30, 2015), adjusted for inflation (see Section III, Discussion, “FY 2021 Fee Collection—Revised Annual Fees,” of this proposed rule).

Section 102(d) of NEIMA requires three sets of actions related to NRC invoices for service fees assessed under 10 CFR part 170. First, as stated in Section 102(d)(1) of NEIMA, the NRC must “ensure appropriate review and approval prior to the issuance of invoices” for service fees. Second, as stated in Section 102(d)(2) of NEIMA, the NRC must “develop and implement processes to audit invoices [for 10 CFR part 170 service fees] to ensure accuracy, transparency, and fairness.” Third, as stated in Section 102(d)(3) of NEIMA, the NRC is required to “modify regulations to ensure fair and appropriate processes to provide licensees and applicants an opportunity to efficiently dispute or otherwise seek review and correction of errors in invoices” for service fees.

The NRC developed and implemented process improvements to ensure accurate invoicing for the first two actions. First, in July 2019, the NRC implemented a new agencywide process to standardize the validation of fees, which fully satisfies Section 102(d)(1) and partially addresses Section 102(d)(2) of NEIMA. The new standardized process improved accountability and oversight within the NRC to ensure that fee billing data is correct before appearing on a licensee's invoice. Standardizing the fee validation process defines roles and responsibilities for performing fee billing validation and certification; this standardization process also improves accountability and internal controls by adding management oversight to improve the accuracy of fee billing data. The NRC's new process will lead to improved internal and external auditing of service fee invoices to ensure accuracy, transparency, and fairness of invoices. The process requires offices with fee billable charges to regularly review and certify hours and costs to validate the charges before the NRC sends a bill for service fees. On an annual basis, external financial statement auditors will conduct an audit of a sample of invoices to determine whether the NRC is accurately invoicing in accordance with the NRC's fee schedules. Therefore, NRC's invoices will be reviewed and audited by both internal and external parties.

The second NEIMA accurate invoicing action also concerns the transparency and fairness of the overall billing process. The NRC is firmly committed to the application of fairness and equity in the assessment of fees. All 10 CFR part 170 service fees are reassessed and published in the Federal Register on a yearly basis. In January 2018, the NRC redesigned its invoices to add clarity and transparency for its stakeholders; new features included an invoice legend of NRC acronyms and the names of individual NRC staff and/or contractor company, if applicable, who had performed the work associated with the charges were added. In addition, the NRC's staff hours and contractor costs were listed separately on invoices so the recipient could view the subtotals for the two different categories of costs. Finally, the NRC implemented a new data structure to more effectively account for and track all billable work at the project level. The structure included a data element called an Enterprise Project Identifier (EPID), which provides useful details regarding the type of project or work that is being billed. Inspection report numbers were converted to EPIDs to provide more information, and descriptions of inspection activities were added to the invoice. Using this data structure enabled the NRC's licensees and other persons assessed service fees to identify how many hours are being expended on each of the various activities within a project. To further these efforts, the NRC standardized its Cost Activity Codes (CACs) for all agency activities to clearly provide licensees with consistent descriptions of the work being performed across licensing actions, inspections, and over multiple dockets. Invoices for service fees are now presented in a more useful and readable manner and hours and costs are no longer commingled. As a result, the NRC's invoices provide stakeholders greater transparency regarding fees.

In addition, in October 2019, the NRC released an electronic billing (eBilling) system. This public facing, web-based application provides persons assessed service fees, including licensees, immediate delivery of NRC invoices, customizable email notifications, the capability to view and analyze invoice details, and access to the U.S. Department of the Treasury systems to pay invoices. The eBilling application provides persons assessed service fees, including licensees increased billing process transparency and has increased applicant and licensee confidence in the assessed fees and charges.

To address the third action, the NRC is proposing a policy change to modify the regulations in 10 CFR chapter I to provide a standard process for licensees and applicants to efficiently dispute or otherwise seek review and correction of errors in invoices for services fees (see Section III, Discussion, “FY2021—Policy Changes,” of this proposed rule).

The NRC is issuing this FY 2021 proposed fee rule based on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (the enacted budget). The proposed fee rule reflects a total budget authority in the amount of $844.4 million, a decrease of $11.2 million from FY 2020. As explained previously, certain portions of the NRC's total budget authority for the fiscal year are excluded from NEIMA's fee-recovery requirement under Section 102(b)(1)(B) of NEIMA. Based on the FY 2021 enacted budget, these exclusions total $123.0 million, consisting of $91.2 million for fee-relief activities; $17.7 million for advanced reactor regulatory infrastructure activities; $11.7 million for generic homeland security activities; $1.2 million for waste incidental to reprocessing activities; and $1.2 million for Inspector General services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. Table I summarizes the excluded activities for the FY 2021 proposed rule.

After accounting for the exclusions from the fee-recovery requirement and net billing adjustments ( i.e., for FY 2021 invoices that the NRC estimates will not be paid during the fiscal year, less payments received in FY 2021 for prior year invoices and current year collections made for the termination of one operating power reactor), the NRC must recover approximately $708.8 million in fees in FY 2021. Of this amount, the NRC estimates that $185.9 million will be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 service fees and approximately $522.9 million will be recovered through 10 CFR part 171 annual fees. Table II summarizes the fee-recovery amounts for the FY 2021 proposed fee rule using the enacted budget, and taking into account the budget authority for excluded activities and net billing adjustments. For all information presented in the following tables, individual values may not sum to totals due to rounding. Please see the work papers (ADAMS Accession No. ML20346A173) for actual amounts.

In FY 2021, the explanatory statement associated with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, also includes direction for the NRC to use $35.0 million in prior-year unobligated carryover funds, including $16.0 million to fund the Integrated University Program for FY 2021. The NRC does not assess fees in the current fiscal year for any carryover funds because, consistent with the requirements of NEIMA, fees are calculated based on the budget authority enacted for the current fiscal year and fees were already assessed in the fiscal year in which the carryover funds were appropriated.

The NRC uses a professional hourly rate to assess fees under 10 CFR part 170 for specific services it provides. The professional hourly rate also helps determine flat fees (which are used for the review of certain types of license applications). This rate is applicable to all activities for which fees are assessed under §§ 170.21 and 170.31.

The NRC's professional hourly rate is derived by adding budgeted resources for: (1) Mission-direct program salaries and benefits, (2) mission-indirect program support, and (3) agency support (corporate support and the Inspector General). The NRC then subtracts certain offsetting receipts and divides this total by the mission-direct full-time equivalent (FTE) converted to hours (the mission-direct FTE converted to hours is the product of the mission-direct FTE multiplied by the estimated annual mission-direct FTE productive hours). The only budgeted resources excluded from the professional hourly rate are those for mission-direct contract resources, which are generally billed to licensees separately. The following shows the professional hourly rate calculation:

For FY 2021, the NRC is proposing to increase the professional hourly rate from $279 to $288. The 3.2 percent increase in the FY 2021 professional hourly rate is primarily due to a 2.1 percent increase in budgetary resources of approximately $15.0 million. The increase in budgetary resources is, in turn, primarily due to an increase in salaries and benefits to support Federal pay raises for NRC employees. The anticipated decline in the number of mission-direct FTE compared to FY 2020 also contributed to the increase in the professional hourly rate. The hourly rate is inversely related to the mission-direct FTE amount; therefore, as the number of mission-direct FTE decrease the hourly rate can increase. The number of mission-direct FTE is expected to decline by 17, primarily due to: (1) The completion of probabilistic risk assessment reviews related to lessons learned from the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi in Japan; (2) the closure of Duane Arnold Energy Center (Duane Arnold); and (3) the reduced workload associated with significance determinations, operating experience evaluations, and generic communications development.

The FY 2021 estimate for annual mission-direct FTE productive hours is 1,510 hours, which is unchanged from FY 2020. This estimate, also referred to as the productive hours assumption, reflects the average number of hours that a mission-direct employee spends on mission-direct work in a given year. This estimate therefore excludes hours charged to annual leave, sick leave, holidays, training, and general administrative tasks. Table III shows the professional hourly rate calculation methodology. The FY 2020 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2020-1184; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01425-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3220; email: shahram.daneshmandi@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0227, dated October 19, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0227) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72-212A airplanes.

This proposed AD was prompted by a report of an engine electrical control #1 fault during flight caused by damage on an electrical harness bundle. It was determined that this event was due to the bundle chafing with an air duct clamp located behind the overhead bins in fuselage zone 253. Investigation revealed that the chafing damage was due to insufficient length between the air duct clamp and the harness bundle, leading to tension in the wire sheath. The FAA is proposing this AD to address such damage, which could result in wire failure and a short circuit, an uncontrolled fire, and consequent loss of multiple systems, possibly resulting in reduced controllability of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

EASA AD 2020-0227 describes procedures for modifying the installation of the electrical harness routes 1M and 1S-1V, and rotating the de-icing pipe coupling installation. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2020-0227 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0227 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0227 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0227 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0227 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1184 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 3 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2020-1178; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01325-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2020-09-14, Amendment 39-19910 (85 FR 30601, May 20, 2020) (AD 2020-09-14), which applies to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. AD 2020-09-14 requires revising the existing AFM to define a liquid-prohibited zone on the flight deck and provide procedures following liquid spillage on the center pedestal. AD 2020-09-14 also requires installing a removable ICP cover on the flight deck and further revising the AFM to include instructions for ICP cover use. AD 2020-09-14 superseded AD 2020-03-12, Amendment 39-19837 (85 FR 7863, February 12, 2020), which applied to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. Both ADs required revising the existing AFM to define a liquid-prohibited zone on the flight deck and provide procedures following liquid spillage on the center pedestal.

The FAA issued AD 2020-09-14 to address the potential for dual-engine in-flight shutdown (IFSD), possibly resulting in a forced landing with consequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

The preamble to AD 2020-09-14 explains that the FAA considers the requirements “interim action” and was considering further rulemaking. The FAA has now determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that determination. Since the FAA issued AD 2020-09-14, a new, water-resistant ICP has been developed by the manufacturer to address the identified unsafe condition.

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0203, dated September 23, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0203) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. EASA AD 2020-0203 superseded EASA AD 2020-0090 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2020-09-14).

This proposed AD was prompted by the development of a new, water-resistant ICP to prevent damage from inadvertent liquid spillage on the center pedestal. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the potential for dual-engine IFSD, possibly resulting in a forced landing with consequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2020-09-14, this proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2020-09-14 and revise the applicability. Those requirements are referenced in EASA AD 2020-0203, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.

EASA AD 2020-0203 describes procedures for revising the AFM to define a liquid-prohibited zone on the flight deck and provide procedures following liquid spillage on the center pedestal, installing an ICP cover on the flight deck, and further revising the AFM to include instructions for ICP cover use. EASA AD 2020-0203 also describes procedures for installing a new, water-resistant ICP; removing the ICP protective cover; and removing the AFM revisions. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2020-0203 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. The FAA also proposes to revise the applicability to exclude only airplanes on which Mod 116038 was installed in production. Additionally, for airplanes modified per Mod 116010, which introduced the removable protective ICP cover, certain AFM requirements specified in EASA AD 2020-0203 would not be required by this proposed AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0203 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0203 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0203 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0203 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1178 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2020-1179; Project Identifier AD-2020-00818-E” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kevin M. Clark, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA was notified by the manufacturer that a crack on the HPT rotor stage 1 disk was found during an inspection. Subsequent investigation by the manufacturer determined that the crack on the HPT rotor stage 1 disk was caused by increased stress on the HPT rotor stage 1 disk as a result of flange-to-flange cracking on the HPT thermal shield. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the HPT rotor stage 1 disk, failure of the HPT rotor stage 2 disk, uncontained release of the HPT rotor stage 1 and stage 2 disks, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed ESM 72-53-00 High Pressure Turbine Rotor Assembly—Disassembly (ESM 72-53-00) from the GE CF6-80A Engine Manual GEK72501—Rev 89, dated February 15, 2020. ESM 72-53-00 describes procedures for the removal of the HPT thermal shield, the HPT rotor stage 1 disk, and the HPT rotor stage 2 disk.

This proposed AD would require repetitive visual inspection and FPI of the HPT thermal shield at every piece part opportunity of the HPT rotor stage 1 disk, HPT rotor stage 2 disk, or the HPT thermal shield. Depending on the results of the inspections, this proposed AD requires the removal from service of the HPT thermal shield, HPT rotor stage 1 disk, and the HPT rotor stage 2 disk.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,084 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed 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.

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0014; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01457-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax: 206-231-3229; email vladimir.ulyanov@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0234, dated October 27, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0234) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes.

This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating occurrences of broken brackets of the support structure of the halon fire extinguishing bottle 4005WX; investigation showed that fatigue cracks initiated in the attachment brackets at the cross beams due to dynamic loading, and in some cases propagated in the struts. The FAA is proposing this AD to address fatigue cracking on the attachment brackets, which could lead to damage of the tubing and electrical wiring of the lower deck cargo compartment (LDCC) fire extinguishing system, and possibly result in insufficient fire suppression capability in the LDCC. See the MCAI for additional background information.

EASA AD 2020-0234 describes procedures for replacing the support brackets of the 4005WX fire extinguisher bottle with reinforced support brackets, and replacing the strut assembly at the right-hand underfloor section 13/14 at frame (FR) 34/35 and FR35/36. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2020-0234 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0234 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0234 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0234 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0234 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0014 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 6 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2020-1180; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00517-E” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Wego Wang, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2019-0180, dated July 25, 2019 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1180.

This product has been approved by EASA and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all the relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Task 73-23-01-750-801-A01—Pre-Blockage Pressure Switch of the Fuel Filter Tests (Electrical), dated November 30, 2012, from the Turbomeca Arriel 2 S1 Maintenance Manual. Task 73-23-01-750-801-A01 provides instructions for performing an operational test of the fuel filter pre-blockage pressure switch. 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 reviewed Safran Helicopter Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 73 2869, Version B, dated December 2018. The MSB describes procedures for identifying and securing pre-blockage pressure switches of fuel filter part number P/N 9 550 17 200 0, which are potentially non-conforming.

This proposed AD would require repetitive visual inspections of the fuel filter by-pass indicator pop-up, a one-time operational test of the fuel filter pre-blockage pressure switch and, depending on the findings, replacement of the fuel filter pre-blockage pressure switch with a part eligible for installation.

This proposed AD would allow the visual inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this NPRM to be performed by an aircrew member holding at least a private pilot certificate. Performing a visual inspection to determine if the fuel filter by-pass indicator pop-up has been activated is not considered an action that must be performed by a certified person under 14 CFR 43.3. This authorization is an exception to our standard maintenance regulations.

EASA AD 2019-0180 defines “Group 1” engines as Safran Helicopter Engines Arriel 2B, 2B1, 2B1A, 2C, 2C1, 2C2, 2S1 and 2S2 model turboshaft engines with an affected a fuel filter pre-blockage pressure switch and “Group 2” engines as the same Safran Helicopter Engines Arriel turboshaft engines not equipped with an affected fuel filter pre-blockage pressure switch. This AD does not define or use “Group 1” or “Group 2” and identifies both the affected engines and the affected fuel filter pre-blockage pressure switch in the Applicability paragraph. This AD does not include Safran Helicopter Engines Arriel 2B1A model turboshaft engines since these engines are not type certificated in the United States.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 775 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued an NPRM that proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to supersede AD 72-14-08R1, Amendment 39-4215 (46 FR 45597, September 14, 1981) (AD 72-14-08 R1), which applies to Cessna Aircraft Company Models 310, 320, 401, 402, 411, and 421 series airplanes. The current type certificate holder for these airplanes is Textron Aviation Inc. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 23, 1990 (55 FR 42726). The FAA subsequently issued an SNPRM, which published on October 22, 1998 (63 FR 56579). The NPRM and SNPRM proposed to:

• Initially retain the requirement of repetitively inspecting the fuel and oil flexible hose lines for leakage or evidence of any damaged or deteriorated hose assembly on all of the affected airplanes, and replacing any discrepant part; and

• eventually require, regardless if damage or deterioration was found, replacing the fuel and oil flexible hose assemblies in the engine compartment with an improved design hose assembly as terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement. For some models, the replacement would have been mandatory and for others it would have been an option instead of continuing the repetitive inspections.

Since issuance of the SNPRM, FAA has not received any reports of fuel and oil flexible hose lines that leak or are damaged and has determined that the repetitive inspections required by AD 72-14-08 R1 address the unsafe condition. Therefore, the FAA determined that further AD action is not warranted and the proposals should be withdrawn.

Withdrawal of the NPRM and SNPRM constitutes only such action and does not preclude the agency from issuing future rulemaking on this issue, nor does it commit the agency to any course of action in the future.

Since this action only withdraws an NPRM and SNPRM, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore, not covered under Executive Order 12866 or the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has issued an NPRM that proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2011 (76 FR 11174). The NPRM was prompted by an incident that occurred where the handle bent prior to the life raft deploying, and this prohibited the crew from successfully deploying and using the life raft. It was determined that the handle in this incident was not manufactured to the approved Type Design.

The NPRM proposed to require removing and replacing the pilot or co-pilot handle located on the left side of the “broom closet” of the helicopter. The proposed actions were intended to address bending of the handle, which could result in failure of the life raft to deploy. This failure could lead to loss of access to the life raft after an emergency ditching on water.

Since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA determined that, based on a review of the design approval holder's records, all of the handles have been replaced, which addresses the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, the FAA determined that AD action is not appropriate.

Withdrawal of the NPRM constitutes only such action and does not preclude the FAA from further rulemaking on this issue, nor does it commit the FAA to any course of action in the future.

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

Upon further consideration, the FAA determined that the NPRM is unnecessary. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn.

Since this action only withdraws an NPRM, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule. This action therefore is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth to support IFR operations at Wilder/Natwick LLC Airport.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-1208; Airspace Docket No. 20-AAL-46”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth at Wilder/Natwick LLC Airport, Port Alsworth, AK.

The Class E airspace would be established within a 2.5 mile radius of the airport beginning at the point the 308° bearing from the airport intersects the 2.5-mile radius clockwise to the point the 79° bearing from the airport intersects the 2.5-mile radius. This area will accommodate circling north of runway 6/24. In addition, this area would include that airspace within a 7.3 mile radius of the airport beginning at the point the 230° bearing from the airport intersects the 7.3-mile radius clockwise to the point the 271° bearing from the airport intersects the 7.3-mile radius. This area would protect aircraft using the RNAV approach to runway 6 and departures until reaching 1,200 feet AGL.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

On September 22, 2020, the Postal Service published a notice of proposed rulemaking (85 FR 59484-59486) to update addressing standards. In response to that proposed rule, the mailing industry provided many valuable comments, which has prompted the Postal Service to issue a revised proposed rule with an additional comment period. The revised proposed rule will clarify our proposal to respond to mailer comments by clearly outlining the ways in which the proposal has changed.

Thirty-five formal responses were received. Several responses expressed concern that the change would create cost increases for lower volume mailers that currently process their lists quarterly and would be required to process more frequently, increasing the cost paid to mail service providers for address matching services. Several responses suggested the 60-day requirement should be increased to 95 days, which coincides with Move Update Standards. Other comments questioned the 60-day requirement from address matching to the mailing date with a product release that is still valid for use beyond that time frame. The remaining comments requested an extension of the comment period.

Currently, DMM section 602.6.0, ZIP Code Accuracy Standards, provides that a ZIP Code TM may be used on a mail piece within 12 months after verified using a Postal Service approved method. Once a ZIP Code is used on a mailpiece, the address associated with that ZIP Code is considered to meet Postal Service addressing standards for an additional 12 months from the date first used in the mail.

DMM sections 602.7.0, Carrier Route Accuracy Standard, and 9.0, Coding Accuracy Support System (CASS), provide that Address Matching and Coding Update standards require coding to be performed within 90 days before the mailing date for carrier route mailings and 180 days for all non-carrier route mailings using the most current USPS database. The current product release schedule allows for use of a database that is valid for 105 days and may be used for an additional 6 months beyond that timeframe. As such, an address added or modified in the Postal Service database may not be updated on a mailer's mailing list for nearly 1 year after the change was made.

In 2012, the Postal Service implemented address management product fulfillment via an electronic product fulfillment method designed to provide subscription products to customers more efficiently. The database product updates are posted each month to a secure site where customers can log in to simply download the product files. A recent survey of licensed Address Management data products indicates that CASS and Multiline Accuracy Support System (MASS) Certified software and service providers are retrieving and using the monthly updates during the address matching and coding processes.

The Postal Service proposed implementing a database product cycle that aligns with the release of other mailing products. This will provide consistency across all mailing products and the method by which the data files are available and distributed.

The suggestion to increase the 60-day requirement to coincide with the 95 days required for Move Update Standards is not within the scope of this proposal.

The updated proposed release schedule allows for 120 days of use and an overlap in dates for product use. Mailers that currently process their lists quarterly would still be compliant as long as they do not mail beyond the “last permissible mailing date” for the “product date” as shown in the USPS Product Cycle in Exhibit 9.3.1. Mailers will be expected to update their systems with the latest data files as soon as practicable and should not wait until the “last permissible use” date.

The Postal Service is proposing to implement this change effective July 1, 2021. However, mailers may opt to use the new monthly update cycles for both carrier route and non-carrier route mailings immediately.

We believe this proposed revision will provide customers with a more efficient process and will reduce the risk of using address information that is not current.

Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comment on the following proposed revisions to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.

We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:

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

Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS to protect human health and public welfare. On October 26, 2015, the EPA revised the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm to provide increased protection of public health and public welfare. 1 In 2006, the EPA revised the PM 2.5 NAAQS, 2 in 2008, the ozone NAAQS, 3 in 2010, the nitrogen dioxide NAAQS, 4 in 2010, the sulfur dioxide NAAQS, 5 and in 2012, the PM 2.5 NAAQS. 6 The primary standards are set to protect human health, while secondary standards are set to protect public welfare.

The CAA requires states to submit, within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIPs that meet the applicable infrastructure elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). This SIP submission is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP” or “i-SIP”. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as prongs, that must be addressed in these infrastructure SIP submissions. These prongs require that states adopt measures that prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. Prong 4 requires states to demonstrate that their SIP contains adequate measures that prohibit emissions from any source within a state from interfering with the visibility protection measures of other states (also referred to as visibility transport).

In EPA's 2013 guidance for states regarding i-SIPs, 7 EPA discussed its interpretation of Prong 4 and its relationship to the Regional Haze program under CAA sections 169A and 169B. EPA suggested two options states may have to demonstrate that the requirements of Prong 4 are met. One way in which Prong 4 may be satisfied for any relevant NAAQS is through confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has an approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. Alternatively, states may submit a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that shows that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other states' plans to protect visibility. The demonstration must show that the state has sufficient measures that have been approved into its SIP that prevent emissions within its jurisdiction from interfering with the visibility protection plans of other states.

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to EPA.

In 2009, EPA designated a portion of the Fairbanks North Star Borough as “nonattainment” for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS of 35 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) (Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area) (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009). 1 Effective July 2, 2014, EPA classified the area as “Moderate” (79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014). Subsequently, Alaska submitted, and the EPA approved, a plan to meet Moderate nonattainment area requirements (82 FR 42457, September 8, 2017) (“Fairbanks Moderate Plan”).

On May 10, 2017, EPA determined that the State failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in the area by the outermost Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015 (82 FR 21711). As a result, the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area was reclassified as a “Serious” nonattainment area by operation of law.

Upon reclassification as a Serious PM 2.5 nonattainment area, the State was required to meet additional SIP requirements for the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. In particular, the State was required to submit a Serious area nonattainment plan satisfying the requirements of CAA title I, part D, including the requirements of subpart 4, for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS and attain the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in the area by no later than the end of the tenth calendar year following designation ( i.e., December 31, 2019). Prior to submitting the Fairbanks Serious Plan, Alaska revised its regulations and planning elements to further limit visible emissions and promote the use of certified heating devices and cleaner burning practices in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area and submitted the revised regulations to EPA on October 25, 2018 and November 28, 2018. 2

Alaska submitted the Fairbanks Serious Plan on December 13, 2019 to address the Serious nonattainment area requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. The Fairbanks Serious Plan includes further changes to heating device and cleaner burning practices regulations, among other control measures and planning elements. The Fairbanks Serious Plan is comprised of revisions to Title 18, Chapter 50, of the Alaska Administrative Code (18 AAC 50) and the State Air Quality Control Plan, adopted and incorporated by reference into State law at 18 AAC 50.030(a). On January 9, 2020, in accordance with section 110(k)(1)(B) and part D of title I of the CAA, EPA determined that the Fairbanks Serious Plan was administratively and technically complete (85 FR 7760, February 11, 2020).

Within the Fairbanks Serious Plan, the State sought an extension of the otherwise applicable attainment date through section 188(e) of the CAA. On September 2, 2020, EPA determined that the area failed to attain by the Serious area attainment date and denied the State's Serious area attainment date extension request (85 FR 54509). As a result, Alaska was required to submit a revised plan to meet additional CAA requirements set forth in section 189(d) of the CAA by December 31, 2020. Alaska submitted the revised plan on December 15, 2020. Alaska's December 15, 2020, submission makes several changes to the State Air Quality Control Plan, adopted and incorporated by reference into State law at 18 AAC 50.030(a). 3 In particular, Alaska made additions to several chapters of the State Air Quality Control Plan, including Chapter III.D.7.12 (“Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan”). Alaska also withdrew and replaced several other chapters. EPA is proposing to approve the base year emissions inventory and the PM 2.5 precursor demonstration elements of the Fairbanks Serious Plan. Alaska did not withdraw these portions of the State Air Quality Control Plan as part of the December 15, 2020, submission. 4 Also, EPA is proposing to approve the updated Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan that was adopted by the State on November 18, 2020 and was submitted on December 15, 2020. EPA will act on the remainder of the December 15, 2020, submission at a later date.

Alaska also made SIP submissions on October 25, 2018 and November 28, 2018 (in addition to the December 13, 2019 submission), requesting EPA approval of specific changes to Alaska Administrative Code Title 18, Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50, Air Quality Control (18 AAC 50) State effective September 15, 2018 and January 8, 2019. The requests included in the October 25, 2018, and November 28, 2018 SIP submissions are discussed in section C of this preamble.

Upon reclassification of a Moderate nonattainment area as a Serious nonattainment area under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA, the Act requires the State to submit a Serious area nonattainment plan that addresses specific requirements. 5 On August 24, 2016, EPA promulgated the final rule entitled, “Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (PM 2.5 SIP Requirements Rule). 6 The PM 2.5 SIP Requirements Rule is codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z. The PM 2.5 SIP Requirements Rule establishes regulatory requirements and provides interpretive guidance on the statutory SIP requirements that apply to states with areas designated nonattainment for the PM 2.5 standards. In accordance with subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA and the PM 2.5 SIP Requirements Rule at 40 CFR 51.1003(b), Serious area nonattainment plans must address the following requirements:

1. Base year emissions inventory meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1));

2. Attainment projected emissions inventory meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(2);

3. Serious area nonattainment plan control strategy meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1010, including provisions to assure that the best available control measures (BACM) and best available control technologies (BACT), for the control of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors are implemented no later than four years after the area is reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));

4. Attainment demonstration and modeling meeting the requirements of CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1011;

5. Reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1012;

6. Quantitative milestones meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013;

7. An evaluation by the state of sources of all four PM 2.5 precursors for regulation, and implementation of controls on all such precursors, unless the state provides a demonstration establishing it is either not necessary to regulate a particular precursor in the nonattainment area at issue in order to attain by the attainment date, or that emissions of the precursor do not make a significant contribution to PM 2.5 levels that exceed the standard;

8. Contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014; and

9. Nonattainment new source review provisions meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(b)(3) and 40 CFR 51.165.

In the Serious area nonattainment plan, states must also satisfy the requirements for Moderate area plans in CAA section 189(a), to the extent the state has not already met those requirements in the Moderate area plan submitted for the area (see CAA section 189(b)(1), 40 CFR 51.1003(b), and 81 FR 58010, 58075, August 24, 2016). In addition, the Serious area nonattainment plan must meet the general requirements applicable to all SIP submissions under section 110 of the CAA, including the requirement to provide necessary assurances that the implementing agencies have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under section 110(a)(2)(E), and the requirements concerning enforcement provisions in section 110(a)(2)(C).

EPA is proposing to approve parts of the Fairbanks Serious Plan as meeting the base year emission inventory requirements and certain optional PM 2.5 precursor demonstration requirements. EPA is also proposing to approve rule revisions and an associated air quality control plan chapter submitted by Alaska into the Federally-approved SIP (SIP strengthening). Therefore, the ensuing evaluation of the Fairbanks Serious Plan focuses on only the statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to these Serious area nonattainment plan provisions. Additionally, we are not evaluating whether the Fairbanks Serious Plan or the December 15, 2020, submission meets the additional planning obligations of CAA section 189(d) or 40 CFR 51.1003(c). We note that EPA approved the nonattainment new source review element of the Fairbanks Serious Plan on August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45419). We will take action on the remaining elements of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and the December 15, 2020, submission at a later date.

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that states submit a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment area as part of a nonattainment plan for such area. EPA discussed the emissions inventory requirements that apply to PM 2.5 nonattainment areas, including Serious area nonattainment plan requirements, in the PM 2.5 SIP Requirements Rule. The EPA codified these requirements in 40 CFR 51.1008. 7 EPA has also issued additional guidance concerning emissions inventories for PM 2.5 nonattainment areas. 8

The base year emissions inventory for a Serious PM 2.5 nonattainment area must be one of the three years for which monitored data were used by EPA to reclassify the area to Serious, or another technically appropriate year justified by the state in its Serious area nonattainment plan SIP submission. 9 The base year emissions inventory should provide a state's best estimate of actual emissions from all sources, i.e., all emissions that contribute to the formation of a particular NAAQS pollutant. The emissions must be either annual total emissions, average-season day emissions, or both, as appropriate for the relevant annual versus 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. In the Serious area plan SIP submission, the state must include a rationale for providing annual or seasonal emission inventories, and justification for the period used for any seasonal emissions calculations. 10

For the PM 2.5 NAAQS, the base year inventory must include direct PM 2.5 emissions, separately reported filterable and condensable PM 2.5 emissions, 11 and emissions of all chemical precursors to the formation of secondary PM 2.5 : nitrogen oxides (NO X ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH 3 ). 12

A state's SIP submission must include documentation explaining how it calculated emissions data for the inventory and be consistent with the data elements required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. In estimating mobile source emissions, a state should use the latest emissions models and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed. States are also required to use EPA's “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors” (“AP-42”) road dust method for calculating re-entrained road dust emissions from paved roads. 13 14

The base year planning emissions inventory for direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors (NO X , SO 2 , VOC, and ammonia) and the documentation for the inventory for the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area are located in Chapter III.D.7.6 (“Emissions Inventory Data”) and Appendix III.D.7.6 of the Fairbanks Serious Plan.

The State developed the inventory using data sources and emission calculation methodologies from the approved Fairbanks PM 2.5 Moderate Plan as its starting point and then updated the emissions totals based on additional source and activity data collected since preparation of that inventory.

The State based the 2013 base year emissions inventory on historical source activity data in calendar year 2013 for all source sectors. For point sources, the State updated emissions data for the 2013 base year emissions inventory based on annual fuel use/process throughput by individual facility and emission unit. 15 The State also included fuel-based ammonia emissions for point sources in the 2013 inventory. Additional home heating survey data collected in winters 2012 through 2015 were used by the State to augment the estimates of residential space heating device/fuel mix and usage in the Moderate Plan based on the singular 2011 Home Heating survey. The State combined this broader sample of survey data to better reflect residential space heating activity within the nonattainment area for calendar year 2013. For both on-road and non-road vehicles, the State used EPA's latest vehicle emissions model, MOVES2014b, to replace emission estimates from the Moderate SIP based on its predecessor, MOVES2010a. Alaska used MOVES2014b emission factors based on local fleet/fuel characteristics and augmented with Fairbanks North Star Borough wintertime vehicle warmup and plug-in emission testing data. On-road vehicle activity (VMT and speeds) was based by the State on 2013 baseline travel demand model outputs from the Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System (FMATS) 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and 2045 MTP. Alaska used the 2014 National Emissions Inventory to represent Source Classification Code (SCC)-level annual emissions for fugitive dust, which were estimated to have no emissions during episodic wintertime conditions.

The 2013 base year emissions inventory in the Fairbanks Serious Plan has its foundations in the emissions inventory development work conducted for the Moderate Plan, which was based on emission estimates for two historical calendar year 2008 episodes (January 23-February 10, 2008 and November 2-17, 2008). The Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and EPA collectively determined that these “seasonal” modeling episodes typify atmospheric/meteorological conditions and source activity/emission patterns within the nonattainment season when ambient PM 2.5 concentrations exceed the standard at design day or high percentile levels. 16 Alaska believes that the average of emissions across the combined 35 days of the two historical episodes are well suited not just for attainment modeling, but also to satisfy seasonal planning inventory requirements. Similar to their development of a base year inventory for their Moderate Area Plan, Alaska used the meteorological scenarios and modeling from 2008 historical episodes as the basis for generating their 2013 base year planning inventory within this Serious SIP as provided in the PM 2.5 SIP Requirements Rule.

Table 1 in this preamble provides a summary of the episodic (24-hour) average inventories in tons per day (tpd) of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors (NO X , SO 2 , VOC, and ammonia) for the 2013 base year.

The 2013 base year emissions inventory meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008. Calendar year 2013 is an appropriate base year for the Fairbanks Serious Plan because it is one of the three years used in the reclassification from a Moderate area to a Serious area. The base year emissions inventory is a seasonal inventory, based on two meteorological episodes exemplifying the range of meteorological conditions that lead to exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS. This is an appropriate temporal scope for a base year emissions inventory where anthropogenic exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS are exclusively in winter.

The emissions inventory is of actual emissions in 2013, as required in the PM 2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and guidance. 17 The emissions inventory also includes separate reporting for filterable and condensible PM 2.5 for the relevant emissions sectors and SCC codes. The base year 2013 emissions inventory is based on methodologies used by the State and vetted by EPA in the Fairbanks Moderate Plan and applied to the new year 2013. Therefore, the inventory reports emissions of point sources consistent with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) and contains the detail and data elements required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. For these reasons, we are proposing to approve the 2013 base year emissions inventory in the Fairbanks Serious Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008.

Under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA and the PM 2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, each state containing a PM 2.5 nonattainment area must evaluate all PM 2.5 precursors for regulation unless, for any given PM 2.5 precursor, the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction that such precursor does not contribute significantly to PM 2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS in the nonattainment area. 18 The provisions of subpart 4 do not define the term “precursor” for purposes of PM 2.5 , nor do they explicitly require the control of any specifically identified PM 2.5 precursor. The statutory definition of “air pollutant,” however, provides that the term “includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term `air pollutant' is used.”  19 EPA has identified SO 2 , NO X , VOCs, and ammonia as precursors to the formation of PM 2.5 . 20 Accordingly, the attainment plan requirements of subpart 4 apply to emissions of all four precursors and direct PM 2.5 from all types of stationary, area, and mobile sources, except as otherwise provided in the Act ( e.g., CAA section 189(e)).

A large number of chemical reactions, often non-linear in nature, can convert gaseous SO 2 , NO X , VOCs, and ammonia to PM 2.5 , making them precursors to PM 2.5 . 21 Formation of secondary PM 2.5 also depends on atmospheric conditions, including solar radiation, temperature, and relative humidity, and the interactions of precursors with particles and with cloud or fog droplets. 22 According to the Fairbanks Serious Plan, total wintertime PM 2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area are a function of both primary PM 2.5 emissions and secondary PM 2.5 formed from precursors (see Chapter III.D.7.8.1-7).

Section 189(e) of the Act requires that the control requirements for major stationary sources of direct PM 10   23 also apply to major stationary sources of PM 10 precursors, except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM 10 levels that exceed the standard in the area. Section 189(e) contains the only express exception to the control requirements under subpart 4 ( e.g., requirements for reasonably available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control technology (RACT), BACM and BACT, Most Stringent Measures (MSM), and New Source Review (NSR) for sources of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions). Although section 189(e) explicitly addresses only major stationary sources, EPA interprets the Act as authorizing it also to determine, under appropriate circumstances, that regulation of specific PM 2.5 precursors from other source categories in a given nonattainment area is not necessary. 24 For example, under EPA's longstanding interpretation of the control requirements that apply to stationary, area, and mobile sources of PM 10 precursors in the nonattainment area under CAA section 172(c)(1) and subpart 4, 25 a state may demonstrate in a SIP submission that control of a certain precursor pollutant is not necessary in light of its insignificant contribution to ambient PM 10 levels in the nonattainment area. 26

Under the PM 2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, a state may elect to submit to EPA a “comprehensive precursor demonstration” for a specific nonattainment area to show that emissions of a particular precursor from all existing sources located in the nonattainment area do not contribute significantly to PM 2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS at issue in the nonattainment in the area. 27 If EPA determines that the contribution of the precursor to PM 2.5 levels in the area is not significant and approves the demonstration, the state is not required to control emissions of the relevant precursor from existing sources in the attainment plan. 28

In addition, in May 2019, EPA issued the “PM 2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance” (“PM 2.5 Precursor Guidance”), which provides recommendations to states for analyzing nonattainment area PM 2.5 emissions and developing such optional precursor demonstrations, consistent with the PM 2.5 SIP Requirements Rule. 29

EPA evaluated the Fairbanks Serious Plan in accordance with the presumption embodied within subpart 4 that the State must address all PM 2.5 precursors in the evaluation and implementation of potential control measures, unless the State adequately demonstrates that emissions of a particular precursor or precursors do not contribute significantly to ambient PM 2.5 levels that exceed the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the nonattainment area. In reviewing any determination by the state to exclude a PM 2.5 precursor from the required evaluation of potential control measures, we considered both the magnitude of the precursor's contribution to ambient PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area and the sensitivity of ambient PM 2.5 concentrations in the area to reductions in emissions of that precursor. 30

Alaska includes its PM 2.5 precursor analysis in Chapter III.D.7.8, section 7.8.12, of the Fairbanks Serious Plan. The State provides both concentration-based and sensitivity-based analyses of precursor contributions to ambient PM 2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. These analyses led the State to conclude that SO 2 and ammonia emissions contribute significantly to ambient PM 2.5 levels that exceed the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area, while NO X and VOCs do not contribute significantly to such exceedances, as discussed below. Consistent with this conclusion, the State focused the control strategy and attainment demonstration on sources of PM 2.5 , SO 2 , and ammonia emissions. Importantly, Alaska's precursor analysis did not address nonattainment NSR requirements. The State made the prior determination to regulate all four EPA-identified legal precursors to PM 2.5 in the nonattainment NSR regulations applicable to the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. The EPA approved Alaska's October 25, 2018, SIP revision as meeting the nonattainment NSR requirements triggered upon reclassification of the area to Serious (August 29, 2019, 84 FR 45419).

Alaska applied a tiered approach to the precursor demonstrations in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. The tiered analysis included: (1) A concentration-based analysis of ambient data; (2) a concentration-based analysis using air quality modeling (zero-out); and (3) sensitivity-based analysis using air quality modeling. For the concentration-based analysis using ambient data, Alaska assessed the contribution of SO 2 , NO X , and ammonia for all four monitor sites between 2011 and 2015 on the highest concentration days. Alaska did not perform a concentration-based analysis using ambient data for VOCs. Through these analyses, Alaska identified that ammonia was a significant precursor in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area.

For the concentration-based analysis using air quality modeling, Alaska utilized version 4.7.1 of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) photochemical model. The modeling relied on many elements from the precursor analysis provided by the State in the Fairbanks Moderate Plan ( e.g., meteorological inputs, emissions processing methods, nested modeling grids).

Alaska performed modeling analyses using both the base year emissions inventory (2013) and the future year emissions inventory (2019) for VOCs and NO X . First, the State evaluated precursor significance using a zero-out approach that compared a baseline model run with a model run where a precursor's emissions were set to zero in order to determine the influence of that precursor on PM 2.5 formation. For VOCs, Alaska performed a single analysis where it zeroed out all anthropogenic VOC emissions. For NO X , Alaska performed two zero-out analyses: One where all anthropogenic NO X emissions were zeroed out and one where only major stationary source NO X emissions were zeroed out. Next, Alaska further evaluated NO X precursor significance through a 75% sensitivity analysis. In this analysis, the State compared a baseline model run with a model run where all anthropogenic NO X emissions were reduced by 75%. Alaska concluded that these analyses showed that VOCs and NO X were not significant precursors in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area.

Alaska performed two SO 2 precursor analyses using modeling elements from the Moderate Area Plan and updated baseline and future year emission inventories, as described previously in this preamble for the VOC and NO X modeling. Alaska first performed a zero-out analysis where it zeroed out major stationary source SO 2 emissions. To address concerns about model underprediction of secondary sulfate, Alaska next performed an analysis that incorporated the base case model performance evaluation to estimate the impact of removing all major stationary source SO 2 emissions. Based on these analyses, Alaska concluded that SO 2 was a significant precursor in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area.

Additionally, on March 18, 2020, Alaska provided clarifications on the precursor analyses, included in the docket for this action. Included in these clarifications were further calculations projecting NO X significance at a 50% sensitivity level ( i.e., the comparison of a baseline model run with a model run including a 50% reduction of all anthropogenic NO X emissions).

EPA has evaluated the State's precursor demonstration for the Serious area nonattainment plan consistent with the PM 2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and the recommendations in the PM 2.5 Precursor Guidance. Additional details of EPA's evaluation of Alaska's precursor PM 2.5 analyses are included in a Technical Support Document included in the docket for this action. 31 Based on this evaluation, EPA agrees that SO 2 and ammonia emissions contribute significantly to ambient PM 2.5 levels that exceed the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area and that SO 2 and ammonia emission sources, therefore, remain subject to control requirements under subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the Act.

For the reasons provided in this preamble and further detailed in the Technical Support Document, EPA proposes to approve the State's demonstration that NO X and VOC emissions do not contribute significantly to ambient PM 2.5 levels that exceed the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. Our proposed approval of Alaska's precursor demonstration does not extend to nonattainment NSR requirements for the area. The State did not address the issue of precursors for purposes of nonattainment NSR requirements in the Fairbanks Serious Plan because Alaska previously determined that it was appropriate to regulate NO X , SO 2 , VOCs, and ammonia as precursors to PM 2.5 with respect to nonattainment NSR and submitted rule changes to that effect on October 25, 2018. The EPA approved the submitted revised program as meeting nonattainment NSR requirements triggered upon reclassification of the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area to Serious (84 FR 45419, August 29, 2019).

Regarding the State's analytical approach, EPA proposes to find that the State used the appropriate methods and data to evaluate PM 2.5 formation in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area from precursor emissions. Alaska began with concentration-based analyses for the precursors and proceeded with sensitivity-based analyses if necessary, which is an acceptable progression of analyses under the PM 2.5 SIP Requirements Rule. The State utilized the appropriate threshold recommended in the EPA's guidance (1.5 μg/m 3 ) in evaluating the significance of precursor emissions to the formation of 24-hour PM 2.5 and utilized data from all four monitors in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area.

Regarding the results of the State's analysis, the concentration-based modeling (Alaska's second tier precursor) analysis of VOC emissions demonstrates that anthropogenic VOCs have impacts on PM 2.5 concentrations in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area that are well below the 1.5 μg/m 3 significance threshold. Therefore, we propose to concur with the State's conclusion that VOCs are not significant for PM 2.5 formation in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area.

Further, we propose to find that the weight of evidence presented in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Alaska's March 18, 2020, clarification document suggests that NO X emitted from all sources is an insignificant contributor to local PM 2.5 concentrations, based on the following evidence. First, the NO X 100% major stationary source reduction analysis demonstrated that NO X emissions are insignificant contributors to PM 2.5 concentrations at the four monitor locations. Second, the NO X 75% all source reduction sensitivity analysis demonstrated that only 10% of the modeled days showed significant contributions of NO X to PM 2.5 concentrations at the Fairbanks monitors, and no days with significant contributions at the North Pole monitors. Third, the 75% all source reduction sensitivity analysis was conservative given that EPA guidance recommends evaluation of 30-70% reductions of the pollutant for analytical purposes. 32 Lastly, Alaska's projected 50% reduction of NO X from all sources sensitivity analysis suggested there would be insignificant contributions from NO X to PM 2.5 concentrations on all modeled days at all monitors. Most of these days would have NO X contributions to PM 2.5 concentrations well below the 1.5 μg/m 3 significance threshold.

In the October 25, 2018, November 28, 2018, and December 13, 2019 submissions, Alaska requested EPA approval of specific changes to Alaska Administrative Code Title 18, Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50, Air Quality Control (18 AAC 50) State effective September 15, 2018, January 8, 2019, and January 12, 2020. The requests included in the October 25, 2018 and November 28, 2018 SIP submissions ( i.e., not the Fairbanks Serious Plan submission (December 13, 2019)) are noted below. The State adopted these regulatory revisions to strengthen the existing Alaska SIP and to meet the new Serious area planning requirements for BACM for certain source categories.

This evaluation section discusses how the submitted rule revisions strengthen the current, Federally-approved SIP and why the EPA believes the rules are approvable. As such, our discussion focuses on the most recently submitted change to any particular rule provision. EPA is proposing to approve the submitted revisions to 18 AAC 50 and Volume III, Section III.D.7.12 of the State Air Quality Control Plan (the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan) as SIP strengthening and is not proposing to determine whether the submitted revisions satisfy, in whole or in part, the control strategy requirements in CAA section 189 and 40 CFR 51.1010 nor the contingency measure requirements in CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. 33

In the submissions, Alaska repealed and readopted 18 AAC 50.030, the rule section into which all State air quality control provisions are adopted by reference. The revised version of the rule section contains two distinct paragraphs: Paragraph (a) adopts the State Air Quality Control Plan by reference into State rules; and paragraph (b) requires that sources subject to specific control measures and technologies in the State Air Quality Control Plan comply with those requirements. Alaska only submitted paragraph (b) to EPA for SIP approval. 34

Paragraph (b) makes clear that any source subject to Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), Best Available Control Measures (BACM), and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) under the State Air Quality Control Plan must comply with those applicable requirements. RACT, BACM, and BACT are terms defined in the Clean Air Act and in the EPA's implementing regulations, and Alaska has adopted these Federal definitions by reference into State regulation at 18 AAC 50.990. 35 Please see Section D.2.G in this preamble for further discussion.

The addition of paragraph (b) improves the enforceability of State-adopted control measures, including those adopted for sources subject to RACT, BACM, and BACT in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. This enables Alaska to ensure that emission control measures as RACT, BACM, and BACT in the State Air Quality Control Plan are adopted and implemented. However, EPA's proposed approval of 18 AAC 50.030(b) does not constitute a proposed determination regarding whether the control measures the State identified as BACM or BACT in the Fairbanks Serious Plan satisfy, in whole or in part, the control strategy requirements in CAA section 189 and 40 CFR 51.1010. Therefore, we are proposing to approve and incorporate 18 AAC 50.030(b) by reference into the Alaska SIP.

Solid fuel-fired heating device visible emissions standards are found in 18 AAC 50.075. Alaska submitted revisions to paragraph (e) that clarify and strengthens the compliance requirements associated with PM 2.5 air episode declaration that prohibits operation of solid fuel-fired heating devices. To comply, operators must withhold fuel from the device and ensure that burning has ceased within three hours of the effective time of the declaration. The changes to paragraph (e) make clear how to comply with such an air episode declaration and thus strengthen this rule section. Therefore, we propose to approve and incorporate by reference this change to 18 AAC 50.075.

Alaska also added paragraph (f) to 18 AAC 50.075. Paragraph (f) establishes a 20 percent opacity limit applicable in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area, regardless of whether the State has called an air episode. This limit is similar to the 20 percent opacity limit established in Fairbanks North Star Borough ordinance 2015-01, adopted into the Alaska SIP and approved by the EPA as part of the Fairbanks Moderate Plan on September 8, 2017 (82 FR 42457). We are deferring action on paragraph (f) because we intend to address it in a separate action.

The current version of 18 AAC 50.076 in the Alaska SIP requires commercial wood sellers serving the Fairbanks North Star Borough to register with Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, if the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area is reclassified from Moderate to Serious. On May 10, 2017, the EPA reclassified the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area to Serious, effective June 9, 2017, therefore mandating wood seller registration. Because this provision has been triggered by the reclassification to Serious and is now in effect, Alaska removed the trigger language.

The revisions to this rule section also require that registered commercial wood sellers serving the Fairbanks North Star Borough conduct moisture testing in accordance with this rule. Furthermore, the requirements become more stringent on October 1, 2021. Upon that date and going forward, commercial wood sellers serving the Fairbanks North Star Borough must ensure all dry wood is processed and monitored so as to remain dry, and may sell wet wood only if certain conditions designed to prevent burning of the wet wood are met. These conditions include minimum size requirements, moisture disclosure requirements, and a confirmation from the seller in writing that a buyer is capable of drying the wood by the next winter season. Wood sellers must document and report periodically on these practices and those that fail to comply will be subject to remedial training, a notice of violation, revocation of their registration, and/or enforcement action. Non-commercial wood sellers are prohibited from selling wet wood in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. These rule revisions constitute more stringent requirements for wood sellers, so we are approving these revisions as SIP strengthening.

Consistent with our prior action on September 8, 2017, we propose to approve but not incorporate by reference the enforcement provision at paragraph (g)(11) to avoid conflict with the EPA's independent authorities (82 FR 42457).

Wood-fired heating device standards are found in 18 AAC 50.077. The State submitted changes to this section that require removal of unapproved and uncertified wood-fired heating devices when residences are sold and leased, prevent the installation of wood-fired heating devices as the primary heat source in new construction, and restrict the sale and advertising of devices that do not meet the stricter standards. In addition, Alaska revised the regulations regarding non-certified device removal upon sale of property and a mandatory dry wood compliance program. Prior to these revisions, these regulations became effective only upon an EPA determination that, among other things, the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area failed to attain the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date. EPA made such a determination on May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21711). Accordingly, Alaska revised the regulation to remove the now-irrelevant contingency language and to make these regulations fully effective.

Within the new wood-fired heating device standards, Alaska included a new rule section, 18 AAC 50.077(n) that adopted two contingency measures that will be triggered upon any of the determinations listed in 40 CFR 51.1014(a). The first measure requires owners of older EPA-certified wood fired heating devices with an emission rating above 2.0 grams per hour (g/hr), manufactured 25 years prior to the effective date of an EPA finding that triggers this measure, to remove the device upon the sale of a property or by December 31, 2024, whichever is earlier. The second measure requires owners of EPA-certified devices that were manufactured less than 25 years prior to the EPA finding to remove the device prior to reaching 25 years from the date of manufacture. Control measures targeting the older EPA certified devices will provide additional emission reduction benefits beyond Alaska's current home heating control measures. Estimates of the projected emissions reductions attributable to these measures are included in the docket for this proposed action. These measures impose more stringent requirements on owners of solid-fuel heating devices in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area, so we propose to approve these measures as SIP strengthening.

Therefore, we propose to approve and incorporate 18 AAC 50.077(n) by reference into the Alaska SIP. As stated previously, however, we are not proposing to determine whether the submitted revisions to this rule satisfy, in whole or in part, the control strategy requirements in CAA section 189 and 40 CFR 51.1010 or the contingency measure requirements in CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. Upon final approval, the Alaska SIP will incorporate 18 AAC 50.077 by reference, State effective January 8, 2020, except paragraphs (g) and (q). These paragraphs were not submitted for approval.

Alaska submitted a new rule section, 18 AAC 50.078, designed to limit the sulfur content of fuel oil used in oil-fired equipment such as residential space heaters. This limit applies after September 1, 2022. We propose to approve and incorporate 18 AAC 50.078(a) and (b) by reference into the Alaska SIP because these measures constitute more stringent standards on fuel sulfur content in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area than what is currently in the SIP. In addition, 18 AAC 50.078(c) and 18 AAC 50.078(d) include new requirements for small area sources of PM 2.5 including commercial charbroilers, commercial incinerators, commercial used oil burners, and commercial coffee roasters. We are deferring action on 18 AAC 50.078(c) and 18 AAC 50.078(d).

Alaska added a new rule section, 18 AAC 50.079, to address emissions from coal-fired heating devices and submitted follow-up revisions to this rule section. The regulation at 18 AAC 50.079 prohibits a person who owns or operates a coal-fired heating device from installing or reinstalling, supplying, selling, leasing, distributing, conveying, or advertising for sale within the nonattainment area. Coal-fired heating devices must be rendered inoperable when properties change hands or no later than December 31, 2024.

We note that this provision includes two exemptions, at paragraphs (d) and (e). Alaska submitted paragraph (d) for approval. This paragraph exempts devices that have passed approved wintertime emission source tests from certain requirements. The emission source test must be approved by ADEC, use a Federally approved method (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, Method 5), and the maximum emission rate for any individual test run does not exceed 18 g/hr of total particulate matter. We have reviewed the exemption under 18 AAC 50.079(d) and find it to be appropriately bounded, with specific criteria for an exemption. Alaska did not submit paragraph 18 AAC 50.079(e) for approval.

In this action, we propose to approve and incorporate the submitted revisions to 18 AAC 50.079 by reference into the Alaska SIP. These revisions constitute more stringent standards for owners and operators of coal-fired heating devices than what is currently in the SIP. Accordingly, EPA proposes to approve these measures as SIP strengthening. Upon final approval, the Alaska SIP will include 18 AAC 50.079, except paragraph (e).

The submissions revised 18 AAC 50.990 to update several air quality definitions. Alaska clarified the definition of “particulate matter” for the purpose of meeting the wood-fired heating device emissions standards established in 18 AAC 50.077. 36 For this purpose, “particulate matter” corresponds with the definition in 40 CFR 60.531, subpart AAA Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, and includes total particulate matter, as defined in that federal provision. Alaska DEC also revised the definition of “solid fuel-fired heating device” to make clear that certain dual-purpose centralized heat distribution systems are excluded from this definition. 37

As discussed previously in this document, the submissions revised the Alaska SIP to adopt by reference the federal definitions of “RACT”, “BACM”, and “BACT”, as of July 1, 2017. 38 “RACT” is defined as the federal definition in 40 CFR 51.100(o), “BACM” is defined as the definition in 40 CFR 51.1000, and “BACT” is defined as the definition in 40 CFR 52.21(b), except that it is limited to the nonattainment pollutant and its defined precursors as they apply in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area.

Alaska DEC also added definitions for the terms “catalytic oxidizer”, “charbroiler”, “chain-driven charbroiler”, and “used oil” to support the new information collection requirements for small area sources in 18 AAC 50.078. 39

The added and revised definitions in 18 AAC 50.990 are consistent with Clean Air Act requirements, therefore, we propose to approve and incorporate the submitted revised definitions by reference into the Alaska SIP.

EPA approved the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan as meeting certain Moderate area control strategy requirements on September 8, 2017 (82 FR 42457). EPA subsequently approved the plan for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS (November 28, 2018, 83 FR 60769). Alaska revised the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan and submitted the updated plan as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan submission on December 13, 2019. However, EPA did not act on the Fairbanks Serious Plan version, and Alaska has since revised the Emergency Episode Plan and submitted the updates for approval on December 15, 2020. EPA's most recent approval of the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan (Volume II, Section III.D.5.11) occurred on June 5, 2019 (84 FR 26019).

As noted previously, on December 15, 2020, Alaska submitted an updated Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan as it applies to the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area (Volume II, Section III.D.7.12). Generally, the submitted plan strengthens the solid fuel burning device curtailment program implemented via 18 AAC 50.075(e) and makes the control measures within this emissions source category more stringent. The submitted plan includes lower (more stringent) thresholds for air quality episodes and advisory/alerts, along with updated exceptions that have a limited duration and incentivize upgrading heating devices.

In particular, Alaska revised the Air Quality Episode Thresholds and Exceptions used to declare the two-stage curtailment program. Both of the alert stages were lowered by 5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) in this submission. The Stage 1 Air Alert requires solid fuel burning devices to cease operation once PM 2.5 concentrations exceed 20 μg/m 3 . 40 The Emergency Episode Plan provides an exception during periods of power outage (Volume II, Section III.D.7.12, Table 7.12-1). Otherwise, operation of a solid fuel burning device during an air quality episode is prohibited unless the device qualifies for a temporary waiver. Operation of a solid fuel burning device during the Stage 1 Air Alert is allowed only if the device meets certain qualifications and conditions (see Volume II, Section III.D.7.12, Table 7.12-6 of the Fairbanks Serious Plan). Specifically, the waiver is limited in duration and requires older devices to be replaced in order to maintain the waiver. The Stage 2 Air Alert requires solid fuel burning devices to cease operation once PM 2.5 concentrations rise above 30 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ). Waivers for Stage 1 and Stage 2 Alerts are provided for a device owner or operator that qualifies for a No Other Adequate Source of Heat (NOASH) waiver (see Volume II, Section III.D.7.12, Table 7.12-5 of the Fairbanks Serious Plan), but these waivers are also limited in duration and require older devices to be replaced in order to maintain the waiver. The Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan included in the December 15, 2020, submission includes a control measure that will take effect upon an EPA finding under 40 CFR 51.1014(a) (“Stage 2 Air Alert Contingency Measure”). If triggered, the control measure will lower the Stage 2 Air Alert threshold from 30 μg/m 3 to 25 μg/m 3 . See Table 1 below.

The Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan also includes Air Advisories that allow Alaska to request voluntary curtailment actions prior to reaching PM 2.5 concentrations that trigger the Air Alerts and mandatory curtailment requirements. Air Advisories are declared when PM 2.5 concentrations exceed 15 μg/m 3 (24-hour rolling average). The Air Advisory was lowered by 5 μg/m 3 in this submission. See Table 2 below.

Alaska's revisions to the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan improve the State's ability to implement the solid fuel burning device curtailment program via 18 AAC 50.075(e) and make the related control measures more stringent. Specifically, the revised PM 2.5 thresholds for the two-stage program will result in reduced emissions from solid fuel burning devices, particularly during the winter months. Therefore, we propose to approve and incorporate Volume II, Section III.D.7.12 of the State Air Quality Control Plan by reference into the Alaska SIP. As stated earlier, EPA is proposing to approve the Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan as SIP strengthening and is not proposing to determine whether the Plan satisfies, in whole or in part, the control strategy requirements in CAA section 189 and 40 CFR 51.1010 or the contingency measure requirements in CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014.

In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the submitted revisions to the Alaska SIP as meeting the following Serious Plan required elements for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS Fairbanks Nonattainment Area:

• The 2013 base year emissions inventory (CAA section 172(c)(3); 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1));

• The State's PM 2.5 precursor demonstration for NO X and VOC emissions (CAA section 189(e) 40 CFR 51.1006(a)); and

The EPA is proposing to approve the submitted sections of the Alaska Air Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area, State effective January 8, 2020:

• Volume II Section III.D.7.06 and Volume III Section III.D.7.06 Emissions Inventory for purposes of the 2013 base year emissions inventory;

• Volume II Section III.D.7.08 Precursor Demonstration, for the purposes of NO X and VOC emissions as it relates to BACM/BACT control measure requirements; and

Further, the EPA is proposing to approve the submitted section of the Alaska Air Quality Control Plan for the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area, State effective December 25, 2020:

• Volume II Section III.D.7.12, Emergency Episode Plan. 41

EPA is also proposing to approve and incorporate by reference submitted regulatory changes into the Alaska SIP. EPA is not at this time proposing to determine whether these provisions also meet other Serious area nonattainment plan requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. Upon final approval, the Alaska SIP will include:

• 18 AAC 50.030, except (a), State effective January 12, 2018;

• 18 AAC 50.075, except (d)(2) and (f), State effective January 8, 2020;

• 18 AAC 50.076, except (g)(11), State effective January 8, 2020;

• 18 AAC 50.077, except (g) and (q), State effective January 8, 2020;

• 18 AAC 50.078, except (c) and (d), State effective January 8, 2020;

• 18 AAC 50.079, except (e), State effective January 8, 2020; and

• 18 AAC 50.990(71), (138), (149), (150), (151), (152), (153), (154), and (155), State effective January 8, 2020.

EPA is soliciting public comments on these proposed actions.

In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the regulations described in Section IV of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed 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 Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide the 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).

The SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. This proposed action 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).

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

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On August 6, 2020, the submittal for ICAPCD Rule 400.6 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

There are no previous versions of Rule 400.6 in the SIP.

Emissions of NO X contribute to the production of ground-level ozone, smog, and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control NO X emissions. Rule 400.6 is a new rule that limits NO X emissions in the ICAPCD from natural gas-fired water heaters rated less than 75,000 Btu/hr. 1 The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).

Generally, SIP rules must require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for each major source of NO X in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)). The ICAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as Moderate for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR 81.305) (84 FR 58641). However, because this rule does not affect major sources, it does not need to implement section 182(b)(2) RACT. While section 182(b)(2) RACT does not apply, the Imperial County ozone nonattainment area is still subject to the SIP requirement to implement all reasonably available control measures (RACM) and attainment of the NAAQS.

Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

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

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted to the EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB or “the State”).

On May 18, 1994, the submittal of SJVAPCD Rule 2021 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

There is no previous version of Rule 2021 in the SIP. SJVAPCD submitted Rule 2021 on November 18, 1993 as part of the District's revised NSR program. The District has not submitted any revised versions since the most recent submittal. On October 3, 2017, the District provided additional information in support of Rule 2021. The rule provides limited exemptions to the SJVAPCD's current program for preconstruction review and permitting of new or modified stationary sources under its jurisdiction.

Rule 2021 exempts experimental research operations from Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate requirements as long as the facility meets all other rule requirements. Otherwise the source would be required to comply with Rule 2010— Permits Required. The District defines Experimental Research Operations as “any air pollution control device or technology or any industrial process or technology with reduced emissions which is: Innovative, not in common use for a particular process, not readily available from a commercial supplier, or funded as original research by a public agency.” The District determined that emissions from Experimental Research Operations exempted from permitting requirements pursuant to Rule 2021 will not adversely affect progress toward attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS.

The EPA reviewed Rule 2021 for compliance with the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) and associated regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-164. We also reviewed the rule for consistency with other CAA general requirements for SIP submittals, including requirements at section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding rule enforceability, and requirements at sections 110(l) and 193 for SIP revisions.

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires each SIP to include a program to regulate the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the SIP as necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-51.164 provide specific programmatic requirements to implement this statutory mandate.

Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires that regulations submitted to the EPA for SIP approval must be clear and legally enforceable. Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits the EPA from approving any SIP revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Section 193 of the Act prohibits the modification of a SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990 in a nonattainment area, unless the modification ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of the relevant pollutant(s). With respect to procedures, CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) require that a state conduct reasonable notice and hearing before adopting a SIP revision.

With respect to procedural requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing. Based on our review of the public process documentation included in the November 18, 1993 submittal of Rule 2021, we find that the SJVAPCD has provided sufficient evidence of public notice, opportunity for comment and a public hearing prior to adoption and submittal of these rules to the EPA.

With respect to the substantive requirements found in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and (C), 110(l), 193, and 40 CFR 51.160-51.164, we evaluated Rule 2021 in accordance with the applicable CAA and regulatory requirements that apply to new source review permit programs. The permit exemption provided for experimental research operations is extremely narrow in scope, such that the emissions not subject to permit requirements are not expected to interfere with attainment or RFP. Therefore we find that Rule 2021 satisfies these requirements.

Our Technical Support Document, which can be found in the docket for this rulemaking, contains a more detailed discussion of our analysis.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is proposing to approve the submitted rule because it fulfills all relevant CAA requirements. We have concluded that our approval of the submitted rule would comply with the relevant provisions of CAA sections 110(a)(2), 110(l), and 193, and 40 CFR 51.160-51.164.

If we finalize this action as proposed, our action will be codified through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220a (Identification of plan-in part).

We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until March 24, 2021.

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the rule listed in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document available through https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, 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 the 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).

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

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this action with the dates that they were adopted by the MCAQMD and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Governor's designee for California SIP submittals.

This proposed action serves as our formal determination that the submittal for Rules 1-220 and 1-230 meets the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V.

On July 3, 2017, the EPA finalized approval of Rule 1-230 and limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 1-220. 82 FR 30770.

On July 3, 2017, we listed the following two deficiencies in our final limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 1-220:

• Rule 1-220 does not contain any provisions specifying that required air quality modeling shall be based on the applicable models, databases, and other requirements specified in Part 51 Appendix W; therefore, the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(f) and 51.166(l) have not been met.

• The requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(r)(2)  1 have not been met because the rule does not include the necessary information about a source's obligations.

The District addressed the first deficiency by adding provisions to Rule 1-220 and addressed the second deficiency by revising Rule 1-230.

Rules 1-220 and 1-230 contain the requirements for review and permitting of individual stationary sources in the MCAQMD. The amended sections of these rules satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for the New Source Review (NSR) program, including the PSD program. The changes the District made to the rules listed above as they pertain to the PSD program were largely administrative in nature and provide additional clarity to the rules. 2

The EPA reviewed the revised portions of Rules 1-220 and 1-230 for compliance with the CAA's general requirements for SIPs in CAA section 110(a)(2), the EPA's regulations for stationary source permitting programs in 40 CFR part 51, 51.160-51.164 and 51.166, and the CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l). The EPA is proposing approval of Rules 1-220: New Source Review Standards (Including PSD Evaluations) and 1-230: Action on Applications.

With respect to procedural requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing. Based on our review of the public process documentation included in the August 10, 2020 submittal of the MCAQMD Rules 1-220 and 1-230, we find that the MCAQMD has provided sufficient evidence of public notice, opportunity for comment and a public hearing prior to adoption and submittal of these rules to the EPA.

We have determined that the revised sections of the rules satisfy all of the statutory and regulatory requirements for a PSD permit program as set forth in the applicable provisions of Part C of Title I of the Act and in 40 CFR part 51, 51.160-51.164 and 51.166. The revisions to these rules address and correct the limited disapproval issues from our July 3, 2017 final action.

Our Technical Support Document, which can be found in the docket for this rule, contains a more detailed discussion and analysis of the approval criteria and the District's submittal.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is proposing to approve the submitted rules because they correct the previously identified deficiencies and fulfill all relevant CAA requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until March 24, 2021. If we finalize this action as proposed, our action will be codified through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220a (Identification of plan-in part).

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the MCAQMD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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 Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, 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 the 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).

The Guam and CNMI bottomfish fisheries target an assemblage, or complex, of 13 bottomfish management unit species (BMUS), including emperors, snappers, groupers, and jacks. NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) manage the bottomfish fisheries in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (generally 3-200 nautical miles (nm) from shore) around Guam and the CNMI through the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Mariana Archipelago (FEP), under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The FEP contains a process for the Council and NMFS to specify ACLs, ACTs, and AMs, codified at 50 CFR 665.4.

The regulations require NMFS to specify an ACL and AM for each stock and stock complex of management unit species, as recommended by the Council, and considering the best available scientific, commercial, and other information about the fishery. If a fishery exceeds an ACL, the regulations require the Council to take action, which may include reducing the ACL for the subsequent fishing year by the amount of the overage, or other appropriate action. The specification of an ACT, which is set below the ACL, can help ensure that the catch does not exceed the ACL. When used, an ACT also serves as the basis for invoking accountability measures.

The Council and NMFS manage bottomfish as a single multi-species stock complex that is assessed as one unit whether the fish are in territorial or Federal waters. As a result, while most fishing for BMUS occurs in territorial waters, generally from the shoreline out to 3 nm, catches from both territorial waters and Federal waters around the territories would be counted towards the specified ACT and ACL that applies only to Federal waters.

The Council recommended that NMFS specify ACLs for BMUS in Guam at 27,000 lb (12,247 kg) for each fishing year 2020-2022 and in the CNMI at 84,000 lb (38,102 kg) for each fishing year 2020-2023. The 2020 fishing year ended December 31, 2020. The Council also recommended an ACT of 78,000 lb (35,380 kg) for CNMI BMUS for the same period. The fishing year for bottomfish in the Mariana Islands is the calendar year. The Council based its recommendations on a 2019 benchmark stock assessment by the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC), and in consideration of the best available scientific, commercial, and other information about the fishery, and in accordance with the ACL process set forth in the FEP.

NMFS proposes to implement the Council's recommended AM to Guam and CNMI BMUS, which is to apply a three-year average catch to evaluate fishery performance against the ACLs and in the event of overage to adjust the ACL and or ACT for the subsequent year. Specifically, under the proposed AMs, NMFS and the Council would use the average catch of the past three fishing years to evaluate fishery performance against the ACL for a particular fishery. At the end of each fishing year, if NMFS and the Council determine that the average catch of the past three years for any fishery exceeds the specified ACL, NMFS would, by separate rulemaking, reduce the ACL in the subsequent year for that fishery by the amount of the overage. NMFS may also specify an ACT that is below the ACL, as recommended by the Council. When used, the ACT serves as the basis for invoking the AM. For CNMI, the ACT would also be subject to the same adjustment as the ACL for the subsequent fishing year. If the average catch from the most recent three-year period exceeds the ACT but remains below the ACL, then an overage adjustment would not be applied.

The 2019 stock assessment concluded that, in 2017, the Guam BMUS stock was overfished, but not subject to overfishing. NMFS adopted the findings of the assessment and notified the Council in February 2020. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to prepare and implement an FEP, FEP amendment, or proposed regulations to rebuild the stock within two years of that notification (that is, by February 2022). Thus, the proposed Guam ACL will cover the period of 2021 through 2022, during which time the Council will develop the necessary action to rebuild the stock.

The 2019 stock assessment estimated the overfishing limit for Guam BMUS to be 36,000 lb (16,329 kg). The proposed Guam ACL corresponds to a 31 percent probability of overfishing, which is more conservative than the 50 percent risk threshold allowed under NMFS guidelines for National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (NS1). It is likely that annual catch in 2020 through 2022 would not only approach the proposed ACL, but the three-year average of catch would exceed the proposed ACL. If the catch exceeds the three-year average, then the proposed post-season adjustment would be implemented to reduce the ACL in the subsequent year. The proposed ACLs and AMs are meant to prevent overfishing in accordance with NS1. ACLs designed to rebuild Guam bottomfish will be part of a subsequent Council rebuilding plan.

The 2019 stock assessment also concluded that in 2017 the CNMI BMUS stock was not overfished and did not experience overfishing. The assessment estimated the overfishing limit for CNMI BMUS to be 98,000 lb (44,452 kg). The CNMI ACL and ACT correspond to 39 percent and 34 percent probability of overfishing, respectively, which are more conservative than the 50 percent risk threshold allowed under NMFS guidelines for NS1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS does not anticipate that the CNMI fishery will reach the proposed ACT or ACL in any fishing year, nor will fishing for bottomfish be constrained during the fishing year.

NMFS will consider public comments on this proposed rule and will announce the final ACLs, ACTs, and AMs in the Federal Register . NMFS must receive any comments by the date provided in the DATES heading. NMFS may not consider any comments not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date. Regardless of the final ACLs, ACTs and AMs, all other management measures will continue to apply in the fisheries.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed action is consistent with the FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the proposed action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule.

The proposed rule would implement ACLs, ACTs, and AMs for the bottomfish in Guam and the CNMI. These measures would apply in 2020-2022 for Guam and in 2020-2023 for the CNMI. The Council recommended the proposed measures based on the most recent stock assessment for bottomfish in Guam and the CNMI, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and in accordance with the ACL process set forth in the FEP.

For the CNMI, NMFS proposes an ACL of 84,000 lb (38,102 kg), which is associated with a 39 percent risk of overfishing, which is more conservative than the 50 percent threshold allowed by the NS1 guidelines. The proposed ACL is a 63 percent reduction from the 228,000 lb (103,419 kg) ACL set in 2016 and 2017. This reduction is based on the most recent stock assessment, which incorporated several changes that resulted in markedly different outputs compared to the previous assessment that informed the 2016 and 2017 ACL. As described in the 2019 stock assessment and discussed at the October 2019 Council meeting, these changes included using a new species list, filtering data in a new way, and standardizing data for covariates that may affect the catch rate. NMFS did not specify ACLs for 2018 and 2019 while the Council and NMFS completed Amendment 5 to the FEP, which reclassified certain management unit species as ecosystem component species. Taking into account social, economic, and ecological considerations and management uncertainty, NMFS proposes to set an ACT at 78,000 lb (35,380 kg), which is associated with a 34 percent risk of overfishing.

For Guam, NMFS proposes an ACL of 27,000 lb (12,247 kg), which is associated with a 31 percent risk of overfishing and is a 59 percent reduction from the 66,000 lb (29,937 kg) ACL set in 2016 and 2017. Like in the CNMI, this reduction is based on the most recent stock assessment, which incorporated several changes that resulted in markedly different outputs compared to the previous assessment. Additionally, according to the recent stock assessment, the stock is overfished, but not subject to overfishing. The previous assessment indicated the stock was fished at sustainable levels. NMFS adopted the findings of the assessment and so notified the Council in February 2020. ACLs designed to rebuild will be part of the Council's rebuilding plan.

The fishing year for bottomfish in Guam and the CNMI begins January 1 and ends December 31. NMFS would count bottomfish catches from both territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone toward the ACL and ACT. Because real-time catch data are not currently available for this fishery, the Council and NMFS consider post-season AMs only. Specifically, for Guam, if NMFS and the Council determine that the average catch from the most recent three-year period exceeds the ACL, NMFS would reduce the ACL in the subsequent fishing years by the amount of the overage. For the CNMI, if NMFS and the Council determine that the average catch from the most recent three-year period exceeds the ACL, NMFS would reduce the ACL and ACT in the subsequent fishing year by the amount of the overage. If the average catch from the most recent three-year period exceeds the ACT, but is below the ACL, NMFS would not apply a post-season AM.

The bottomfish fisheries in Guam and the CNMI share many similarities in terms of gear, fishing methods, and species targeted. Many people who participate in the bottomfish fishery are either subsistence or part-time commercial fishermen, and they generally do not sell all of their catch. The majority of fishermen operate vessels less than 25 ft long, but a few longer vessels also participate in the fishery. Commercial vessels tend to concentrate effort on deepwater bottomfish at offshore banks, but they face higher operating costs than the shallow-water fishery operating closer to shore. In addition to sales to seafood dealers, some bottomfish sales are within community social networks.

In Guam, the number of vessels landing BMUS increased from 29 vessels in 2012 to 52 vessels in 2019. Annual BMUS catch is variable, but has been trending upwards over the past eight years, ranging from a low of 10,882 lb (4,936 kg) in 2015 to a high of 37,701 lb (17,101 kg) in 2019. The annual catch for three out of the last eight years has exceeded the proposed ACL, and the average annual catch from 2017 to 2019 was 26,906 lb (12,204 kg), which is 99.6 percent of the proposed ACL. Data on the amount sold and revenue in 2019 are not available due to confidentiality requirements. Applying the 2018 percent sold (11 percent) and price per pound ($5.05) to the 2019 estimated catch, yields a projection that 4,147 lb (1,881 kg) was sold in 2019 with an estimated revenue of $20,942.

In the CNMI, the number of vessels landing BMUS has fluctuated from a high of 51 vessels in 2005 to a low of two vessels in 2018. In 2019, eight vessels landed BMUS. The average annual catch of BMUS from 2017 to 2019 was 23,223 lb (10,534 kg). In 2019, the fishery landed 21,012 lb (9,531 kg), which is 27 percent of the ACL and 30 percent of the ACT, respectively, so the fishery is unlikely to reach the ACL or ACT in future years. We estimate that the 2019 revenue for this fishery was $35,840.

NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all vessels engaging in the Guam and CNMI commercial and non-commercial bottomfish fisheries (NAICS Code: 114111) are small entities. That is, they are engaged in the business of finfish harvesting, independently owned or operated, not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, NMFS has determined that there would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length.

Even though this proposed action would apply to a substantial number of vessels, this action is not expected to result in significant adverse economic impact to individual vessels. While the fisheries could reach or exceed the ACL or ACT, the catch data are not available until six months after the local resource agencies have collected the data. Therefore, the proposed rule would not subject the fisheries to an in-season AM, such as a fishery closure and, without an in-season AM, fishing activity is not likely to be constrained.

The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap or conflict with other Federal rules and is not expected to have significant impact on small entities (as discussed above), organizations or government jurisdictions. The proposed action also will not place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities. For the reasons above, NMFS does not expect the proposed action to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As such, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

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

This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 665 as follows: