This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes an amendment to regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 984, as amended (7 CFR part 984), regulating the handling of walnuts grown in California. Part 984, (referred to as “the Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Board locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers operating within the area of production, and a public member.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This proposed rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, California walnut handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate would be applicable to all assessable walnuts for the 2020-21 marketing year, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This proposed rule would decrease the assessment rate from $0.0400 per kernelweight pound assessable walnuts, the rate that was established for the 2017-18 and subsequent marketing years, to $0.0250 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts handled for the 2020-21 and subsequent marketing years.

The Order provides authority for the Board, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members are familiar with the Board's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2017-18 and subsequent marketing periods, the Board recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate of $0.0400 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts handled. That assessment rate would continue in effect from marketing year to marketing year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other information available to USDA.

On September 11, 2020, the Board unanimously recommended 2020-21 expenditures of $17,990,000 and an assessment rate of $0.0250 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $25,760,000. The proposed assessment rate of $0.0250 is $0.0150 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Board recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reduce the assessment burden on handlers. Funds from assessments and from the Board's reserve would be sufficient to cover proposed expenses, while maintaining the Board's reserve within the requirements of the Order at no more than two years' budgeted expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2020-21 marketing year include $1,930,000 for employee expenses, $283,000 for office expenses, $1,600,000 for production research, $825,000 for grades and standards activities, and $13,112,000 for domestic market development. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2019-20 were $1,896,000, $293,000, $2,000,000, $825,000, and $20,700,000, respectively.

The Board derived the recommended assessment rate by considering anticipated expenses; estimated certification (“certification” means having the walnuts inspected) of 650,000 tons (inshell), based on a three-year average; and the amount of funds available in the authorized reserve.

Pursuant to § 984.51(b) of the Order, the estimated production is converted to a merchantable kernelweight basis using a factor of 0.45 (650,000 tons × 2,000 pounds per ton × 0.45), which yields 585,000,000 kernelweight pounds. At $0.0250 per pound, the new assessment rate should generate $14,625,000 in assessment income, along with funds from the reserve should meet estimated expenses of $17,990,000.

Funds in the reserve (currently $20,133,075) would be kept within the maximum permitted in § 984.69 of the Order of approximately two marketing years' budgeted expenses. The reserve at the end of the 2020-21 marketing year is anticipated to be $13,258,075.

The assessment rate proposed in this rule would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other available information.

Although the modified assessment rate would be effective for an indefinite period, the Board would continue to meet prior to or during each marketing year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Board meetings are available from the Board or USDA. Board meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Board recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Board's 2020-21 budget and those for subsequent marketing years would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 90 handlers subject to regulation under the Order and approximately 4,400 walnut growers in the production area. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small agricultural service firms as those having annual receipts of less than $30,000,000, and small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $1,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

The Board reported that approximately 82 percent of California's walnut handlers shipped merchantable walnuts valued under $30 million during the 2018-2019 marketing year and would, therefore, be considered small handlers according to the SBA definition.

Data from the 2017 Agricultural Census, published by USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), show that 86 percent of California farms growing walnuts had walnut sales of less than $1 million.

An alternative computation that includes more recent NASS data starting with three-year average value of utilized production of $1.263 billion for the most recent seasons for which data is available (2017/18 through 2019/20). Dividing that figure by the number of walnut growers (4,400) yields an average annual crop value per grower of approximately $287,045. This figure is well below the SBA small agricultural producer threshold of $1,000,000 in annual sales. Assuming a normal distribution, this provides evidence that a large majority of walnut growers can be considered small agricultural producers according to the SBA definition.

This proposal would decrease the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2020-21 and subsequent marketing years from $0.0400 to $0.0250 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The Board unanimously recommended 2020-21 expenditures of $17,990,000 and an assessment rate of $0.0250 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The proposed assessment rate of $0.0250 is $0.0150 lower than the rate currently in effect. The quantity of assessable walnuts for the 2020-21 marketing year is estimated at 650,000 tons (inshell), which is equivalent to 585,000,000 kernelweight pounds. Thus, the $0.0250 rate should provide $14,625,000 in assessment income. The Board anticipates that the income derived from handler assessments, along with funds from the Board's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2020-2021 marketing year.

The major expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2020-21 marketing year include $1,930,000 for employee expenses, $283,000 for office expenses, $1,600,000 for production research, $825,000 for grades and standards activities, and $13,112,000 for domestic market development. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2019-20 were $1,896,000, $293,000, $2,000,000, $825,000, and $20,700,000, respectively.

The Board unanimously recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reduce the assessment burden on handlers, and recommended utilizing funds from the authorized reserve to help cover the portion of the Board expenses.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Board considered information from various sources, such as the Board's Executive Committee. The Board discussed alternative expenditure levels, based upon the relative value of various activities to the California walnut industry. The Board recommended the assessment rate of $0.0250 to provide $14,625,000 in assessment income based on the estimation. The Board determined that assessment revenue, along with funds from the authorized reserve would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2020-21 marketing year.

Based upon information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the grower price reported for walnuts in 2019 was $1,970 per ton ($0.99 per pound) of walnuts. In order to determine the estimated assessment revenue as a percentage of the total grower revenue, we calculate the assessment rate ($0.0250 per kernelweight pound) times the estimated production (585,000,000 kernelweight pounds), which equals the assessment revenue of $14,625,000. The grower revenue is calculated by multiplying the grower price of $1,970 per ton ($0.99 per kernelweight pound) times the estimated production (585,000,000 kernelweight pounds), which equals the grower revenue of $579,150,000. In the final step, dividing the assessment revenue by the grower revenue, indicates that, for the 2020-21 marketing year, the estimated assessment revenue as a percentage of total grower revenue would be about 2.5 percent.

This proposed rule would decrease the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to growers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers and may also reduce the burden on growers.

The Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California walnut industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the September 11, 2020, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements would be necessary as a result of this proposed rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California walnut handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 984 is proposed to be amended 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-2020-1182; Product Identifier 2018-SW-036-AD 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.

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 proposal.

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 Kristi Bradley, Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-222-5110; email kristin.bradley@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 FAA issued AD 2016-08-20, Amendment 39-18497 (81 FR 26103, May 2, 2016) (2016-08-20), for Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters with a junction frame that has 690 or more hours time-in-service (TIS) installed. AD 2016-08-20 requires dye penetrant and borescope inspecting around the circumference of the junction frame for a crack and replacing any cracked junction frame. AD 2016-08-20 was prompted by EASA AD 2015-0033-E, dated February 24, 2015 (EASA AD 2015-0033-E), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to supersede an existing EASA AD. EASA had determined that it was necessary to define an inspection interval in sling cycles in addition to the existing flight hour inspection interval. EASA also acknowledged an alternative method to inspect from the outside of the tail boom.

Since the FAA issued AD 2016-08-20, EASA has issued a series of ADs, the most recent being EASA AD 2018-0104, dated May 4, 2018 (EASA AD 2018-0104), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France) Model EC 130 B4 and EC 130 T2 helicopters, all serial numbers, except those with Airbus modification (MOD) 074775 installed. EASA's initial AD was prompted by two incidents of crack propagation through the junction frame that initiated in the lower right-hand side between the web and the flange where the lower spar of the tail boom is joined. EASA states the cracks were of a significant length and not visible from the outside of the helicopter. EASA advised that this condition, if not detected, could lead to structural failure, possibly resulting in Fenestron detachment and consequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Following EASA AD 2015-0033-E, EASA revised its AD to EASA AD 2015-0033R1, dated May 3, 2016 (EASA AD 2015-0033R1), which was prompted by the determination that it was not necessary to inspect junction frames that had accumulated less than 1,200 flight hours. Accordingly, EASA AD 2015-0033R1 extended the inspection threshold from 700 flight hours to 1,200 flight hours. Thereafter, EASA issued EASA AD 2016-0240, dated December 2, 2016 (EASA AD 2016-0240) to supersede EASA AD 2015-0033R1. EASA AD 2016-0240 was prompted by a third incident of cracking in the same area of the junction frame as the first two incidents. Investigation determined that detection of the crack was delayed because of insufficient cleaning of the inspection area inside the junction frame. For that reason, EASA AD 2016-0240 retained the requirements of EASA AD 2015-0033R1 and added additional cleaning requirements before inspecting. After EASA AD 2016-0240 was issued, a fourth incident of cracking in the same area of the junction frame as the first three incidents was reported. This fourth incident prompted EASA to issue EASA AD 2017-0066-E, dated April 21, 2017 (EASA AD 2017-0066-E) to supersede EASA AD 2016-0240. This fourth incident occurred on a junction frame that had accumulated significantly less flight hours than the first three incidents. In light of this, EASA AD 2017-0066-E retained the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0240 and reduced the inspection threshold. Shortly after, EASA issued EASA AD 2017-0080, dated May 5, 2017 (EASA AD 2017-0080) to supersede EASA AD 2017-0066-E. EASA AD 2017-0080 was prompted by the determination that improved procedures to remove the horizontal stabilizer before cleaning and inspecting were necessary for certain helicopters. Accordingly, EASA AD 2017-0080 retained the requirements of EASA AD 2017-0066-E and added the improved procedures. Since EASA issued EASA AD 2017-0080, Airbus Helicopters developed MOD 074775, which consists of the installation of four carbon patches at the junction frame. Installation of MOD 074775, either in production or by retrofit, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections. Based on the latest information, EASA determined that continued inspections may not adequately address the long-term risk and requires modifying the affected helicopters, which also terminates the repetitive inspections of the pre-modified configuration. Accordingly, EASA issued EASA AD 2018-0104 to supersede EASA AD 2017-0080 to require installation of MOD 074775.

Also since the FAA issued AD 2016-08-20, it has been determined that the dye penetrant inspections required by AD 2016-08-20 are unnecessary because visual inspections are adequate to inspect for cracks in the affected area instead.

As a result of the EASA-issued ADs and the further incidents of cracked junction frames, this proposed AD proposes to expand the applicability to include all Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters with a junction frame, regardless of how many hours TIS have accumulated on the junction frame; revise the compliance time to inspect the junction frame with the horizontal stabilizer removed to depend on the hours TIS accumulated on the junction frame; change the inspection of the junction frame with the horizontal stabilizer removed from the dye-penetrant inspection required by AD 2016-08-20 to a visual inspection; add inspection procedures for helicopters with a skin cut-out at the junction frame; allow repairing a junction frame in accordance with an FAA approved repair procedure; require the installation of MOD 074775 or the four carbon patches reinforcements; and require repetitive inspections of a modified junction frame.

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all of the information provided by EASA and determining the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Airbus Helicopters has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A017, Revision 7, dated March 21, 2018, for Model EC130 B4 and T2 helicopters without MOD 074775 installed. This service information specifies procedures for cleaning inside the junction frame, inspecting the junction frame from the inside of the tail boom with the horizontal stabilizer both removed and installed for a crack, and inspecting the junction frame from the outside of the tail boom for a crack.

Airbus Helicopters has issued Service Bulletin No. EC130-53-036, Revision 4, dated April, 28, 2020, for Model EC130 B4 and T2 helicopters without MOD 074609 or 074775 installed and on which the skin of the junction frame area has not been repaired. This service information specifies procedures to reinforce the junction frame (MOD 074775) by replacing the two lateral splices which join the skins with four carbon patches (left-hand side, right-hand side, and lower sides).

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

Airbus Helicopters has issued Service Bulletin No. EC130-53-029, Revision 1, dated January 27, 2016. This service information specifies procedures to make a cut-out of the splice and skin at the junction frame (MOD 350A087421).

Airbus has issued EC 130 B4 Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations Section, Revision 11, dated January 19, 2019 and EC 130 T2 Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations Section, Revision 9, dated September 9, 2019, which specify visually checking the junction frame for cracks at an interval of 600 flight hours with a margin of 60 flight hours.

Airbus Helicopters has also issued Section 55-11-00, 6-4—Horizontal Stabilizer—Inspection/Check, of Aircraft Maintenance Manual EC130, dated November 9, 2017, which specifies procedures for cleaning inside the junction frame and inspecting the junction frame from the inside of the tail boom with the horizontal stabilizer removed.

This proposed AD would require:

• For helicopters without MOD 074775, or MOD AH 350A087421 or SB EC130-53-029 installed, at a compliance time based on the hours TIS accumulated on the junction frame, removing the horizontal stabilizer, cleaning the junction frame, and visually inspecting the junction frame area for a crack, paying particular attention to the area around the 4 spars.

○ Following the initial visual inspection, within 25 hours TIS or 390 sling cycles, whichever comes first, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 25 hours TIS or 390 sling cycles, whichever comes first, either repeating the initial visual inspection, or, if the surface area is clean, borescope inspecting the junction frame area for a crack, paying particular attention to the area around the 4 spars.

○ Also following the initial visual inspection, within 150 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 150 hours TIS, repeating the initial visual inspection.

• For helicopters without MOD 074775 installed, but with MOD AH 350A087421 or SB EC130-53-029 installed, before the junction frame accumulates 350 hours TIS or within 10 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, visually inspecting for a crack on the junction frame area in each skin cut-out area.

○ Following the initial visual inspection, within 10 hours TIS or 250 sling cycles, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 10 hours TIS or 250 sling cycles, whichever occurs first, repeating the initial visual inspection.

○ Also following the initial visual inspection, within 660 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 660 hours TIS, removing the horizontal stabilizer, cleaning the junction frame, and dye-penetrant inspecting the junction frame area for a crack, paying particular attention to the area around the 4 spars.

• If there is a crack, replacing or repairing the junction frame in accordance with an FAA approved repair procedure before further flight. Repairing the junction frame would not constitute terminating action for the requirements of this proposed AD.

• For helicopters without MOD 074775 installed, with or without MOD AH 350A087421 or SB EC130-53-029 installed, without MOD 074609 or SB 53-024 installed, and on which the skin of the junction frame area has never been repaired, installing MOD 074775 within 24 months as of the effective date of this AD and reporting certain information to Airbus Helicopters within 30 days after installing MOD 074775.

• For helicopters without MOD 074775 installed, with MOD 074609 or SB 53-024 installed, or on which the skin of the junction frame area has been previously repaired at any time, reinforcing the junction frame by replacing the two lateral splices which join the skins with four carbon patches (left-hand side, right-hand side, and lower sides) within 24 months as of the effective date of this AD.

• For helicopters with MOD 074775 installed or with the four carbon patches reinforcements installed, but without MOD 074581 for Model EC130T2 helicopters, within 600 hours TIS after the installation of MOD 074775 or the reinforcement, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 600 hours TIS, visually inspect the junction frame area for a crack. If there is a crack, replacing or repairing the junction frame in accordance with an FAA approved repair procedure before further flight. Repairing the junction frame would not constitute terminating action for the requirements of this proposed AD.

EASA AD 2018-0104 does not apply to helicopters with MOD 074775, whereas this proposed AD does. EASA AD 2018-0104 requires performing a local non-destructive inspection if in doubt about if there is a crack, whereas this proposed AD does not. EASA AD 2018-0104 allows the pilot to visually inspect the junction frame from outside the tail boom for a crack, whereas this proposed AD does not. EASA AD 2018-0104 requires contacting Airbus Helicopters if any crack is detected, whereas this proposed AD would require replacing or repairing the junction frame in accordance with an FAA approved repair procedure instead. This proposed AD would require a repetitive inspection for helicopters with MOD 074775 installed, whereas the EASA AD does not.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 263 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hours. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD.

Cleaning and inspecting the junction frame area with the horizontal stabilizer removed would take about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $22,355 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.

Internally borescope inspecting the junction frame area with the horizontal stabilizer installed would take about 0.5 work hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $11,309 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.

If applicable, cleaning and inspecting the junction frame area in each skin cut-out area would take about 1.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $106 per helicopter and $27,878 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.

Modifying the junction frame skin reinforcements would take about 90 work-hours and parts cost about $10,000 for an estimated cost of $17,650 per helicopter and $4,641,950 for the U.S. fleet. Reporting certain information would take about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $22,355 for the U.S. fleet. Inspecting the modified junction frame area would take about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $22,355 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.

If required, repairing or replacing the junction frame would take up to 50 work-hours and parts would cost about $60,000 for an estimated cost of $64,250 per helicopter.

According to Airbus Helicopters' service information, some 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 by Airbus Helicopters. Accordingly, the FAA has included all costs in this cost estimate.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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

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

The FAA determined that this 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, I certify that 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. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2020-1183; Project Identifier 2019-SW-008-AD” 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 proposal.

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 Blaine Williams, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone 562-627-5371; email blaine.williams@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0008, dated January 22, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0008), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Helicopters (AH), formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, Aerospatiale, Model EC 155 B, EC 155 B1, SA 365 N, SA 365 N1, AS 365 N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters.

This proposed AD was prompted by reports of an in-flight loss of engine and MGB cowlings. Subsequent investigations revealed that the MGB cowling attachment fittings failed because of mounting stress in the MGB front fitting and air intake bulkhead. The FAA is proposing this AD to address failure of the MGB front fitting and subsequent detachment of the MGB or engine cowlings. See EASA AD 2019-0008 for additional background information.

EASA AD 2019-0008 requires inspecting the MGB front fittings within 110 flight hours after April 14, 2017 (the effective date of EASA AD 2017-0055, dated March 31, 2017). If there is a discrepancy, the EASA AD requires applicable corrective action(s) before next flight. EASA AD 2019-0008 also requires modification of the MGB fixed cowling attachments within 660 flight hours or 23 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date described in EASA AD 2019-0008. Accomplishing the modification constitutes a terminating action for the required inspection.

The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS365-53.00.62 and EC155-53A038, each Revision 0 and dated December 20, 2018 (ASB AS365-53.00.62 and ASB EC155-53A038). ASB AS365-53.00.62 applies to Model AS365-series helicopters. ASB EC155-53A038 applies to Model EC155-series helicopters. This service information specifies replacing the front bracket, inspecting for stress of the MGB fixed cowlings on the radiator bulkhead, and installing an additional locking system.

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

These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all the relevant information and determining the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2019-0008, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD and except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the EASA 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 2019-0008 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2019-0008 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 2019-0008 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019-0008 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1183 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 19 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD.

Inspecting the MGB front fittings would take about 2 work-hours for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $3,230 for the U.S. fleet. If required, replacing an MGB front fitting would take about 2 work-hours and parts would cost about $590 for an estimated total cost of $760 per fitting. Other repairs could take up to 8 work-hours (excluding drying time) and parts would cost a minimal amount for an estimated cost of up to $680 per helicopter.

Modifying the MGB fixed cowling attachments would take about 5 work-hours and parts would cost about $630 for an estimated cost of $1,055 per helicopter and $20,045 for the U.S. fleet.

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

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on 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'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 the 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 amend the VOR Federal airway V-487 to match changes in navigation aid infrastructure.

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 (FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0042; Airspace Docket No. 20-AEA-13 and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0042; Airspace Docket No. 20-AEA-13.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of 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 ADDRESSES section for 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 office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337.

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 proposed rule. 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 to amend VOR Federal airway V-487 in the vicinity of Glens Falls, NY, and Burlington, VT. The proposed change would substitute a radial from the Burlington, VT, VOR/DME, in place of the current Glens Falls, NY, VOR/DME radial, for defining the ENSON, VT, navigation fix. Currently, the ENSON, VT, navigation fix is defined by the intersection of the Cambridge, NY, VOR/DME (CAM) 002° radial, and the Glens Falls, NY, VOR/DME 032° radial.

This change is necessary because the Glens Falls VOR/DME has been decommissioned and is no longer in service. As amended, the ENSON fix would be defined by the intersection of the Burlington, VT, 187° (T)/202° (M), and the Cambridge, NY 002° radials. This change would not affect navigation along that portion of the route.

Additionally, the FAA proposes to remove the segment of V-487 that extends between the Burlington, VT, VOR/DME, and the St Jean, Canada VOR/DME due to the decommissioning of the St Jean VOR/DME. As amended, V-487 would extend between LaGuardia, NY, and Burlington, VT.

Note: when new radials are specified in a proposed airway route description, both True and Magnetic degrees are stated in the NPRM. Otherwise, only True degrees are included in the description.

Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) 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 VOR Federal airway listed in this document would be subsequently published 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 proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 proposed rule, when promulgated, will 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.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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 the 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 expand the availability of RNAV in the southeastern United States to improve the efficiency of the National Airspace System by lessening the dependency on ground-based navigation aids.

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 (FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0062; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-21 and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0062; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-21.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of 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 ADDRESSES section for 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 office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337.

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 proposed rule. 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 to amend low altitude RNAV route T-207 by removing the Cecil, FL (VQQ), VOR from the route description. This action is necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the Cecil VOR. T-207 currently extends between the Ormond Beach, FL (OMN), VORTAC, and the Waycross, GA (AYS), VORTAC. The Cecil VOR is located along a straight segment of the route between the CARRA, FL, Fix, and the MONIA, FL, Fix. The VOR is not a required component for navigating on T-207. Removal of the Cecil VOR would not affect the alignment or navigation along T-207.

In addition, all latitude/longitude coordinates in the route description would be updated to the hundredths of a second place for greater navigation accuracy.

United States Area Navigation routes are published in paragraph 6011 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 RNAV route listed in this document would be subsequently published 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 proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 proposed rule, when promulgated, will 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.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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 the 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 modify the MIA Class B airspace area to improve the flow of air traffic and enhance safety within the National Airspace System (NAS).

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 (FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0490 and Airspace Docket No. 18-AWA-2) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0490 and Airspace Docket No. 18-AWA-2.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. 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 ADDRESSES section for 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 office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA, 30337.

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.

In 1973, the FAA issued a final rule that established the Miami, FL, Terminal Control Area (TCA) (38 FR 3588, February 8, 1973). As a result of the Airspace Reclassification final rule, which became effective in 1993, the term “Terminal Control Area” was replaced by “Class B airspace area.” (56 FR 65638, December 17, 1991). As with the former TCA, the primary purpose of a Class B airspace area is to reduce the potential for midair collisions in the airspace surrounding airports with high-density air traffic operations by providing an area in which all aircraft are subject to the same operating rules and equipment requirements.

In 1975, the FAA issued a final rule modifying the Miami, FL TCA (40 FR 4119, January 28, 1975). Based on changes in approach procedures, and a re-evaluation of the airspace needed to contain large turbine-powered aircraft, the FAA implemented numerous changes to the Miami, FL TCA. These included redefining various lateral boundaries and altitude floors of the TCA, and the removal of airspace not needed for the containment of aircraft. The revised configuration is similar to the current MIA Class B airspace area.

In 1983, the FAA issued a final rule that established a new “Area H” that raised the floor of the then Miami, FL TCA from 1,500 feet mean sea level (MSL), to 2,000 feet MSL in an area west of Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport (OPF) (48 FR 5540, February 7, 1983). This change allowed aircraft to fly the Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach to OPF Runway 09L without entering the Miami, FL TCA.

A 1996 final rule corrected the legal description of the MIA Class B airspace area. The final rule was necessary due to the decommissioning of the Biscayne Bay, FL, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR), and the Miami, FL, VOR, navigation aids (NAVAID) that had been used to define the lateral limits of the airspace (61 FR 5934, February 15, 1996). The 1996 final rule simply replaced obsolete NAVAID references in the Class B description but it did not alter the actual vertical or lateral limits of the MIA Class B airspace area.

The last substantial change to the MIA Class B airspace area was the 1975 rule. That rule was based on air traffic activity levels from the 1970s. The following developments have taken place since its enactment:

Despite the continued growth in air traffic operations and passenger enplanements over the years, the FAA has not substantially modified the MIA Class B airspace area since the 1975 rule. The current MIA Class B airspace area configuration and operational demand has the following effects:

To improve the flow of air traffic, enhance safety, and reduce the potential for midair collision in the MIA terminal area, consistent with the directive to contain arriving and departing aircraft within Class B, the FAA is proposing a number of changes to the MIA Class B airspace configuration, including:

A review of comments received during the pre-NPRM public input phase revealed that some misunderstanding exists of several terms that apply to published VFR routes. The confusion has arisen because, over time, the terms have often been used interchangeably. Since the terms are used in this NPRM, the FAA is clarifying the meaning of these terms.

A VFR Corridor is airspace through a Class B airspace area with defined vertical and lateral boundaries in which a VFR aircraft may operate without an air traffic control (ATC) clearance or communication with ATC. A VFR Corridor is, in effect, a “tunnel” or “hole” through Class B airspace. Due to heavy traffic volume and the procedures necessary to manage the flow of traffic, it has not been possible to incorporate VFR Corridors in MIA Class B airspace areas.

A VFR Flyway is a general flight path, not defined as a specific course, for use by pilots planning flights into, out of, through, or near complex terminal airspace in order to avoid Class B airspace. An ATC clearance is not required to fly these routes. Where established, VFR Flyways are depicted on the reverse side of the VFR Terminal Area Chart (TAC). These routes are designed to assist pilots in planning flights under or around Class B airspace areas without actually entering Class B airspace.

A Class B Airspace Area VFR Transition Route is a route depicted on a TAC to accommodate VFR aircraft transiting through a Class B airspace area. The route includes a specific flight course and specific ATC-assigned altitudes. Pilots must obtain an ATC clearance prior to entering Class B airspace on the route.

See the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) for more details about these routes.

For ease of reference, the following airport identifiers are used in this NPRM:

In 2010, the FAA formed an Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) to seek input and recommendations from representatives of affected aviation segments for the FAA to consider in designing proposed modifications to the MIA Class B airspace area. At that time, the FAA was considering a proposal that would expand the MIA Class B airspace area as well as convert the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport (FLL) Class C airspace area to a Class B airspace area. Participants in the Committee included representatives from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Miami-Dade Aviation Department, Miami-Dade Police Department Aviation Unit, Florida DOT, Broward County Aviation Department, Opa-Locka Helicopters, ADF Airways, Sheltair Aviation, National Jets, Aerial Banners, Delta Connection, Florida Aero Club, and Van Wagner Aerial Media.

On September 1, 2010, the Committee submitted three recommendations for the FAA to consider in designing proposed modifications of the MIA and FLL airspace.

The Committee recommended that the FAA align the boundaries of the MIA Class B airspace with prominent geographical features (visual landmarks) whenever possible.

The FAA agreed with the recommendation and, to the extent possible, adopted the use of geographical features in this proposal. However, areas that overlie the Atlantic Ocean and the Florida Everglades lack prominent landmarks. Currently, there are approximately 25 VFR checkpoints, 4 VFR waypoints, and 5 latitude/longitude points depicted on the VFR Flyway Planning Chart in the MIA/FLL area. The FAA is considering additional points to enhance VFR navigation in the area.

The Committee also recommended that the FAA establish a VFR Corridor between 3,000 feet MSL and 5,000 feet MSL that extends from the northern edge of FLL's airspace to the southern edge of MIA's airspace, to permit north-south transition of aircraft. The Committee suggested that this would be similar to the Los Angeles Special Flight Rules Area which traverses the Los Angeles Class B airspace area.

The FAA could not adopt this recommendation because VFR Corridors do not apply to Class C airspace areas. Separately, with regard to the specific proposed location, a VFR Corridor is not feasible for this area based on operational constraints such as traffic volume and traffic flows. MIA arrival traffic descends from 8,000 feet MSL to 3,000 feet MSL in the downwind leg. Departures climb to 5,000 feet MSL initially, and aircraft executing a go-around climb to either 3,000 feet MSL or 4,000 feet MSL. For FLL, arrivals descend from 6,000 feet MSL to 3,000 feet MSL in the downwind leg. Departures climb to 3,000 feet MSL initially, and aircraft executing a go-around climb to 2,000 feet MSL or 3,000 feet MSL. Since aircraft could operate in the corridor without an ATC clearance or communication with ATC, this would present a safety hazard.

Alternatively, currently there is a charted VFR Flyway below 3,000 feet MSL, running generally north and south, that is located beneath the western side of the MIA Class B airspace area. Additionally, an east-west oriented Flyway below 2,000 feet MSL is located to the south of Hollywood North Perry airport (HWO), and to the north of Miami-Opa Locka Executive airport (OPF).

The Committee recommended that the FAA develop “shoreline transitions” for VFR aircraft through the Class B airspace. Specifically, this would accommodate pilots who desire to operate over or near the shoreline east of FLL. The Committee added that the FAA should publish information on Sectional and TAC to advise aircraft requesting shoreline transitions to contact MIA approach; including frequencies, designated entry and exit points, expected altitudes, and times requests may be approved.

The FAA reviewed this recommendation and, although shoreline transitions do exist in the Miami area, the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport runways are only 1 to 2 NM from the shoreline. Aircraft flying the Instrument Landing System approaches to Runways 28L and 28R are descending to the minimum approach altitudes in the vicinity of the shoreline, while aircraft departing on Runways 10L and 10R are in a critical phase of flight during initial climbout in that same area. For these reasons, a shoreline transition is not feasible in that area.

After full consideration of the Committee's discussions and recommendations, the FAA decided to pursue an alternative airspace design.

As announced in the Federal Register on December 4, 2012, the FAA conducted three informal airspace meetings: January 28, 2013, at the Wings Over Miami Air Museum, Miami, FL; January 29, 2013, at Miami Dade College, Miami, FL; and January 30, 2013, Miramar Town Center, Miramar, FL. (77 FR 71734). Additionally, as announced in the Federal Register on April 1, 2019, the FAA also held one informal airspace meeting on June 12, 2019, at Broward College, Pembroke Pines, FL. (84 FR 12146). These meetings provided interested airspace users with an opportunity to present their views and offer recommendations regarding the planned modification of the MIA Class B airspace area. The FAA received comments from 32 individuals in response to the four meetings.

The FAA received a number of comments from the January 2013 meetings that pertained specifically to the proposed modification of the FLL Class C airspace area. Those comments will be addressed in a separate NPRM to be published by the FAA. Comments concerning the proposed modification of the MIA Class B airspace area are discussed below.

Several commenters were concerned about the proposed expansion of the western Class B boundary from the current 20 NM radius of MIA to the 25 NM radius. This would require northbound and southbound VFR pilots to fly farther out over the Everglades at relatively low altitudes ( i.e., below 3,000 feet MSL) over “unlandable” terrain.

The FAA acknowledges these concerns. The proposed 25 NM radius on the west side of the Class B is based on an analysis of MIA traffic and is designed to contain MIA arrivals within Class B airspace. A northbound/southbound oriented charted VFR Flyway, below 3,000 feet MSL, has since been added closer in to MIA (inside the 20 NM radius). A good operating practice for VFR aircraft operating west of MIA is to contact MIA Approach for Class B clearance and flight following service above 3,000 feet MSL, which provides safety alerts and traffic advisories.

One commenter wrote that there should be a special route for aircraft transitioning to land at Miami Executive (TMB), OPF, North Perry (HWO), and Miami Homestead General Aviation (X51) airports.

As discussed above, the Committee had similar concerns about North-South transitions through the area. As previously noted, in addition to the North-South oriented charted VFR Flyway, an East-West oriented flyway has been charted situated north of OPF and south of HWO. This VFR Flyway connects to the North-South flyway. Use of these flyways should provide access to the four airports identified by the commenter.

One commenter suggested that, instead of making changes to the Class B boundaries to keep aircraft within Class B airspace, the glide path angle (GPA) for instrument approaches should be raised from 3.0 degrees to 3.25 degrees. The commenter added that, if increasing the GPA is unacceptable, the FAA should lower the floors of the Class B shelves using increments of 100 feet rather than 1,000 feet, and that lateral boundaries should be adjusted the minimum amount necessary.

The FAA does not agree. According to instrument approach procedure design criteria, the standard GPA is 3.00 degrees. A GPA greater than 3.00 degrees is authorized when needed for obstacle clearance purposes. Since obstacle clearance is not an issue, and south Florida terrain is virtually flat, all ILS and RNP procedures at MIA utilize a 3.00 degree GPA. The suggestion to lower the floors of the Class B shelves in 100-foot increments would provide additional complexity with no benefit as altitude assignments are in 500-foot increments for VFR, and 1,000-foot cardinal altitudes for IFR. The Class B lateral boundary adjustments are proposed for containment of aircraft within the Class B and are based on an analysis of traffic at MIA.

Four commenters expressed concern about the proposed expansion of the eastern boundary of Area F from a 6 NM radius to a 7 NM radius of MIA; and about the proposed expansion of the eastern boundary of Area B from the 10 NM radius to the 13 NM radius of MIA. Two commenters wrote that the expanded Area F, with its 1,000-foot floor would affect a scenic tourist route, therefore the Class B floor in that area should remain at 1,500 feet MSL. Two commenters objected to the expansion of Area B, with its 1,500-foot floor, into what is now the 3,000-foot floor of Area D. The commenters wrote that the Class B floor in that area should be set at 2,000 feet MSL instead of 1,500 feet MSL.

The FAA does not agree with the commenters. The objective of the proposed Class B modification is to provide the least restrictive, yet safe operation around MIA. The proposed floors for Areas B and F are needed to ensure that aircraft on final approach to MIA remain inside Class B airspace, and to separate non-participating aircraft from MIA arrivals. Aircraft on instrument approach are in descent below 3,000 feet MSL to 1,500 feet MSL at the Final Approach Fix (FAF) for Runway 26R; to 1,600 feet MSL at the FAF for Runway 26L and Runway 30; or 1,700 feet MSL at the FAF for Runway 27. Raising the proposed floor to 2,000 feet MSL, as suggested, would cause an unsafe situation between IFR aircraft arriving and departing MIA, and VFR aircraft. Pilots could elect to request a clearance through the Class B and receive separation services.

Several commenters were concerned that the proposed MIA Class B modifications would prevent the use of easily recognizable landmarks, and VFR checkpoints for identifying the Class B boundaries. Specifically, they were concerned that the ability to use Krome Avenue as a reference for the western boundary of the 1,500 foot shelf, and the use of the twin diagonal canals as the western boundary of the 3,000 foot shelf would be lost.

Unfortunately, Krome Avenue is not located far enough west to provide a safe distance from traffic landing at MIA when on an east operation. The proposed Class B floors are based on aircraft altitudes and approach procedures. Aircraft arriving at MIA begin final approach descent 9.0 NM from Runway 9 at the GRITT DME fix. The 1,500 foot Class B floor is necessary in that area to avoid conflict with non-participating aircraft. Landmarks could still be used if pilots desire to contact MIA Approach for clearance to enter the Class B airspace. Nevertheless, the FAA is considering the addition of waypoints to assist with VFR navigation.

One commenter asserted that ATC never clears pilots through Class B or Class C airspace, except for occasional direct overflights.

VFR clearances through the MIA Class B airspace are approved on occasion, based on traffic volume, weather, and controller workload. Because MIA is a busy international airport, averaging approximately 1,200 operations a day, it can be difficult to accommodate a VFR transition. Even so, some 75% of the approximately 7-8 requests received per day are approved. VFR Flyways around the MIA Class B have been published on the Miami VFR TAC chart to provide alternate routes. Also, in conjunction with the proposed changes to the MIA Class B airspace, the FAA is considering the addition of published VFR transitions and flyways to help enhance situational awareness. Additionally, VFR transitions are accommodated daily over FLL through the Class C airspace at 2,500 feet, or low-level along the shoreline, while in 2-way communication with ATC.

Several commenters explained that the proposed expansion of the Class B surface area (Area A) from the current 6 NM radius of MIA to a 7 NM radius would impact operations at Miami Executive Airport (TMB) bringing the Dadeland Shopping Center inside the Class B surface area. The commenter further noted that Dadeland Shopping Center is a charted VFR checkpoint that helps keep pilots clear of the Class B airspace, and it should remain outside the Class B.

The FAA agrees with the comments. Under the current proposal the southern boundaries of Areas A and F will be adjusted northward along an East-West line at latitude 25°42′18″ N (SW 72nd Street in the Cities of Sunset and South Miami). This would accommodate traffic transitioning to and from TMB, and keep the Dadeland Shopping Center outside the Class B airspace.

One commenter asked the FAA to consider designating charted “VFR transition corridors” both within and underneath the Class B airspace, to include VFR GPS named waypoints that would show up in navigation databases. The commenter suggested a Northeast-Southwest “corridor” through the Class B passing overhead MIA at 1,500 feet MSL (one way) and 2,000 feet MSL (opposite direction). The commenter suggested this change might reduce VFR congestion low along the coast. Another commenter suggested flyways be created for both VFR and IFR traffic whose destinations are within the South Florida area, to directly overfly MIA at 3,000 feet MSL to 5,000 feet MSL.

There currently exists a North-South oriented charted VFR Flyway west of MIA, below the 3,000-foot MSL Class B floor. Aircraft could not be accommodated over the top of MIA at 1,500 feet MSL and 2,000 feet MSL; or between 3,000 feet MSL to 5,000 feet MSL due to conflicts with existing traffic: Missed approach procedures climb to 3,000 feet MSL; initial departure altitudes from MIA are 5,000 feet MSL; and descending arrival traffic on the downwind portion of radar sequencing for the approach are typically descending from 8,000 feet MSL. When aircraft performance allows, aircraft could be cleared over the top of MIA at or above 5,500 feet MSL. The FAA will consider the addition of waypoints along VFR Flyways and the development of a VFR transition route.

One commenter questioned the need for Class B airspace in Area E northwest of MIA.

The FAA is not proposing any significant changes to the existing Area E. The area currently extends from 4,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL, between the 15 NM radius and the 20 NM radius of MIA, and bounded on the south by latitude 25°57′48″ N, and on the northeast by a line from latitude 26°05′56″ N, longitude 80°26′23″ W., to latitude 26°01′32″ N, longitude 80°23′40″W. The only proposed change is minor refinements to the coordinates that form the northeast side of Area E. Area E is needed to support operations when MIA is on an east operation. During those periods, MIA arrivals typically land on Runways 9 and 12, while departures normally use Runways 8L and 8R. Historically, wind conditions dictate operating on an east configuration approximately 65% of the year.

One commenter wrote about concerns that the Class B proposal would impact sailplane operations. Sailplanes often operate under the 5,000-foot Class B floor near TMB ( i.e., the current Area G). The proposed incorporation of the airspace in the current Area G into Area D, with its 3,000-foot MSL floor, would affect these operations. The commenter asked if lowering the floor north of SW 152nd Street (approximately latitude 25°38′ N) would be adequate; or if a 4,000-foot MSL floor would be acceptable. The commenter also noted that the proposed extension of the western boundary of Area D, with its 3,000-foot MSL floor, from the current 20 NM radius of MIA, out to the 25 NM radius of MIA, would probably preclude cross-country flights by sailplanes from Miami Homestead General Aviation Airport (X51). The commenter suggested using a 4,000-foot MSL floor from 20 NM to 25 NM in that area.

After reviewing the proposed Class B configuration, the FAA will adopt the commenter's suggestion in proposal. The western limit of Area D will remain at the current 20 NM radius of MIA. The FAA proposes to establish a new Area J to the west of Area D between the 20 NM and 25 NM radii of the airport. Area J would extend from 4,000 feet MSL up to 7,000 feet MSL. This change would provide additional airspace for aircraft transiting over the Everglades.

One commenter contended that the proposed extension of the east and west Class B boundaries to 25 NM seems excessive.

The FAA does not agree. Each Class B airspace area is designed based on location-specific operational and safety considerations in order to best meet the purposes of reducing the midair collision potential, containment of instrument procedures, and enhancing the efficient use of airspace. It is not unusual for Class B floors to be as low as 3,000 feet MSL between 25 NM and 30 NM from the airport. For example, at the Orlando International Airport (MCO) the Class B floor is 3,000 feet MSL between the 20 NM and 30 NM arcs south of the airport; while at the Memphis International Airport (MEM), the Class B floor is 3,000 feet MSL between the 16 NM and 30 NM arcs to the north and south of the airport. The proposed altitudes for the MIA Class B floors are based on a traffic analysis of aircraft altitudes and approach procedures at MIA.

One commenter wrote that, on the east side of the Class B, VFR pilots flying to and from the Bahamas will have to delay their climb, or accelerate their descent while flying in areas well beyond power-off gliding distance to shore, or divert several miles further south to remain clear of the Class B.

VFR pilots have the option to contact MIA Approach and request flight following. If they choose not to receive flight following and want to remain clear of the Class B, the proposed airspace modification will help ensure they are segregated from traffic operating at MIA.

One commenter contended that the proposed extension of the western Class B boundary to 25 NM (with the floor at 3,000 feet MSL), in the southwest portion of the Class B (south of Tamiami Trail) will concentrate heavy VFR traffic between 2,000 feet MSL and 3,000 feet MSL as pilots attempt to remain 2,000 feet above the Everglades National Park Special Conservation/Wildlife Area, but below the 3,000-foot Class B floor. Additionally, VFR traffic will also tend to be concentrated between the Class E airspace at Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport (TNT) and the new western boundary of the MIA Class B airspace.

The FAA does not agree. The FAA has established a north-south charted VFR flyway below the 3,000-foot Class B floor to the west of MIA. The flyway should enable pilots to fly beneath the Class B and avoid having to deviate farther out over the Everglades or near TNT.

One commenter stated that VFR routes through Class B airspace are not generally available on Sectional Charts or on most electronic charting and navigation applications. The commenter suggested that most itinerant pilots will be unaware of them as they appear only on the flip side of TAC.

It is correct that VFR Flyways are depicted on the reverse side of TAC. However, regardless of the navigation information sources used, part 91 “General Operating and Flight Rules” requires that, before beginning a flight, pilots shall become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. This is particularly important when planning a flight through the congested, high traffic volume South Florida area. The Miami Sectional Chart contains a note that reads: “Pilots are encouraged to use the Miami VFR Terminal Area Chart for flights at or below 7,000 feet”.

One commenter was concerned that the airspace configurations in South Florida are already very congested and confusing.

The FAA agrees that the airspace configurations in South Florida are very congested and careful vigilance must be maintained. In addition to the air traffic operations at MIA, within the roughly 40 NM stretch between HST and FLL, there are six airports with significant operations, plus extensive flight training and general aviation activity. The design of the MIA Class B is intended to contain large turbine-powered aircraft operations at MIA, and segregate those operations from non-participating VFR traffic while at the same time providing the least restrictive, safe operation in the Miami area.

Another commenter said multiple airspace designations are confusing and need to be corrected or clarified. Specifically, the ceiling of the TMB Class D airspace area is 2,500 feet MSL which is higher than the 2000-foot floor of the MIA Class B airspace ( i.e., Area C of the MIA Class B airspace area) that overlies a portion of the TMB Class D. The commenter suggested that confusion could exist as to which rules apply.

The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) clarifies this issue stating that there is a hierarchy of overlapping airspace designations. When overlapping airspace designations apply to the same airspace, the operating rules associated with the more restrictive airspace designation apply. Therefore, Class B rules apply in the example described by the commenter.

For simplification, a commenter suggested that the “half-moon shaped” Class B airspace area with the 2,000-foot MSL north of TMB ( i.e., Area C) be removed and the Class B floor in that area be lowered to 1,500 feet MSL.

The FAA does not agree with this suggestion. The design of each Class B airspace is individually tailored, in this case, for MIA operations. To lower the Class B floor for simplification as suggested is neither warranted nor appropriate. The 2,000-foot MSL floor in Area C is for the benefit of traffic at TMB. It allows aircraft remaining below 2,000 feet MSL northeast of TMB to remain clear of the MIA Class B airspace.

To simplify the MIA Class B airspace, a commenter proposed that the northern portion of Area D (north of latitude 25°57′48″ N) be removed from the MIA Class B airspace area and made part of the FLL Class C airspace area. This would simplify airspace design and make easier transitions inbound and outbound from HWO.

The FAA is unable to modify Area D as suggested. This airspace must remain in the Miami Class B because it was designed to contain aircraft once they enter the Class B airspace, such as aircraft arriving Runway 12 at MIA. Removing that airspace from the Miami Class B is not feasible and would be detrimental to safety.

One commenter stated that the proposed extension of Class B airspace and dropping of the base to the East and South would increase noise pollution over residential areas.

The objective of this proposed airspace modification is to provide the least restrictive operation while maintaining safety. The southeast extension of Class B airspace to 25 NM east based upon traffic analysis and is needed to contain aircraft within Class B airspace. The proposed modifications to the east of MIA are over the Atlantic Ocean and have limited impact to residential areas.

Over 60 people attended the June 2019 Informal Airspace Meeting. Ten persons submitted multiple comments to the FAA. A number of comments pertained specifically to the proposed FLL Class C airspace modification. Those comments will be addressed in a separate NPRM that will propose modifications to the FLL Class C airspace area. Comments pertaining to the proposed MIA Class B modification are discussed below.

Two commenters expressed concerns that receiving VFR flight following in the area can be challenging due to air traffic controller workload, and that consideration should be given to adequate staffing to provide this additional service routinely.

The airspace change would affect the Miami Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) controller workload with the anticipated increase of aircraft requesting flight following. The FAA has already taken action to address this concern. The FAA has increased the utilization of its additional radar sectors that provide relief for controllers working in the OPF/HWO area. These additional sectors split the workload in half (east side and west side). The FAA also recommends that pilots consider obtaining discrete squawk codes with air traffic control towers prior to departure to ensure that flight following in VFR conditions can commence shortly after departure.

Two commenters requested that VFR Corridors be provided through the MIA Class B airspace; such as, along the coast, and over the top of airports. Flying around the airspace to the west places an aircraft over the Everglades and far from alternative landing sites.

As described above in the “Clarification of Terms” section, a VFR Corridor is essentially a “hole” through the Class B airspace in which aircraft can operate without an ATC clearance or communication with air traffic control. Such a corridor is not feasible through the MIA Class B based on operational constraints, including traffic volume and traffic flows and the close proximity of numerous airports in this area. Arrival traffic descends from 8,000 feet MSL to 3,000 feet MSL in the downwind for MIA. Departures climb to 5,000 feet initially, and aircraft executing a go-around climb to either 3,000 feet MSL or 4,000 feet MSL. For operational and safety reasons, these factors preclude the establishment of a VFR corridor. However, the FAA is considering the development of a published VFR transition route for use when it is feasible for controllers to clear an aircraft into the airspace to transition the area. VFR transition routes require an ATC clearance prior to entering Class B airspace on the route (see the “Clarification of Terms” section, above). Currently, a VFR Flyway is depicted on the VFR Flyway Planning Chart (on the reverse side of the Miami TAC Chart). This VFR Flyway is oriented North-South and is located under the western side of the MIA Class B airspace area. The suggested altitude for the flyway is below 3,000 feet MSL. The VFR Flyway offers an alternative to deviating farther west around the Class B over the Everglades.

One commenter asked that the FAA reconsider the proposal to expand the surface area (Area B) because many small planes use that space to avoid intruding on arriving and departing aircraft in the Class B.

The FAA is proposing to expand Area B from the current 6 NM radius of MIA to a 7 NM radius of MIA. The one NM expansion of Area B is necessary to ensure containment of arriving aircraft within Class B airspace. Currently, arrivals briefly exit, then re-enter Class B airspace on final approach. FAA directives require that Class B airspace be designed to contain all instrument procedures within Class B airspace, and that surface areas must encompass all final approach fixes and minimum altitudes at those fixes. Therefore, the proposed 7 NM radius is required to comply with the containment criteria.

One person submitted a comment regarding the Florida Metroplex Project. The comment is outside the scope of this MIA Class B rulemaking action. This comment was referred to the Florida Metroplex Team for review.

One person commented that the FAA should publish Letters of Agreement (LOA) that are developed between ATC facilities and make them easy to access.

As an initial matter, this comment falls outside the scope of this rulemaking. Moreover, LOAs between ATC facilities outline procedures between facilities to allow for a standard operation, such as interfacility coordination, etc. LOAs do not dictate procedures that pilots who are not operating under ATC instructions need to follow. Because LOAs outline the handling of aircraft and interaction between ATC facilities, they are not made readily available to pilots. Whenever a pilot is uncertain about an ATC clearance or instruction, that pilot must immediately request clarification from ATC.

Two persons commented on the Class D airspace ceiling at satellite airports that underlie a Class B or Class C airspace shelf. In such cases, the Class D altitude ceiling might overlap into the overlying Class B or Class C airspace. The commenters said that the ceiling of the Class D airspace should be consistent with the floor of the overlying Class B or Class C airspace. This would assist pilots with awareness of the airspace and avoiding airspace violations by mistake.

As described previously, the Aeronautical Information Manual states that, when overlapping airspace designations apply, the operating rules associated with the more restrictive airspace designation apply. This is applicable in the case of the TMB Class D airspace (with a ceiling of 2,500 feet MSL). Area C of the MIA Class B airspace, which has a floor of 2,000 feet MSL, overlaps a portion of the TMB Class D airspace. Therefore, Class B operating rules apply in that overlapping portion. The proposed modifications to the MIA Class B airspace would also incorporate the airspace above the remainder of the TMB Class D into an expanded MIA Class B Area D with its Class B floor of 3,000 feet MSL. In this case, Class E airspace would exist in the gap between the 2,500 foot ceiling of the Class D airspace, and the overlying 3,000 foot floor of Class B airspace. These configurations are not unique to the MIA Class B airspace and can be found at other Class B locations in the United States. It is incumbent upon the pilot to become familiar with the airspace configuration when planning a flight.

Other commenters requested the FAA to incorporate a combination of GPS waypoints and recognizable ground features as VFR landmarks (such as the Dadeland Shopping Mall) into the airspace design to assist pilots in determining the Class B boundaries.

The FAA agrees with these comments and incorporated several updates into the proposal. The following are examples ground references added to the proposed Class B description:

In Area A (surface area), instead of the southern portion of the area being defined by the proposed 7 NM radius, the southern boundary would be moved northward to lat. 25°42′18″ N, along SW 72nd Street in the cities of Sunset and South Miami. This would keep the Dadeland Shopping Mall outside the surface area, allowing VFR aircraft to have continued use of that established check point for arrivals and departures out of the TMB area.

In Area B, the western boundary would be moved from the current 10 NM radius of MIA slightly westward to run along Krome Avenue, providing pilots with a visual reference for that boundary.

In the proposed new Area G (that airspace currently designated Area H), the northwestern boundary would be aligned with State Road 997/Krome Avenue. The Eastern boundary would be defined by the Miami Canal (paralleling US 27), and the Northern boundary point defined by the intersection of the Miami Canal and State Road 997/Krome Ave. The eastern boundary of the proposed new Area H would be defined by State Road 997/Krome Avenue. Aligning these boundaries with streets and other ground references should assist pilots with visual identification of the boundaries. The FAA is also considering the addition of waypoints to enhance pilot navigation in the MIA/FLL terminal area.

One commenter was concerned about the impact on sailplane operations from Miami Homestead General Aviation Airport (X51). Sailplane operations routinely use the airspace overlying TMB up to 4,000 feet MSL. The proposed lowering of the Class B floor to 3,000 feet MSL overlying TMB would inhibit operations. The commenter suggested a 4,000 foot Class B floor in that area instead.

Consideration was given to keeping the Class B floor over TMB unchanged. However, due to the recurrence of aircraft exiting the current MIA Class B either while on the downwind, on departure during a west operation, on vectors after a go-around event, or while on an instrument approach, the change is necessary to comply with the requirement to contain instrument procedures within Class B airspace.

One commenter requested the FAA to form a new Ad Hoc Committee to provide updated recommendations regarding the proposed airspace design.

The FAA originated the Ad Hoc Committee concept as a means to get preliminary user input during the initial design phase of Class B and C airspace proposals, prior to the issuance of an NPRM.

The FAA carefully considered the request to form a second Ad Hoc Committee. After full consideration of the Committee's concerns and recommendations, including the Committee's stated desire that the FAA mitigate the impact to operators outside the Class B, and improve the design originally presented to the Committee, the FAA re-evaluated the airspace design requirements for the airspace surrounding MIA and FLL. Based on that re-evaluation, the FAA will pursue an alternative design. Instead of establishing Class B airspace at FLL, the FAA decided to retain, but modify the Class C at FLL, as well as modifying the MIA Class B. This would result in less impact to the VFR and general aviation community.

Based on the above, the FAA concluded that sufficient feedback was received so that FAA could develop and publish the airspace proposal in an NPRM. The NPRM's 60-day comment period provides additional opportunity for the public to submit their views on the proposed MIA Class B airspace modification. Therefore, the FAA has decided against reforming an Ad Hoc Committee for this proposal.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify the Miami International Airport, FL, (MIA) B airspace area. This action (depicted on the attached graphic) would modify the lateral and vertical limits of Class B airspace to ensure the containment of large turbine-powered aircraft at MIA in Class B airspace once they enter the airspace, and enhance safety in the Miami terminal area.

The FAA will be issuing a separate NPRM to propose modifications to the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) Class C airspace area that is located immediately to the north of the MIA Class B airspace area.

The proposed modifications to the MIA Class B airspace area are discussed below.

In the text header of the MIA Class B airspace description, (as published in FAA Order 7400.11E), the geographic coordinates for MIA would be updated to read “lat. 25°47′43″ N, long. 080°17′24″ W” The name of the “Kendall-Tamiami Executive Airport” would be changed to its current name “Miami Executive Airport,” and its geographic coordinates would be updated to read “lat. 25°38′51″ N, long. 080°25′59″ W” These changes reflect the current National Airspace System Resources database information.

Area A. Area A would continue to extend upward from the surface to 7,000 feet MSL. The FAA proposes to modify Area A by expanding the current 6 nautical mile (NM) radius to a 7 NM radius of the MIA International Airport. This would resolve issues where aircraft exit and re-enter Class B airspace on final approach. Area A would also be modified by excluding that airspace “South of lat. 25°42′18″ N (SW 72nd Street in the cities of Sunset and South Miami).” This would move the southern boundary of the surface area north of the Dadeland Shopping Center keeping it outside the surface area, and allowing VFR aircraft to have continued use of that charted VFR checkpoint for arrivals and departures out of the TMB area.

Area B. Area B extends from 1,500 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. The FAA proposes to modify Area B by extending the current eastern boundary from the 10 NM radius of MIA out to the 13 NM radius of the airport. This change would both contain MIA arrivals within Class B airspace, and provide protection for VFR aircraft transitioning under the Class B airspace. Additionally, the western boundary of Area B would be moved from the current 10 NM radius of MIA slightly westward to run along Krome Avenue, providing pilots with a visual reference for that boundary. To assist with visual identification of the northern boundary of Area B (along lat. 25°53′03″ N), the street reference “NW 103rd Street/49th Street in the City of Hialeah” would be added to the description.

Area C. Area C extends from 2,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. The only proposed change to this area is to extend the boundary formed by the existing 4.3 NM radius of TMB southwestward (counterclockwise) to intersect the western boundary of the new Area H ( i.e., the 13 NM radius of MIA), as described below.

Area D. Area D extends from 3,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. Originally, the FAA proposed to expand Area D's western boundary from the current 20 NM radius west of MIA, further westward to the 25 NM radius of MIA. Based on comments received, the FAA decided to retain the western boundary of Area D at the current 20 NM radius of MIA. The FAA proposes to establish Area J (west of Area D, described below) between the 20 NM and 25 NM radii of MIA. Area J would extend from 4,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL, providing additional altitudes for transiting aircraft. The FAA further proposes to incorporate that airspace above TMB, that is currently designated “Area G,” into Area D. The existing Area G extends from 5,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. Incorporating this airspace into Area D would lower the floor of Class B airspace in that area to 3,000 feet MSL. This change would protect southbound departures from MIA during a west operation. The “Area G” designation would be reused elsewhere in the MIA Class B as described later.

Area E. The only proposed change to Area E is minor updates to the latitude/longitude coordinates that define the northeast side of the area for greater accuracy.

Area F. Area F extends from above 1,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. The eastern boundary of Area F would be extended from the current 6 NM radius of MIA out to the 7 NM radius of MIA. The south end of Area F would be moved slightly northward to lat. 25°42′18″ N to align with the proposed new southern boundary of Area A.

Area G. A new Area G would be designated in that airspace west of OPF that is currently designated Area H (the H designation would be reused as described below). The northwestern boundary of the existing Area H is the 10 NM radius from MIA. In the proposed new Area G, this boundary would be expanded further to the northwest to align with State Road 997/Krome Avenue. The new Area G would consist of that airspace extending upward from 2,000 feet MSL to and including 7,000 feet MSL, bounded on the South by lat. 25°52′03″ N (NW 103rd Street/49th Street in the City of Hialeah), on the West and Northwest by State Road 997/Krome Ave, on the East by the Miami Canal (paralleling US 27), and the Northern boundary point defined by the intersection of the Miami Canal and State Road 997/Krome Ave. Aligning boundaries with streets and other ground references would assist with visual identification of the boundaries.

Area H. Area H is a proposed new area that would extend from 2,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. It would be located directly west of the Area B western boundary. Area H would be bounded on the east by State Road 997/Krome Avenue; on the south by the 4.3 NM radius of TMB (the northern boundary of Area C); and on the west by the 13 NM radius of MIA. Area H would provide containment of MIA arrivals in Class B airspace. Its base altitude of 2,000 feet MSL, and the visual reference provided by Krome Avenue, would allow VFR aircraft to transition just west of Krome Avenue below 2,000 feet MSL without conflicting with MIA arrivals.

Area I. The FAA proposes to establish a new Area I, located east of MIA between the 20 NM and 25 NM radii from the airport. Area I would extend from 5,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. The area would be bounded by that airspace beginning at the intersection of lat. 25°57′48″ N and the 20 NM radius of MIA, thence moving East along lat. 25°57′48″ N to the intersection of a 25 NM radius of MIA, thence moving clockwise along the 25 NM radius to the Dolphin VORTAC 151°(T)/155°(M) radial, thence Northwest along the Dolphin VORTAC 151°(T)/155°(M) radial to the intersection of a 20 NM radius of MIA, thence counter-clockwise along the 20 NM radius to the point of beginning. This expansion is needed to contain aircraft on the downwind within Class B airspace. The 5,000 foot MSL base altitude of Area I gives VFR aircraft transitioning the area over water the ability to fly under the Class B airspace.

Area J. The FAA proposes to establish a new Area J located west of MIA between the 25 NM and 20 NM radii from the airport. Area J would extend from 4,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. The area would be bounded by that airspace beginning northwest of MIA at the intersection of a 25 NM radius of Miami International Airport and lat. 25°57′48″ N, thence east along lat. 25°57′48″ N to the intersection of a 20 NM radius of Miami International Airport, thence counter-clockwise along the 20 NM radius to lat. 25°40′19″ N, thence west along lat. 25°40′19″ N to the intersection of a 25 NM radius of Miami International Airport, thence clockwise along the 25 NM radius to the point of beginning.

In summary, the existing MIA Class B airspace design does not currently address the rapidly increasing general aviation and air carrier operations in the South Florida terminal area. The proposed Class B modification would provide:

Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 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 B airspace proposed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

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

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there is no new information collection requirement associated with this proposed rule.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this proposed rule: (1) Is expected to have a minimal cost impact, (2) is not an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not significant under DOT's administrative procedure rule on rulemaking at 49 CFR 5.13; (4) not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and (6) not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized below.

As discussed above, the FAA determined that changes put forth in this proposed rule would increase airspace safety and efficiency. The proposed rule would modify the lateral and vertical limits of Class B airspace around Miami International Airport (MIA) impacting commercial and general aviation flights transiting the airspace at the time of writing. The proposed modification is in response to increased commercial and general aviation activity at and near MIA airport at the time of writing. Currently, MIA Class B airspace does not fully contain aircraft flying instrument procedures at MIA. Aircraft routinely exit and re-enter MIA Class B airspace on final approach to MIA leading to safety issues with respect to flight separation between participating and non-participating aircraft outside of Class B airspace.

The modifications proposed in this NPRM are intended only to expand Class B airspace, where necessary, to contain large, turbine-powered aircraft while minimizing the impact on the use of the airspace by other aircraft. An analysis of existing MIA traffic flows shows that the proposed Class B airspace modifications would better contain IFR flights arriving and departing MIA inside Class B airspace, and provide better separation between IFR aircraft and VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Class B airspace area. Constructing sufficient airspace for safe control and separation of IFR flights improves the flow of air traffic, and more importantly enhances safety, reducing the potential for midair collision in the MIA terminal area.

The proposed expansion to Class B airspace would affect the VFR and general aviation community. VFR operators would need to adjust their routes for the modified MIA Class B airspace. However, as mentioned above, the FAA initiated outreach between 2010 and 2019 for input and recommendations from the effected aviation community on the planned modifications to the MIA airspace. The feedback resulted in changes to the airspace design with the intent of maintaining safety and minimizing the impact to operators using the surrounding airspace. Additionally, VFR operators can use the current north-south charted VFR Flyway below the 3,000-foot Class B floor to the west of MIA, which enables pilots to fly beneath the Class B, or contact MIA Approach to request flight following, if desired, to lessen the impact. Therefore, the FAA expects the Class B modifications in this proposal would result in minimal cost to VFR operators. The FAA requests comments on the benefits and costs of this proposal to inform the final rule.

The discussion presented in this section reflects conditions that predate the public health emergency concerning the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in 2020. At the time of writing, there is uncertainty surrounding the timing of recovery and the long-term effects from the public health emergency. To the extent that there are lingering or lasting changes to general aviation and air carrier operations, the benefits and costs of the MIA Class B airspace modification in this proposal may vary relative to the level of future operations.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for- profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

The proposed rule would modify Class B airspace around MIA. The change would affect general aviation operators using the airspace at or near MIA. Operators flying VFR would need to adjust their flight paths to avoid the modified Class B airspace. However, the modifications to Class B airspace are intended to be the least restrictive option while maintaining safety. Additionally, VFR operators can also use the current north-south charted VFR flyway below the 3,000-foot Class B floor to the west of MIA, which enables pilots to fly beneath the Class B or VFR pilots have the option to contact Miami Approach and request flight following, if desired. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that it would improve safety and is consistent with the Trade Agreements Act.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

As part of this proposal relates to navigable airspace outside the United States, this notice is submitted in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) International Standards and Recommended Practices.

The application of International Standards and Recommended Practices by the FAA, Office of Policy, Rule and Regulations Group, in areas outside the United States domestic airspace, is governed by the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Specifically, the FAA is governed by Article 12 and Annex 11, which pertain to the establishment of necessary air navigational facilities and services to promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of civil air traffic. The purpose of Article 12 and Annex 11 is to ensure that civil aircraft operations on international air routes are performed under uniform conditions.

The International Standards and Recommended Practices in Annex 11 apply to airspace under the jurisdiction of a contracting state, derived from ICAO. Annex 11 provisions apply when air traffic services are provided and a contracting state accepts the responsibility of providing air traffic services over high seas or in airspace of undetermined sovereignty. A contracting state accepting this responsibility may apply the International Standards and Recommended Practices that are consistent with standards and practices utilized in its domestic jurisdiction.

In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, state-owned aircraft are exempt from the Standards and Recommended Practices of Annex 11. The United States is a contracting state to the Convention. Article 3(d) of the Convention provides that participating state aircraft will be operated in international airspace with due regard for the safety of civil aircraft. Since this action involves, in part, the designation of navigable airspace outside the United States, the Administrator consulted with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 10854.

The Department of State responded with no objection to the proposed expansion of the Miami Class B airspace area. The Department of Defense Policy Board on Federal Aviation (PBFA) concurred with comment. The PBFA noted concerns that extending these areas into international airspace places additional restrictions and equipage requirements on aircraft transiting therein; and such ATC expansions could set a precedent for foreign nations to exert more restrictive control measures in other international airspaces without limits to lateral confines, in the interest of commerce and safety.

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.

This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposal is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The proposed regulations that are the subject of this correction are under sections 1297 and 1298 of the Internal Revenue Code.

As published, the notice of proposed regulations REG-111950-20 contains errors that needs to be corrected.

Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-111950-20) that was the subject of FR Doc. 2020-27003, published at 86 FR 4582 (January 15, 2021), is corrected to read as follows:

1. On page 4589, the first column, the twelfth line from the bottom of the last full paragraph, the language “corporation)” is corrected to read “corporation”).

2. On page 4592, the second column, the tenth line from the top of the first partial paragraph, the language “interests” is corrected to read “interests,”.

On February 26, 2021, Roen Salvage Company notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting daily blasting operations beginning April 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021, for an approximate 15 minute period occurring between 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. in conjunction with a construction project. The blasting will take place on the southern bank of the Menominee River near the Fincantieri Marinette Marine facility. The Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the blasting would be a safety concern for anyone within a 1000 foot radius of the blasting site.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a 1000-foot radius of the blasting site before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).]

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule with an abridged notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not undertaking a thirty-day comment period with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard received details of these operations with insufficient time remaining to undergo a full thirty-day comment period. While it is impracticable to undergo a full thirty-day comment period and still protect the public from the hazards associated with these operations, the Coast Guard invites comments for the next fifteen days.

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

The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone lasting from April 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021 for an approximate 15 minute period occurring daily between 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 1000 foot radius of the blasting site which will be on the southern bank of the Menominee River at the Fincantieri Ship Yard in Marinette, WI. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the daily blasting event. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone during blasting operations. During non-blasting times, no vessels would be permitted to transit the area at speeds that would create a wake. Additionally, no vessels would be permitted to transit between the construction barges and the southern bank of the Menominee River. No vessels or person would be allowed to conduct the three preceeding activities without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the characteristics of the safety zone. The safety zone created by this proposed rule will relatively small and is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. This proposed rule will prohibit entry into certain navigable waters of the Menominee River in Marinette, WI, and it is not anticipated to exceed 15 minutes in duration each day. During non-blasting operation vessels would be allowed to enter the safety zone at speeds that do not create a wake. Additionally, the exclusion area between the construction barges and southern bank of the river is small and allows for plenty of space within the channel for vessels to transit the area north of the construction barges. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Moreover, under certain conditions vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the COTP Lake Michigan.

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

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

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone that would prohibit vessels from passing through a small area located between the construction barges and the southern bank of the Menominee River, would prohibit entry into the all navigable waters within a 1000 foot radius of the construction barges for a maximum of 15 minutes per day during blasting activities, and would prohibit vessels from transiting the safety zone at speeds that would create a wake. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

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

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

Table 1 lists the documents addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were amended by the local air agency and submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

On September 14, 2020, the EPA determined that the submittal for PCAQCD's negative declarations and two rules met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

We approved earlier versions of the two rules, Article 13 Surface Coating Operations and Article 20 Storage and Loading of Gasoline at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, into the SIP on August 9, 2019 (84 FR 39196). The PCAQCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on August 5, 2020, and ADEQ submitted them to us on August 20, 2020. If we take final action to approve the August 5, 2020 versions of the two rules, these versions will replace the previously approved versions of these rules in the SIP.

We approved portions of the RACT SIP and negative declarations on August 9, 2019 (84 FR 39196). The PCAQCD adopted additional negative declarations on August 5, 2020, and ADEQ submitted them to us on August 20, 2020.

Emissions of VOCs and oxides of nitrogen (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 VOC and NO X emissions. Sections 182(b)(2) and (f) require that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above implement RACT for any source covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document and for any major source of VOCs or NO X . The PCAQCD is subject to this requirement as it regulates the Pinal County portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area that is currently designated and classified as a Moderate nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the PCAQCD must, at a minimum, adopt RACT-level controls for all sources covered by a CTG document and for all major non-CTG sources of VOCs or NO X within the ozone nonattainment area that it regulates. Any stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 100 tons per year (tpy) of VOCs or NO X is a major stationary source in a Moderate ozone nonattainment area (CAA section 182(b)(2), (f) and 302(j)).

Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) discusses RACT requirements. It states in part that RACT SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative declarations that no sources in the nonattainment area are covered by a specific CTG. Id. at 12278. It also provides that states must submit appropriate supporting information for their RACT submissions as described in the EPA's implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See Id. and 70 FR 71612, 71652 (November 29, 2005). The submitted negative declarations provide PCAQCD's analyses of its compliance with the CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. PCAQCD also adopted and submitted for SIP approval the following two rules.

Chapter 5, Article 13 is a rule that establishes VOC content limits for surface coating operations in the Pinal County portion of the Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. It contains: Definitions; VOC content limits; various partial exemptions; requirements for coating application methods, cleanup of application equipment, work practices for the handling, disposal, and storage of VOC containing materials, and emission control systems; and requirements for monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping.

Chapter 5, Article 20 is a rule that establishes limits for VOC emissions from gasoline during storage and loading of gasoline at gasoline dispensing facilities. It contains: Definitions; various exemptions; requirements for vapor recovery equipment, general housekeeping, gasoline storage equipment, and gasoline loading operations; and requirements for monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping.

EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about the District's negative declarations, rules, and the EPA's evaluations thereof.

SIP rules must require RACT for each category of sources covered by a CTG document as well as each major source of VOCs or NO X in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (CAA section 182(b)(2)). The PCAQCD regulates a Moderate ozone nonattainment area (40 CFR 81.303) so the District's rules must implement RACT.

States must submit for SIP approval negative declarations for those source categories for which they have not adopted CTG-based regulations (because they have no sources above the CTG-recommended applicability threshold) regardless of whether such negative declarations were made for an earlier SIP. 1 To do so, the submittal should provide reasonable assurance that no sources subject to the CTG requirements currently exist in the portion of the ozone nonattainment area that is regulated by the PCAQCD.

The District's analysis must demonstrate that each major source of VOCs or NO X in the ozone nonattainment area is covered by a RACT-level rule, or submit a negative declaration that no such sources exist in the part of the nonattainment area that is within the District. In addition, for each CTG source category, the District must either demonstrate that a RACT-level rule is in place, or submit a negative declaration. Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate CAA section 182 RACT requirements include the following:

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

In addition to the documents listed above, guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, stringency, and revision/relaxation requirements include the following:

1. “Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems—Gasoline Service Stations,” EPA-450/R-75-102, November 1975.

2. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products,” EPA-450/2-78-015, June 1978.

3. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings,” EPA 453/R-08-003, September 2008.

4. “Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably Available Control Technology,” June 1992.

5. Memorandum dated March 17, 2011, from Scott Mathias, Interim Director, Air Quality Policy Division, U.S. EPA to Regional Air Division Directors, Subject: “Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Certain Coatings Categories.”

These rules meet CAA requirements and are consistent with relevant guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. After reviewing PCAQCD's list of Title V permitted facilities, we have also determined the negative declarations adopted by PCAQCD are correct. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

The TSDs include recommendations for the next time the local agency modifies the rules.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rules and negative declarations because they fulfill all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until April 5, 2021. If we take final action to approve the submitted rules and negative declarations, our final action will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP. Our final approval of the submitted rules and negative declarations would correct all of the deficiencies identified in our August 9, 2019 partial approval, partial disapproval and limited approval, limited disapproval of PCAQCD's RACT SIP submittal for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (84 FR 39196).

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 two PCAQCD 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 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).

I. Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) establishes a process for air quality management through the establishment and implementation of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO 2 NAAQS, establishing a new 1-hour SO 2 standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb). See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). 1 After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required to designate all areas of the country, pursuant to section 107(d)(1)-(2) of the CAA. For the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS, designations were based on EPA's application of the nationwide analytical approach to, and technical assessment of, the weight of evidence for each area, including but not limited to available air quality monitoring data and air quality modeling results. In advance of designating the Sumner County Area, EPA issued updated designations guidance through a March 20, 2015, memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Air Division Directors, U.S. EPA Regions 1-10 titled, “Updated Guidance for Area Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” which contained the factors that EPA evaluated in determining the appropriate designations and associated boundaries when designating the Sumner County Area, including: (1) Air quality characterization via ambient monitoring or dispersion modeling results; (2) emissions-related data; (3) meteorology; (4) geography and topography; and (5) jurisdictional boundaries. 2 3 The guidance also referenced EPA's non-binding Monitoring Technical Assistance Document (Monitoring TAD) and Modeling Technical Assistance Document (Modeling TAD), 4 which contain scientifically sound recommendations on how air agencies should conduct such monitoring or modeling.

EPA completed the first set of initial area designations for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in 2013 (Round 1). Pursuant to a March 2, 2015, consent decree and court-ordered schedule, 5 EPA finalized a second set of initial area designations for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in 2016 (Round 2). The March 2, 2015, consent decree identified the following emissions criteria such that EPA must designate, in Round 2, an area surrounding any stationary source which had: (a) annual emissions in 2012 exceeding 16,000 tons of SO 2 , or (b) both an annual average emissions rate of at least 0.45 pounds of SO 2 per one million British thermal units, according to EPA's Clean Air Markets Division Database, and annual emissions of at least 2,600 tons of SO 2 in 2012. Sumner County, Tennessee contained one source, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Gallatin Fossil Plant (TVA Gallatin), that met these Round 2 criteria. EPA evaluated the Area, using the five factors identified previously, during the Round 2 designations. This evaluation is discussed further in Section III of this notice. TVA Gallatin is located in north-central Tennessee in the southern portion of Sumner County, approximately 5 kilometers (km) southeast of the center of Gallatin, Tennessee. TVA Gallatin is a large Electric Generating Unit that was included in the list of facilities to be designated pursuant to the March 2, 2015, Consent Decree. 6 7

EPA's March 20, 2015, guidance specified the designation category definitions to be used in the Round 2 designations. Specifically, EPA defined a “nonattainment” area as an area that EPA has determined violates the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS based on the most recent three years of quality-assured, certified ambient air quality monitoring data or an appropriate modeling analysis, or that EPA has determined contributes to a violation in a nearby area; and defined an “attainment” area as an area that EPA has determined meets the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS and does not contribute to a violation of the NAAQS in a nearby area based on either: (a) the most recent 3 years of ambient air quality monitoring data from a monitoring network in an area that is sufficient to be compared to the NAAQS per EPA interpretations in the Monitoring TAD, or (b) an appropriate modeling analysis. As discussed further in Section III of this notice, EPA was unable to determine whether the Sumner County Area met the definition of a nonattainment area or the definition of an attainment area based on the available information at the time of the Round 2 designations. As a result, EPA designated the Sumner County Area as unclassifiable in the Round 2 designations published on July 12, 2016. 8 The boundary for this designation was the jurisdictional boundary of Sumner County.

Detailed rationale, analyses, and other information supporting EPA's original Round 2 designation for this Area can be found in the Round 2 designation's technical support document (TSD) for Tennessee. That TSD, along with all other supporting materials for the original 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS designation for Sumner County, can be found on EPA's SO 2 designations website. 9 In support of this proposed redesignation action, EPA evaluated new modeling for the Sumner County Area provided by Tennessee and developed a new TSD. The TSD for this proposed action is included in the docket. 10

Section 107(d)(3)(A) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may notify the Governor of any state that the designation of an area should be revised “on the basis of air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate.”  11 The Act further provides in section 107(d)(3)(D) that even if the Administrator has not notified a state Governor that a designation should be revised, the Governor of any state may, on the Governor's own motion, submit a request to revise the designation of any area, and the Administrator must approve or deny the request. In keeping with CAA section 107(d)(3)(A), areas that are redesignated to attainment/unclassifiable  12 must meet the requirements for attainment areas and, thus, must meet the relevant NAAQS. In addition, the area must not contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. See the definitions for nonattainment area, attainment area, and unclassifiable area in CAA section 107(d)(1)(A)(i)-(iii).

In its designations under the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS, EPA has generally defined an attainment/unclassifiable area as an area that, based on available information including (but not limited to) appropriate monitoring data and/or modeling analyses, EPA has determined meets the NAAQS and determined that the available information indicates that the area does not likely contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. EPA is proposing to find that the Sumner County Area now meets the definition of attainment/unclassifiable based upon air quality dispersion modeling analyses that demonstrates attainment, i.e., no violations of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS and not contributing to a nearby area that is not meeting the NAAQS. EPA preliminarily finds this information sufficient for the purposes of redesignating an area from unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable. Such redesignations are functionally similar to initial designations and are not subject to CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), which, amongst other things, requires attainment to be due to permanent and enforceable measures and which requires a demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS for 10 years.

The Sumner County Area was designated unclassifiable by EPA on July 12, 2016. EPA's rationale for the unclassifiable designation is fully explained in the TSD associated with that action. 13 As discussed in the final TSD, the revised modeling provided by Tennessee in March 2016 for the final designation action used allowable SO 2 emissions rates from the TVA Gallatin facility that had not yet been made federally enforceable. Additionally, the final modeling analysis did not appropriately account for background SO 2 concentrations in the Area which was considered inconsistent with EPA's Modeling TAD and modeling guidelines in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W.

Tennessee submitted an updated modeling analysis with its letter signed by Michelle Owenby, Director of TDEC's Division of Air Pollution Control, on September 29, 2020, requesting that EPA redesignate Sumner County, Tennessee, to attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. 14 This updated modeling was performed using the current version of EPA's recommended dispersion model, AERMOD version 19191, with the most recent three years of actual SO 2 emissions (2017-2019) from the TVA Gallatin facility and concurrent meteorology data. Additionally, the updated modeling used recent 2016 land cover data and appropriately accounted for background SO 2 concentrations in the Area. The TSD included in the docket for this proposed redesignation action provides a detailed summary of Tennessee's modeling analysis and EPA's evaluation of the modeling.

According to EPA's guidance on redesignations, SO 2 nonattainment areas using modeling to demonstrate attainment for a redesignation request are expected to use maximum allowable emissions. 15 However, this statement derives from the requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), which applies only to the redesignation of nonattainment areas to attainment. For redesignations of unclassifiable areas, the necessary analysis is equivalent to what would be required in a designation in the first instance since EPA has not found the area to be attainment or nonattainment. In this first instance, the goal is to characterize existing ambient air quality. As such, it is appropriate to use actual emissions for estimating existing air quality. EPA's acceptance of modeling using actual emissions in this instance should not be construed to define what would be needed for a demonstration of attainment and maintenance for purposes of a redesignation of a nonattainment area to attainment.

After reviewing Tennessee's request under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D) and all available information, EPA is proposing to find that the modeling provided by the State comports with EPA's current Modeling TAD and EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51 Appendix W) and is acceptable for assessing the attainment status of the Sumner County Area. The State's modeling indicates that the predicted maximum design value at any receptor in the modeling domain is 60.5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3 ), or 23.1 ppb. 16 EPA's review confirms that the modeling results appropriately characterize the air quality in the Sumner County Area that predicted ambient SO 2 concentrations are below the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS of 196.4 µg/m 3 , or 75 ppb. 17 Additionally, there is no evidence of monitored or modeled violations in the surrounding counties such that the source is contributing to any nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. EPA is therefore proposing to approve Tennessee's redesignation request and proposing to redesignate the entirety of Sumner County that was designated as unclassifiable in July 2016 to attainment/unclassifiable based on the currently available information that demonstrates attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS.

EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's September 29, 2020, redesignation request and to redesignate the Sumner County Area from unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. EPA has reviewed the modeling provided by the State with its redesignation request and preliminarily finds that it complies with EPA's current Modeling TAD and EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51 Appendix W) and is acceptable for assessing the attainment status of the Sumner County Area. If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change the legal designation, found at 40 CFR part 81, of Sumner County from unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS.

Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment/unclassifiable is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment/unclassifiable does not create any new requirements. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to redesignate an area to attainment/unclassifiable and does not impose additional requirements. 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 CAA; and

• Will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

This proposed action does 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. In those areas of Indian country, this proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

States that have received final authorization from EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) § 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal program. As the federal program changes, states must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. EPA's Federal Register notices regarding proposed and final authorization of revisions to state hazardous waste management programs provide the public with an opportunity to comment and also offer details with respect to the scope of the revised program authorizations on which both the general public and the regulated community may rely. Where these notices omit critical information or fail to clearly delineate the scope of authorized program revisions, corrections may be necessary and/or appropriate.

After proposing updates to California's authorized hazardous waste program on October 18, 2019 (80 FR 55871), EPA authorized changes to California's hazardous waste program on January 14, 2020 (85 FR 2038). EPA is now proposing to correct the updated authorization by clarifying that: (1) California is authorized to add federally-regulated hazardous waste streams to its universal waste program and the requirements that California establishes to manage such added waste streams are federally enforceable, whether they are added to California's universal waste program prior to or after EPA's authorization of the State's universal waste program; (2) State universal waste requirements that apply to non-RCRA wastes designated by California as “hazardous waste,” also known as “non-RCRA hazardous waste,” are beyond the scope of the federal program and are not being authorized; and, similarly, (3) other wastes that are sometimes federally-regulated hazardous waste and sometimes non-RCRA hazardous waste under California law, are part of the federally authorized program, but only insofar as these materials constitute federally-regulated hazardous waste. If these corrections are finalized, these changes to the scope of California's authorized universal hazardous waste program would become effective.

EPA will consider all comments received during the comment period and address them in a final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on the corrections proposed here, you must do so at this time.

California initially received final authorization for the state hazardous waste management program on July 23, 1992 (57 FR 32726), effective August 1, 1992. EPA granted final authorization for changes to California's program on the following dates: September 26, 2001 (66 FR 49118), effective September 26, 2001 and October 7, 2011 (76 FR 62303), effective October 7, 2011 and January 14, 2020 (85 FR 2038), effective January 14, 2020.

EPA proposes to correct and clarify the terms of the January 14, 2020 authorization of California's hazardous waste program with respect to universal waste.

EPA is recreating in this proposal the State Analogues to the Federal Program table that was published in the proposed authorization update Federal Register notice at 84 FR 55872 (October 18, 2019). This table is a helpful tool in tracking the elements of the authorized State hazardous waste program.

As an initial matter, EPA is adding citations in the table to reflect the Agency's proposed authorization of California's authority to add waste streams to the State's universal waste program at Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) 66260.22 and 66260.23, the federal analogues of which are 40 CFR 260.20(a) and 260.23(a) through (d), respectively. Authorization of these provisions—which were inadvertently omitted from the proposed and final rules authorizing California universal waste program—is critical to EPA's ability to enforce State universal waste program requirements for federally-regulated hazardous wastes that have already been or are added to California's universal waste program in the future. If these proposed corrections to authorize 22 CCR 66260.22 and 66260.23 are finalized, EPA will be empowered to enforce California's universal waste requirements for federally regulated hazardous waste that California has already added or adds to its universal waste program pursuant to these requirements in the future.

Similarly, EPA is adding a footnote to the updated State Analogues to the Federal Program table to clarify the implications of the authorization of the State's universal waste program on a waste stream that the State already identified as a universal waste before the universal waste authorization update was effective, i.e., aerosol cans. This footnote clarifies that, while EPA has more recently taken action to identify aerosol cans as universal waste (citing 84 FR 67202, December 9, 2019, effective February 7, 2020), California's previous reliance on 22 CCR 66260.22 and 66260.23 to add such wastes, which are proposed to be authorized in accordance with this correction, would be considered retroactive. Thus, if these corrections are approved, California's universal waste requirements for aerosol cans would be federally enforceable. The Agency believes that these State requirements would have been included in California's universal waste authorization update application, but for the fact that the federal aerosol can universal waste rule was not in effect at the time of the State's July 10, 2019 submittal of its application. Because the Agency is correcting the recent authorization update and is now proposing approval of California's analogous provisions for adding new universal waste streams under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.23, and because aerosol cans were previously added to California's universal waste program in accordance with its analogues to these provisions, the Agency maintains that the clarifying footnote in this proposal is both helpful and appropriate.

The corrections proposed in this rule, and described above, would require modifications to the State Analogues to the Federal Program table published on October 18, 2019 (80 FR 55871), as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3168, released January 14, 2021. The full text of the Petition can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

Subject: Implementation of State and Local Governments' Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, published 85 FR 78005, December 3, 2020, in WT Docket No. 19-250 and RM-11849. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

Number of Petitions Filed: 1.