Peter Crane is the Acting Secretary for Sensible Controls on Administrations of Radioactive Iodine (SCAR). Most of the members of SCAR have been treated with radioactive iodine. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend part 35 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) to revise the criteria for patient release after the administration of radioactive iodine. The petition can be found in ADAMS at Accession No. ML20024F779.

The petitioner requests that the NRC revise the patient release criteria in § 35.75 to ensure the availability of inpatient treatment when required. The petitioner summarized the history of the NRC's patient release regulations before, and after, the 1997 rulemaking that amended the criteria for the release of patients following medical treatments involving radioactive isotopes. The petitioner states that the current NRC patient release regulations neglect internal radiation dose and are based solely on the external radiation exposure from radioactive iodine. The petitioner further states that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and other national and international authorities, internal radiation dose is critically important, particularly for children as they are far more at risk from the effects of radiation exposure than adults. The petitioner also states that the NRC's patient release regulations have been interpreted to permit newly treated patients to be released, resulting in five times the radioactive iodine exposure to the patient's family and the public than is allowed by national and international standards. The petitioner asserts that the responsibility to protect the public has shifted from medical providers to individual patients, who may not be adequately informed of the risks to the public. The petitioner asserts that the NRC's patient release regulations allow insurance companies to dictate whether patients and their families receive adequate radiation protection. The petitioner states that the patient release regulations need to be amended, and that this can be accomplished in different ways. The petitioner suggests that the NRC could reinstate an activity cap at 10 or 15 millicuries of radioactive iodine or reduce the current dose limit from 500 millirems to 100 millirems, which the petitioner says is consistent with national and international standards. The petitioner observes that guidance on patient release is non-binding; therefore, to enforce new requirements, the petitioner requests that the NRC conduct rulemaking.

The NRC has determined that the petition satisfies the requirements for docketing a petition for rulemaking in § 2.802(c). The NRC is reviewing the merits of the petition. The NRC has sufficient information to understand and evaluate the merits of the petition; therefore, NRC is not seeking public comment at this time.

I. Executive Summary

Current noise certification regulations do not include standards for supersonic airplanes other than the Concorde. In its 2018 reauthorization, 1 the FAA was directed to exercise leadership in the creation of Federal and international policies, regulations, and standards relating to the certification and the safe and efficient operation of civil supersonic aircraft. This rulemaking is a step in that process. The agency is proposing to amend the noise certification regulations in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 21 and 36 to provide for new supersonic airplanes, and to add subsonic landing and takeoff (LTO) cycle standards for supersonic airplanes that have a maximum takeoff weight no greater than 150,000 pounds and a maximum operating cruise speed up to Mach 1.8. This proposal is based in part on the Supersonic Transport Concept Airplane (STCA) studies performed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), information provided to the FAA by U.S. industry, and the continuing work of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP). These proposed certification standards would provide a means to certificate these airplanes for noise for subsonic operation domestically, but would not affect the prohibition in 14 CFR 91.817 on the creation of sonic booms ( i.e., supersonic operations over land in the United States would remain prohibited).

This proposed rule would (1) amend the applicability of part 36 to include new supersonic airplanes for which type certification is requested after a final rule takes effect, (2) revise the definition of supersonic airplane to include newly certificated airplanes but exclude the Concorde, 2 (3) provide noise certification reference procedures to be used for all supersonic airplanes, and (4) establish noise limits for takeoff and landing that would apply to Supersonic Level 1 (SSL1) airplanes, as defined in the proposed regulation. The proposed standards include noise limits that are quieter than the Stage 4 limits at which most of the current subsonic jet fleet operates, though louder than the current certification level of Stage 5 for the same aircraft weights. The proposed standards would allow Variable Noise Reduction Systems (VNRS) to be used for noise certification testing, and if used for certification, would require the system to be activated during normal operations.

The FAA's authority to issue rules on 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 III, Section 44715, Controlling aircraft noise and sonic boom. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to measure and abate aircraft noise. This rulemaking is also promulgated under the authority of Section 181 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Public Law 115-254, which directs the FAA Administrator to exercise leadership in the creation of Federal policies, regulations, and standards related to the certification of and to the safe and efficient operation of civil supersonic aircraft. This regulation is within the scope of those authorities because it provides for the applicability of the regulations to a new class of supersonic airplanes, and sets the noise limits described in § 44715(a)(3) that are required to be in place before the FAA may issue a new type certificate.

Current noise certification regulations do not include standards for supersonic airplanes other than the Concorde. In 1978, the FAA promulgated its first rule addressing civil supersonic aircraft noise, establishing takeoff and landing noise standards in 14 CFR part 36 specific to the Concorde airplane. 3 That rule did “not establish certification noise limits for future design [supersonic aircraft] since the technological feasibility of such standards is at present unknown.”  4 In addition, the FAA established operational noise limits applicable to civil supersonic airplanes.

However, the FAA anticipated that there would be future supersonic aircraft designs that could be economically viable and environmentally acceptable. In 1978, such an idea was only theoretical, but it was known that major advancements would need to be made. These advancements included improvements to noise reduction features, flexible performance requirements, and environmental acceptability.

As technology continued to advance, the FAA expressed interest in amending its regulations to account for the development of supersonic aircraft other than the Concorde. In 1986, the FAA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) addressing the possibility of amending parts 36 and 91 to provide for noise type certification and civil operation of newer supersonic aircraft. 5 The FAA subsequently published an NPRM in 1990 that would have required future supersonic aircraft to meet Stage 3 noise limits, which were then the maximum noise limits for subsonic airplanes. 6 In 1994, the FAA withdrew the NPRM, stating that further research was necessary before developing a final rule. 7

In February 2018, the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel published an interpretation that addressed 14 CFR part 36, and whether it would apply to an application for type certification of a new supersonic airplane. The interpretation concluded that part 36 applies only to subsonic aircraft by its own terms (except for the Concorde, which was included by name in regulations from the 1970s). The interpretation also found that if no noise standards for a supersonic aircraft were in place at the time of an application for type certification, the FAA's statutory mandate would require the agency to create noise certification standards applicable to the aircraft before a type certificate could be issued, even if that set of noise standards only applied to one aircraft model. The full interpretation is available online  8 and a copy has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

Currently, FAA regulations prohibit civil aircraft from operating at speeds exceeding Mach I over land in the United States. (14 CFR 91.817). The FAA does not propose to change that prohibition with this rule. This proposal is limited to establishing procedures and noise levels for subsonic operation of supersonic aircraft during landing and takeoff.

For a brief history of supersonic airplane operations in the United States, please consult the background section of the FAA's NPRM titled Special Flight Authorizations for Supersonic Aircraft, published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2019, at 84 FR 30961.

Several U.S. manufacturers have begun developing the next generation of supersonic airplanes. Current regulations do not include noise standards applicable to new supersonic airplanes, and the FAA's statutory authority requires that noise regulations be in place before a new aircraft type certificate may be issued. 9 Accordingly, the FAA is proposing to amend its noise certification regulations to apply to supersonic airplanes, and to adopt noise certification procedures and noise limits that would apply during the LTO cycle of certain new supersonic airplanes. Manufacturers have indicated that they expect new supersonic-capable designs to enter service in the mid- to late-2020s. The FAA has a statutory duty to both protect the public health and welfare from aircraft noise and sonic boom, 10 and when proposing noise standards, to consider whether the standard is economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate for the aircraft to which the standards apply. 11 For more than a decade, aircraft developers have indicated their need for the FAA to establish reasonable, achievable supersonic LTO cycle noise limits in order to complete their designs with reasonable certainty that the aircraft will qualify for type certification in the United States.

All airplanes, including supersonic airplanes, operate at subsonic speed during the LTO cycle. Under part 36, the amount of noise allowed to be produced during these phases of flight is determined by aircraft weight. 12 This rule proposes LTO cycle noise limits for supersonic airplanes that have a maximum takeoff weight of 150,000 pounds and a maximum operating cruise speed of Mach 1.8, defining this class of airplanes as SSL1. The primary reason for proposing a separate supersonic category and SSL1 airplane class is to account for the distinct design of the aircraft (discussed below in paragraph C.) and the resulting known source noise effects on certain noise measurements. As industry continues to develop supersonic capable airplane designs and can provide more data on airplane noise and performance, the FAA expects to adopt LTO cycle standards for aircraft of greater maximum takeoff weight and higher operational speeds.

This proposed rule does not address any noise associated with normal flight at cruise altitudes or supersonic speeds. The FAA has not promulgated cruise altitude noise regulations for subsonic airplanes, and sufficient data are not currently available that would support rulemaking to develop such standards for supersonic airplanes. Before any changes to the operating rules could be proposed, more research is needed on the production of noise at supersonic cruise speeds and the regulatory approaches that would be appropriate. Allowing civil airplane operation at speeds in excess of Mach 1 over land in the U.S. may become possible in the future, but it is not expected before the development of new technologies reducing the impact of sonic boom generation or eliminating sonic boom exposure. Accordingly, nothing about this proposal may be interpreted as affecting the existing prohibition on exceeding Mach 1 speed (thus producing a sonic boom) over land in the United States. 13 The FAA, NASA, ICAO, and aviation stakeholders worldwide continue to study and evaluate the methods that would support the next phases of supersonic development, including the measurement of sonic boom noise and the effect on people on the ground.

As a part of the process to develop this proposed rule, the FAA has consulted with NASA and other interested parties in the aviation industry, and has continued its leadership roles at ICAO to assess the needs of the industry and the public, and the costs and benefits of introducing these new aircraft.

When the FAA began to develop this rulemaking in 2018, the agency asked several entities whether they were developing supersonic airplane projects and whether they were interested in sharing data regarding the probable noise characteristics associated with those projects. The FAA is placing in the docket for this rulemaking the list of questions we sent interested entities, and a list of those who responded. The FAA has determined that the information we received in response to our questions is considered proprietary and subject to the Trade Secrets Act, 14 and would be protected from release pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under FOIA Exemption 4. 15 The information we received was combined with the data from the NASA studies and ongoing ICAO efforts as part of the overall data set that informed this proposed rule.

The FAA is proposing noise certification levels specific to supersonic aircraft, as well as certain changes to existing reference procedures for measuring aircraft noise during certification. These proposed noise levels are different than the current Stage 5 noise levels for subsonic aircraft. This difference reflects the need to take into account the unique technological and design requirements for supersonic aircraft to maintain long-distance supersonic flight. As will be discussed below, the FAA has found that the technological differences between subsonic and supersonic airplanes require that a separate set of noise certification levels be established for supersonics since noise is an intrinsic function of these differences. This rule proposes standards for the use of airplane-specific noise abatement technical equipment and procedures (such as VNRS) that are central to establishing LTO cycle noise levels at certification. The traditional regulatory framework and the use of the well-understood, efficient subsonic airplane testing requirements are maintained in this proposed rule, including the existing means of acoustical measurements, data evaluation, reference (test) procedures, reference (atmospheric) conditions, and adjustment analyses for noise certification. The FAA expects that these proposed regulations would result in noise tests of new supersonic airplanes being conducted in much the same manner and under the same conditions as current subsonic airplanes.

In order to achieve and maintain supersonic flight over long distances, different technologies need to be incorporated. They are most evident in the design and performance of (1) the fuselage and wing shape, and (2) the engine design. Each of those design characteristics has effects on airplane noise during subsonic operation. The FAA collected and reviewed data from U.S. manufacturers regarding their conceptual designs for new supersonic aircraft in an effort to identify appropriate subsonic LTO cycle noise limits for these airplanes. These data were also used to support the FAA's efforts to protect the public from noise and to propose standards that are reasonable. The noise limits proposed in this rule take into account the technological advancements that have been made since the Concorde was first flown commercially in the 1970s. The FAA anticipates that new supersonic airplane designs will produce LTO cycle noise similar to the fleet of subsonic airplanes currently in operation.

The recognizable design of the Concorde, with its long, narrow fuselage and swept-back wings, is not simply about aesthetics. All aircraft experience drag, the resistance to moving air that requires power to overcome, similar to putting one's hand out the window of a moving car. When traveling at supersonic speeds, the amount of drag increases significantly due to wave drag attributed to shock wave formation when operating at speeds faster than Mach 1 (the speed of sound). As a consequence of the large increase in drag at supersonic speed, supersonic aircraft must have a relatively small cross-section to minimize the drag effect on the airframe. In practice, supersonic aircraft designs tend to look more like a dart with a smaller diameter fuselage than a traditional tube and wing shaped subsonic aircraft.

Supersonic speeds also require a different wing design than the typical subsonic airplane. Wave drag, which also burdens subsonic airplanes, is a more significant contributor to total drag on supersonic designs because of shock waves that form at speeds greater than Mach 1. In order to minimize wave drag, the wings of a supersonic airplane are thinner (in cross-sectional thickness) and have a shorter swept wingspan (delta shaped) than a subsonic airplane. This wing design helps minimize wave drag at supersonic speeds; however, it does not generate lift as well as subsonic airplane wings at lower speeds. This difference is important when the airplane is taking off and landing. This difference in wing design requires supersonic airplanes to operate at higher speeds during takeoff and landing as compared to subsonic aircraft, requiring more thrust than subsonic airplanes to generate enough aerodynamic lift to take off and land safely. More thrust and speed at takeoff and landing results in more noise compared to a subsonic airplane of a similar weight.

To take off and land safely, jet engines for supersonic aircraft require relatively greater thrust than subsonic aircraft of a similar weight, as well as a lower engine bypass ratio to reach and maintain supersonic speeds in excess of Mach 1. In addition, as discussed above, the aircraft and wing design are optimized to reduce drag, and the aircraft require increased thrust during takeoff and landing. An engine's bypass ratio is a measurement of the relationship between the diameter of the engine opening and the amount of air that flows through the fan of the engine and bypasses the core, compared to the amount of air that flows through the core. Over time, the bypass ratios for subsonic aircraft have greatly increased as a result of technology and materials improvements that also led to significant fuel efficiency improvements and noise reductions. There is limited opportunity to incorporate increased bypass ratios on engines that power supersonic aircraft. To reduce the increased drag already noted, the diameter of the engine inlet must be relatively small and well-integrated into the airframe/wing design, making the high bypass ratios (and pod-on-wing design) of engines on modern subsonic aircraft not technologically feasible. As a result, new supersonic aircraft will need to utilize integrated lower bypass ratio engines, which are relatively louder than high bypass ratio engines.

As part of its statutory duty to adopt standards that are economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate for a particular aircraft, 16 the FAA first took into account the physical and technological differences between subsonic and supersonic airplanes described above. The FAA studied NASA's modeling efforts for modern supersonic design technologies, as well as data that manufacturers developing supersonic products provided to the FAA. 17 Based on the available information, the FAA concluded that, to comply with Congress's statutory direction to enable a new generation of supersonic airplanes, the FAA needed to create a new category for purposes of noise certification.

The new category would account for the unique technology and design characteristics of supersonic airplanes. These unique characteristics fundamentally affect the way the noise is generated and measured, which makes comparison to subsonic airplanes neither appropriate nor helpful. In addition, the data available to the FAA indicate that a modern supersonic airplane would have little in common with the noise of the Concorde, and can be expected to incorporate developing technologies that would lessen the effect on the public of its expected landing and takeoff noise impacts.

Based on the data available, the FAA proposes a new noise category for matters of supersonic noise certification in Part 36, and defines a first class of supersonic airplanes (defined by weight and maximum speed) that is expected to encompass most of the projects currently under design. 18

The FAA proposes the first class, Supersonic Level 1 (SSL1), for airplanes capable of supersonic flight that have a maximum takeoff weight of 150,000 pounds and a maximum operating cruise speed of Mach 1.8. The FAA chose this class definition because the agency anticipates that most of the designs currently under development will fit within these parameters. Because this regulatory structure is tailored to supersonic designs and technology currently under development, it will foster innovation in this new emerging class of airplanes. In addition, it will serve as a launching point for adopting appropriate standards for future classes that could encompass for example, heavier maximum takeoff weights and faster operating cruise speeds. The FAA does not intend for today's proposal to be a one-size fits all approach to emerging supersonic technology. To the contrary, today's proposal seeks to provide the regulatory certainty necessary to enable the generation currently under development. Current research suggests that supersonic airplanes with speeds above Mach 1.8 would have different design characteristics. These characteristics would affect aircraft noise and are expected to require different noise standards and different noise measurements.

The FAA's approach to reference procedures in this proposed rule is based in its long-established paradigm of noise certification that is broadly applicable. The proposed new supersonic category and proposed SSL 1 class reflect the FAA's need to accommodate the unique characteristics of supersonic airplanes. Consistent with the FAA's long-standing approach to noise certification, the FAA would evaluate supersonic airplanes under this proposed rule using a standard weight-to-noise correlation, with the separate noise limits (the curve) needed to properly account for the inherent design differences and allow comparison of like products.

In gathering noise data, an airplane is flown using Part 36 takeoff and approach reference procedures, which represent specific, repeatable conditions that ensure accurate noise measurement. This NPRM proposes using the same measurement locations contained in the existing part 36. However, to account for all of the differences between supersonic and subsonic airplanes described in this section, different reference procedures are proposed for takeoff speed and thrust.

New supersonic designs are also expected to incorporate advanced technologies that control the engines and aerodynamic control surfaces automatically to reduce noise at takeoff and landing to the greatest extent possible, while still allowing the airplane to operate safely. The higher thrust needed for takeoff and the lower engine bypass ratio for supersonic airplanes both contribute to higher lateral noise levels. This proposed rule would allow for the use of Variable Noise Reduction Systems (VNRS), as part of the takeoff reference procedure. Inclusion of VNRS in the proposed standards is designed to allow maximum flexibility for manufacturers to present VNRS design options to the FAA that are appropriate for their airplanes. The FAA seeks to allow the maximum latitude for these designs while they are still in their infancy. The FAA seeks comment on whether there are other performance-based standards that could be included that would allow even greater design flexibilities.

The development of international supersonic noise standards for modern aircraft began in the early 2000s and continues today in ICAO. Since 1983, the ICAO CAEP has developed environmental standards and policies for international aviation. The United States is an active member of the CAEP. Work conducted by the CAEP Noise Technical Working Group was considered in many of the aspects of this proposed rule. The FAA continues to work with ICAO to develop an international civil supersonic LTO cycle noise standard that will allow supersonic airplanes to be certificated and accepted worldwide. This first proposal of supersonic noise certification regulations represents an exercise of the FAA's statutory direction to enable the safe commercial deployment of civil supersonic aircraft technology and the safe and efficient operation of civil supersonic aircraft. The United States understands the need for globally harmonized supersonic LTO cycle noise standards. The FAA is undertaking this rulemaking to respond to the demand from U.S. manufacturers to provide regulatory certainty while it continues to work with the international community to move forward with the international standard setting process for supersonic LTO cycle noise.

The following section contains a discussion of select portions of rule text. It does not repeat the rule text, but is designed to be read as a companion to the proposed rule language presented at the end of this document.

Part 21, § 21.93 Classification of changes in type design. The FAA is proposing to add supersonic airplanes to the list of aircraft in § 21.93(b). That section provides that any voluntary change in the aircraft's type design that may increase noise levels (defined as an “acoustical change”) must meet the applicable requirements in part 36 for design changes. Supersonic airplanes would be subject to acoustical change requirements equivalent to other aircraft types. None of the exceptions set forth in paragraphs (b)(2), (3), and (4) for subsonic jet airplanes, certain propeller-driven commuter or small airplanes, and helicopters, respectively, are appropriate for new supersonic airplanes. As discussed in subsequent sections, this proposed rule seeks to distinguish new supersonic airplanes from the Concorde model. As a result, this rule proposes to add the Concorde to § 21.93 to preserve its place in the regulations.

Part 36, § 36.1 Applicability and definitions. The FAA is proposing to add supersonic airplanes, as defined in this NPRM, to the applicability of part 36. As discussed earlier in this preamble, the current applicability of part 36 is limited by its terms to subsonic aircraft. Expanding the applicability is necessary to include the noise limits for supersonic airplanes that the FAA is proposing in new subpart E and new appendix C to part 36.

Throughout part 36, this proposed rule would add the term “subsonic” before “jet airplane” when needed to distinguish between the part 36 requirements that are not applicable to both subsonic and supersonic jet airplanes.

The FAA is proposing to amend the title of subpart B by inserting the word “Subsonic” before the word “Jet” to indicate that the regulations in that subpart do not apply to supersonic airplanes.

The FAA is proposing to revise the definition of supersonic airplane in § 36.1 and move it from paragraph (f) to new paragraph (j). The move will allow the definitions related to new supersonic airplanes to be grouped in one paragraph of § 36.1. The revised definition would exclude the Concorde from the definition of supersonic airplane. The part 36 regulations that apply to the Concorde are specific to the Concorde and the FAA seeks to segregate them as a historical matter to prevent any confusion as to which standards apply to the Concorde as opposed to those for new supersonic airplanes being proposed here.

The FAA is proposing a definition of SSL1 airplane that refers to proposed Appendix C, which would apply to supersonic airplanes with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 150,000 pounds and a maximum operating speed of Mach 1.8 or less. This definition would include most of the proposed supersonic airplane design concepts that U.S. manufacturers have described to the FAA. The FAA anticipates that when data is available to establish LTO cycle noise standards for other weight and speed supersonic airplanes, other similar classes of airplane and noise level would be added to § 36.1(j) with separate definitions.

The FAA is proposing a definition of LTO cycle to specify that the proposed supersonic noise standards are associated with the departure and arrival of supersonic airplanes at subsonic speeds at airports. The LTO cycle noise levels consist of the flyover, lateral, and approach noise levels as specified in proposed Appendix C to part 36. The definition is necessary to distinguish that the noise limits proposed in Appendix C are not applicable to noise created during flight at supersonic speeds.

The FAA is proposing a definition of VNRS and of Programmed Lapse Rate (PLR) to describe the function of various configuration controls that are intended to limit noise during the LTO cycle. Since these are new aircraft systems, the FAA specifically requests comment on the scope of these definitions and any suggested additions or changes that might be common to all developers of such systems.

Part 36, Subpart D. The FAA is proposing to change the title only of Subpart D to indicate that the regulations presented in that subpart apply only to Concorde airplanes, removing the term supersonic from the subpart title. Although no Concorde airplanes are currently operational, the regulations on the Concorde would not be removed because the aircraft type certificate remains valid. Regulations that apply to new supersonic airplanes would be placed in a new Subpart E.

Part 36, Subpart E. The FAA is proposing to add Subpart E to establish the noise measurement and evaluation requirements applicable to new supersonic airplanes. This new subpart would retain the familiar structure of other subparts in part 36, but apply only to new supersonic airplanes in accordance with the definition proposed in this rule. As discussed elsewhere in this rulemaking, the applicability of the regulations proposed for new subpart E is limited to SSL1 airplanes.

As a corollary to other aircraft types to which part 36 is applicable, the FAA is proposing a new § 36.15 to add acoustical change requirements for supersonic airplanes. This is the companion regulation to the proposed change made in § 21.93 that adds supersonic airplanes to the applicability of that section. As with other types of aircraft, a certificated supersonic airplane, after a change in the type design, would still be required to meet at least the noise level that was applicable to the design prior to the change.

Section 36.1581, Manuals, markings, and placards. Several changes to this section are being proposed to address noise level information for new supersonic airplanes that must be made part of the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM). Proposed paragraph (a)(4) establishes the general AFM requirements involving noise certification for supersonic airplanes.

Paragraph (h) would restrict the maximum weight of the airplane to be the weight at which an LTO cycle noise level that complies with part 36 was established.

The proposed rule would also establish operating limitations in § 36.1581(i) for supersonic airplanes. If applicable, the limitations must be included in the AFM. The FAA seeks comment specifically on §§ 36.1581(i)(2) and (3). Proposed paragraph (i)(2) would require an operating limitation if a VNRS is used to show compliance with the proposed noise limits. The limitation would require the flight crew to verify that the VNRS is functioning properly before each takeoff. This verification of functionality prior to each takeoff is necessary because a malfunctioning or inoperable VNRS would present an immediate noise issue and indicate that the aircraft is not in compliance with part 36 as certificated.

While a VNRS is not required, if a manufacturer chooses to incorporate a VNRS, the FAA proposes a requirement to verify that the VNRS is functioning properly. This requirement is a performance based standard: The FAA does not propose to prescribe the method or technology that a flight crew would use to conduct that verification. To the contrary, how a flight crew is able to verify that any VNRS system is functioning properly is dependent on its design. One way, but not the only way, to verify might be to require it to be part of a flight crew checklist. Another way could include equipment or technology that would verify functionality prior to takeoff. The FAA intentionally declines to specify design standards to allow manufacturers flexibility and to allow for innovation.

The FAA requests comment on whether developers have an equivalent means for flight crews to ensure the functionality of any certificated VNRS.

The other proposed operating limitation on which the FAA seeks specific comment is in § 36.1581(i)(3) regarding airplanes that incorporate PLR to limit thrust to a programmed level and decrease noise. To exceed PLR thrust after takeoff, the applicant must have demonstrated during testing that ending the programmed thrust does not produce a noise impact on the ground that exceeds the levels measured at the certification measurement points. Until the point at which no effect from increased thrust is determined, the PLR would need to remain in active operation. This point is not specified in these regulations because it is expected to be unique to each airplane design. The point determined for an individual PLR system would become an operating limitation for that airplane.

The intent of the proposed limitation is to account for any noise issues that are unique to the design of a particular supersonic airplane model that may be caused by an increase in thrust when PLR use is completed.

Appendix A to part 36, Aircraft Noise Measurement and Evaluation: Appendix A would be revised to make its procedures applicable to supersonic airplanes. Current Appendix A applies to transport category airplanes, subsonic jet airplanes, and the Concorde. Except as described below, the FAA proposes to require new supersonic airplanes to use the same noise measurement and evaluation conditions and procedures as these other aircraft. Based on the information provided by developers, new supersonic airplanes are expected to be sufficiently similar in design to other jet-powered fixed-wing aircraft such that the requirements in Appendix A remain appropriate for noise certification testing. The FAA seeks comment on whether any of the provisions in Appendix A would not be appropriate for new supersonic airplanes, including what alternative procedures would be appropriate.

One proposed change to Appendix A for supersonic airplanes addresses VNRS reference procedures. When a VNRS (included in new Appendix C) is used to demonstrate compliance with part 36, § A36.9.1.3 would require use of the integrated method of adjustment described in existing § A36.9.4. Rarely are certification flight test conditions ever identical to the reference atmospheric conditions prescribed. Appendix A requires that appropriate adjustments be made to the measured noise data using either a simplified or an integrated method of adjustment, as described in § A36.9. These methods adjust the noise results to account for differences in both the airplane to microphone distance, and the variations in atmospheric conditions between the actual test day and the prescribed reference day. Under current regulations that apply to all aircraft, if the simplified method results in either adjustments that exceed specified decibel levels or a final effective perceived noise evaluation metric level (EPNL) that falls within one decibel of the applicable noise limit, the integrated method of adjustment must instead be used to ensure accuracy. The simplified method adjusts noise only once, at the maximum peak, while the integrated method adjusts at each half-second of the entire noise segment of flight. The integrated method computes EPNL directly by recalculating, under reference conditions, the data points of the tone-corrected perceived noise level time history that corresponds to measured points obtained during testing. The FAA has found that the integrated method of adjustment accounts for the dynamic aspects of VNRS procedures more accurately than the simplified method of adjustment. For that reason, the FAA proposes that the integrated method always be used for supersonics that use VNRS. The simplified method is unable to provide sufficient data processing fidelity of the measured noise signal that is the expected result of VNRS influence in flight.

Appendix C to part 36, “Noise Levels for Supersonic Airplanes.” This is a new appendix applicable to supersonic airplanes as defined in this proposed rule. The proposed appendix corresponds to existing Appendix B, which prescribes procedures for determining noise levels for transport category large airplanes, subsonic jet airplanes, and the Concorde. The FAA is proposing to incorporate into the new Appendix C many of the same technical requirements currently in Appendix B for subsonic airplanes, including the EPNL and the reference noise measurement points (lateral, flyover, and approach) because both the metric and reference measurement locations are appropriate in the demonstration of noise certification compliance. Except as noted before, new supersonic airplane designs are anticipated to be similar in their takeoff and landing characteristics as airplanes subject to Appendix B. The FAA seeks comment on whether any of the provisions from Appendix B that are being proposed for inclusion in new Appendix C are inappropriate for new supersonic airplanes, including what alternatives would be appropriate. The primary differences between the appendix requirements are as follows:

Proposed § C36.5 sets the LTO cycle noise limits for SSL1 airplanes. As noted previously in this preamble, the proposed limits are based primarily on NASA's Supersonic Transport Concept Airplanes (STCA) studies. The models and methodologies used in the STCA studies for estimating noise certification levels were developed by NASA using the most advanced physics-based scientific and engineering methods, and were supplemented with 2- and 3-engine supersonic design concepts and data from industry developers.

In seeking to design a supersonic transport based on “near-term technologies,” the models produced by NASA researchers generally assumed design elements the researchers perceived as being economically viable and technologically practicable. For example, the notional engines equipped on each modeled aircraft is based on an “off-the-shelf” subsonic turbofan. However, there are also a number of design and performance elements assumed into the notional aircrafts that were specifically or secondarily incorporated because of their noise-abatement benefits. The research did not discuss the impacts to noise if these technologies were not included, nor did researchers discuss the cost impacts to design or operation if any of these processes or technologies were excluded.

Relatedly, NASA researchers also explored alternative engine designs that included noise abatement mechanisms not ultimately included in their main noise impact projections. For example, NASA ran one alternative projection for an engine with a higher bypass ratio and second alternative projection for incorporating nozzle chevrons as a noise reduction technology to the original, lower bypass ratio engine. In both cases, NASA found the alternative technologies reduced the effective perceived noise level but came with a reduction in the flight range of the aircraft.

Therefore, while the noise data sets generated by the NASA research indicates a range of potential noise outputs by these modeled aircraft, these noise assumptions are already constrained by optional design elements the researchers did or did not choose to model as inputs for their final noise projections.

Additional data provided to the FAA by U.S. industry and the ongoing work by the ICAO CAEP were also used to inform the agency's decision on noise limits. All of this technical information served as the basis for noise limits proposed in § C36.5. That section contains the noise limits for 2- or 3-engine supersonic airplanes with a maximum certificated takeoff weights of 150,000 pounds and a maximum operating speed of Mach 1.8 or less.

The FAA proposes SSL1 noise limits and an applicability range using its established noise standard-setting process. The FAA based its proposal on the noise data sets from the NASA STCA program for that agency's 100,000 and 120,000 pound (45- and 55-metric ton) airplanes with two or three engines installed, as well as additional proprietary information from manufacturers developing supersonic airplanes. The FAA plotted these data sets, including associated design and modeling uncertainties, on a coordinate graph based on weight (in pounds) and noise (in EPNdB) for each airplane.

Using this information plotted on the graph, the FAA developed a series of potential limit lines for airplanes of different weights and numbers of engines. The FAA evaluated these potential limit lines taking into account the FAA's statutory considerations of technological feasibility, economic reasonableness, and appropriateness for the aircraft type. This evaluation process relied on the FAA's expertise in noise evaluation of supersonic technologies and their qualitative assessment of the economic and social costs that weigh on the process to determine the intersection of elements that would result in a proposed noise limit line that addressed both industry design needs and agency statutory obligations. The novelty of the technology and the limited data sets result in an inherent uncertainty regarding whether these proposed noise standards fully optimize available noise reduction while considering what is economically reasonable and technologically practicable for modern supersonic aircraft. The FAA's intent in its approach is to set a standard that could require adoption of most or all known noise-abatement technologies to meet the noise limits, including ones that may cause marginal reductions in aircraft performance ( e.g. reduce flight range), or marginal increases in the cost of manufacturing.

This process resulted in the noise limits proposed in § C36.5. The proposed noise limits represent a range of applicability that takes into account the spectrum of information provided, while also addressing the FAA's statutory responsibilities regarding noise regulation.

As the industry develops and more information becomes available, the FAA will consider whether to broaden the applicability of this proposed rule or establish a separate class for larger or faster supersonic airplanes. 19 The proposed noise limits are consistent with the agency's statutory duty to control and abate aircraft noise while “consider[ing] whether the standard or regulation is economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate for the applicable aircraft, aircraft engine, appliance, or certificate.”  20

As discussed above, the FAA does not propose to change the fundamental approach to setting noise levels in its existing paradigm. Accordingly, in proposing the SSL1 noise limits, FAA relies on its existing approach, which uses weight as a correlating factor for noise levels. This means that noise limits are applied on a curve taking into account the fact that heavier aircraft will be louder, as weight is a fundamental component of aircraft noise generation. Consistent with the FAA's existing paradigm, the allowance for weight is not unlimited; the noise limits set for various aircraft categories take into account the entire range of aircraft in each category. The FAA does not propose to deviate from this paradigm for supersonic aircraft. Weight remains the correlating factor, without reference to the shape or thrust or other capacity of an individual model. The noise limits proposed in this rulemaking may be summarized as follows:

A three-engine SSL1 airplane that has a maximum takeoff weight of 150,000 pounds may not exceed 94.0 effective perceived noise decibel (EPNdB) at the flyover measurement point, 96.5 EPNdB at the lateral measurement point, and 100.2 EPNdB at the approach measurement point.

A two-engine SSL1 airplane that has a maximum takeoff weight of 150,000 pounds may not exceed 91.0 EPNdB at flyover, 96.5 EPNdB at the lateral measurement point, and 100.2 EPNdB at the approach measurement point.

For SSL1 airplanes that seek certification at a lower maximum takeoff weight, the noise limit would decrease linearly with the logarithm of the airplane weight, at the rates set forth in proposed §§ C36.5(a), (b), and (c), and remain constant for airplanes at or below certain specified weights. This logarithmic decrease mirrors the current requirements applied to subsonic airplanes under Appendix B.

As described above, the FAA does not propose to alter its fundamental paradigm for noise certification as a part of this rule. Accordingly, the FAA sets a proposed cumulative noise limit. The proposed cumulative noise limit is presented in § C36.5(e), which provides that the sum of the differences ( i.e., the difference between the limits and maximum levels) at all three measurements points ( i.e., flyover, lateral, and approach) may not be less than 13.5 EPNdB.

Proposed § C36.6 specifies the requirements when a VNRS is included in an applicant's design and is used to show compliance with the LTO cycle requirements of part 36. The inclusion of VNRS is intended to enable the incorporation of advanced concepts and systems technologies that reduce noise using fully automated changeable properties or features. The two best known of the VNRS concepts are automated configuration changes, and Programmed Lapse Rate (PLR), as defined in proposed in § 36.1. The FAA does not intend to limit the development of automated noise reduction systems, and under this regulatory provision will consider any design features presented at certification that seek to lessen the LTO cycle noise impacts of supersonic airplanes. When a VNRS is presented as part of an airplane design at certification, it must be accounted for in any reference procedures requested by the applicant, demonstrated, and approved by the FAA before the certification tests are conducted.

Section C36.7 specifies the noise certification reference procedures and conditions that apply to supersonic airplanes, and includes alternative provisions when a VNRS is used. Reference procedures are required conditions and procedures for the measurement of noise at the three reference measurement points (lateral, flyover, and approach). For example, proposed § C36.7(b) specifies takeoff reference procedures that include the minimum height that an airplane must achieve and the engine thrust level that must be used for the noise data to qualify for certification. Use of a VNRS allows the applicant to develop individual reference takeoff and approach procedures that must be approved by the FAA before noise certification testing if the VNRS is used to show compliance with part 36. Each VNRS will likely be different, and the FAA does not yet know how these systems will be implemented in individual supersonic type designs. This proposed rule provides flexibility for the applicant to request alternative takeoff and approach procedures to accommodate varying VNRS designs. Applicants using VNRS must still comply with proposed §§ C36.7(d) VNRS Takeoff reference procedure and (e) VNRS Approach Reference Procedure when developing any alternative takeoff and approach procedures. Takeoff and approach reference profiles must be defined by applicants in accordance with these requirements so that the measured test data can be properly adjusted for deviations relative to the reference profile and recomputed for reference meteorological conditions. These requirements are intended to ensure that the procedures establish a common reference noise certification basis of standard adjustments and specified reference conditions that each applicant follows when using a VNRS. Such level-setting procedures maintain fairness for all noise certification applicants in demonstrating compliance. As noted previously, use of VNRS to demonstrate compliance with part 36 will require its use during normal operations in accordance with § 36.1581(i).

Section C36.7(b) proposes the minimum cutback height and thrust requirements that are required for subsonic jet airplanes as a standard takeoff reference procedure. When VNRS (including PLR) is used, the takeoff reference procedure to be used prior to reaching minimum cutback height is presented in § C36.7(d).

Section C36.7(c)(5) addresses the weight and configuration of the airplane during standard approach reference procedures. Weight and configuration for approach reference procedures using VNRS are addressed in § C36.7(e)(5). The FAA seeks specific comments regarding any additional considerations that would be appropriate for VNRS approach reference procedures, such as when and how VNRS is triggered on approach, and what indication will be used to show that it is functional and active on approach if used for noise certification. All suggested changes should be supported by additional data as appropriate.

Section C36.8 addresses noise certification test procedures. Noise adjustments for speed and thrust from test to reference conditions follow the same methods of Appendix A, unless VNRS procedures and data adjustments are approved by the FAA.

Interested persons are encouraged to review all of the proposed rule text in detail and submit comments regarding the organization and substance of the requirements for the LTO cycle noise certification of SSL1 airplanes.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 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), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), 19 U.S.C. Chapter 13, prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements 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), as codified in 2 U.S.C. Chapter 25, 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). The FAA has provided a more detailed Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis of this proposed rule in the docket of this rulemaking. This portion of the preamble summarizes this analysis.

In conducting its analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed rule has benefits that justify its costs. This proposed rule is a significant regulatory action, as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as it raises novel policy issues contemplated under that Executive Order. This proposed rule is also significant under DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures for the same reason. The proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States, and would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold.

Without this proposal, aircraft developers would not be certain that their aircraft could qualify for type certification in the United States. As previously discussed, some U.S. manufacturers have begun developing the next generation of supersonic airplanes. Current regulations do not include noise standards applicable to supersonic airplanes, and the FAA's statutory authority requires that noise regulations be in place before a new aircraft type certificate may be issued. The FAA is proposing to amend its noise certification regulations to apply to new supersonic airplanes, and to adopt noise certification procedures and noise limits that would apply during the takeoff and landing (LTO) cycle of certain new supersonic airplanes. Aircraft developers have indicated their need for the FAA to establish noise limits in order to complete their designs with reasonable certainty that the aircraft will qualify for type certification in the United States.

As previously discussed, aircraft developers provided FAA with information and indicated that new supersonic-capable designs could enter service in the mid- to late-2020s. Based on this data and the proposed range of applicability, the FAA estimates two supersonic airplanes, one 2-engine and one 3-engine, with maximum certificated takeoff weight of 150,000 pounds and a maximum operating speed of Mach 1.8, would qualify for type certification as a result of this proposal and potentially begin production by 2025.

Based on data provided by aircraft developers and supersonic airplane studies, the FAA estimates a production of 25 airplanes per certificate for 50 total airplanes per year, a production period of ten years, and airplane life of 20 years. Aircraft developers indicate that 50 percent or more of production would be sold to foreign operators. Therefore, the potential life cycle of the first U.S. civil supersonic fleet results in deliveries to U.S. operators of 25 airplanes per year (same to foreign operators) until the U.S. operating fleet reaches a potential peak of 250 airplanes in 2034. 21 We use these estimates to frame our analysis of future impacts. The FAA seeks comment on its estimate of the expected timing for development of supersonic aircraft and on its estimate of production volumes.

There is uncertainty with estimating a future U.S. civil supersonic fleet. The FAA acknowledges that data from current and future research and development of supersonic aircraft along with additional regulatory changes may expand the size of the future U.S. civil supersonic fleet. In addition, this proposal only provides a standard for potentially qualifying for type certification—it does not guarantee certification and does not fully enable or guarantee future production or domestic operation. The effect of current U.S. regulations may limit future operations. The existing prohibition on exceeding Mach 1 over land in the United States would limit any supersonic airplane to subsonic speeds while operated in the United States; the proposed regulations would cover only subsonic operation during departure and arrival at airports.

The impact of the incremental change in the certificated noise level resulting from the proposed LTO cycle noise limits is low. The FAA looked at the average cumulative noise level of airplanes in the 2034 subsonic fleet and the cumulative noise levels of the 2- and 3-engine supersonic airplanes that would be covered under this proposed rule.

The 2034 subsonic fleet has a median certificated noise level, expressed in EPNdB level, of 267.1 and a mean certificated noise level of almost the same at 267.0 with a standard deviation of 11.3. 22 The anticipated certification noise levels of the 2-engine supersonic airplane is 269.3, a noise level at the 57th percentile of the subsonic fleet, meaning that 57 percent of the airplanes in the subsonic fleet in 2034 would have overall lower certification noise levels and 43 percent have overall higher certification noise levels than the 2-engine supersonic airplane. The anticipated certification noise level of the 3-engine supersonic airplane is 274.5, a noise level at the 74th percentile of the subsonic fleet. The noise level of the 2-engine supersonic is just one-fifth of a standard deviation above the mean of the airplanes in the subsonic fleet and the 3-engine supersonic airplane is just two-thirds of a standard deviation above the mean of the airplanes in the subsonic fleet. In addition, the number of supersonic airplanes potentially enabled by the proposal ( i.e., those supersonic airplane models expected to be certificated as SSL1) is small and would represent less than three percent of the combined subsonic and supersonic U.S. fleet in 2034. Therefore, while the anticipated certification noise levels of the supersonic airplanes are higher than the average certificated level of airplanes in the subsonic fleet, the difference is moderate.

For more than a decade, airplane producers interested in developing the next generation of supersonic airplanes have sought standards in the form of regulatory noise limits. Without such limits, potential producers are reluctant to expend millions of dollars on airplane designs that might ultimately fail to meet a future noise standard. The FAA has been unable to set such standards without knowing what is possible by way of noise mitigation for new designs.

This proposed rule is the first step in bridging that gap. Aircraft developers have shared data on their designs and a range of expected noise levels. In turn, the FAA has used that information along with the work conducted by NASA to propose these LTO cycle noise limits for a certain size supersonic-capable airplane. Accordingly, the primary benefit of this proposed certification rule is that it reduces a current barrier to the development of the next generation of supersonic aircraft. This is accomplished through the establishment of a design and noise standard for developers and producers, providing them some reasonable certainty that their investments will result in airplanes that meet noise regulations that have been adopted by the FAA.

The proposed rule supports future innovation in new supersonic designs that incorporate advanced technologies, such as VNRS, that reduce the noise at takeoff and landing to the greatest extent possible while allowing the airplane to operate safely. The proposed standards are designed to allow maximum flexibility for the manufacturers to enhance designs using advances in technology. The FAA seeks to allow the maximum latitude for these designs while they are still in their infancy.

The FAA seeks comment on the following issues related to the impacts of the proposal:

• The potential noise effects of the proposed standard and how these might be analyzed;

• The expected time savings or other benefits to the travelling public from the ability to travel via supersonic airplane instead of subsonic airplane;

• The manufacturing costs of possible technologies that manufacturers are likely to use to meet the standard and their effects on performance, weight and safety; and

• The costs and benefits of alternative noise limits or reference procedures and their impacts on costs and benefits to manufacturers, airlines and the public, including the likely choice of alternative compliance technologies.

The proposed rule has a positive effect on the development of U.S. standards and industry for both domestic and international markets. The proposal provides an initial benchmark for the international development of standards for supersonic LTO cycle noise that would have a positive effect on the innovation and expansion of the U.S. supersonic airplane and transport industry. As previously discussed, aircraft developers indicate that 50 percent or more of production would be delivered to foreign operators.

The establishment of certification LTO cycle noise standards for subsonic operations of supersonic-capable airplanes allows industry and FAA to look at the impact of subsonic operations on noise with more certainty. When these aircraft are designed, certificated, and placed in service, knowledge of these noise limits will make it easier to determine the subsonic impacts at individual airports, which is necessary for approval of operations specifications within the United States.

This proposal does not result in additional required regulatory costs. Issuance of a type certificate requires compliance with the applicable noise requirements of part 36. Full noise certification testing is required for each new aircraft type and for certain voluntary changes to type design that are classified as an acoustical change under § 21.93(b). The noise certification costs occur for new type certification, or when a change to a type design results from an acoustical change. Because the requirements for noise certification already exist, any associated costs are not incremental costs of this proposal. 23

Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The FAA also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments received.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2018-0152, dated July 18, 2018 (EASA AD 2018-0152), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France) Model AS 350 B, AS 350 D, AS 350 B1, AS 350 B2, AS 350 BA, AS 350 BB, AS 350 B3, EC 130 B4, EC 130 T2, AS 355 E, AS355 F, AS355 F1, AS 355 F2, AS 355 N, and AS355 NP helicopters.

EASA advises of a reported occurrence of a missing MGB suspension bar attachment bolt head. EASA advises that investigations are ongoing to determine the root cause of this event. According to Airbus Helicopters, the missing MGB suspension bar attachment bolt head was discovered during scheduled maintenance of a Model EC 130 T2 helicopter. EASA states this condition could lead to fatigue failure of other affected bolts of the same MGB bracket, possibly resulting in loss of the MGB suspension bar and consequently loss of helicopter control. As an interim measure to address this potential unsafe condition, the EASA AD also includes Model AS 350 B, AS 350 D, AS 350 B1, AS 350 B2, AS 350 BA, AS 350 BB, AS 350 B3, EC 130 B4, AS 355 E, AS355 F, AS355 F1, AS355 F2, AS355 N, and AS355 NP helicopters in its applicability.

Accordingly, EASA AD 2018-0152 requires a one-time visual inspection to check that all MGB suspension bar attachment bracket bolt heads are present and depending on the outcome, measuring the tightening torque values of the bolts, removing and sending bolts, washers, and nuts to Airbus Helicopters, installing new bolts, washers, and nuts, sending photos and reporting certain information to Airbus Helicopters, and contacting Airbus Helicopters for approved repair instructions. EASA states EASA AD 2018-0152 is considered an interim action and further AD action may follow.

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type designs.

The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS350-05.00.92 for Model AS350B, B1, B2, B3, BA, and D helicopters, non-FAA type-certificated Model AS350BB helicopters, and military Model AS350L1 helicopters; Airbus Helicopters ASB No. AS355-05.00.79 for Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP helicopters; and Airbus Helicopters ASB No. EC130-05A028 for Model EC130B4 and T2 helicopters, all Revision 0 and dated July 16, 2018. This service information specifies a one-time visual inspection using a light source and a mirror, and using an endoscope for any attachment bolts that are difficult to access, for the presence of the 16 attachment bracket bolt heads of the 4 MGB suspension bars. The service information also specifies different actions depending on the results of the visual inspection.

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

The FAA also reviewed Airbus Standard Practices Manual (MTC) 20-02-05-404, Assembly by screws and nuts Joining, dated May 23, 2017. This service information specifies instructions for installing screws and nuts, tightening procedures when installing multiple bolts, tightening torque check and readjustment procedures, tooling information, measuring locking torque procedures, standard tightening torque procedures and values, torque tightening of screws in sandwich panels information, use of consumable materials and their correction coefficient values pertaining to screws, nuts, and washers, marking torque stripes, and re-installation criteria and inspection of attachment components.

This proposed AD would require visually inspecting each MGB suspension bar attachment bracket for missing bolt heads.

If one bolt head is missing, this proposed AD would require performing actions specified in the service information including measuring the tightening torque of the remaining bolts of that bracket, removing the attachment bracket bolts, washers, and nuts of that bracket, and sending photos and reporting certain information to Airbus Helicopters.

If two or more bolt heads are missing, this proposed AD would require repairs in accordance with an FAA-approved method as described in paragraph (e) of this AD.

The EASA AD applies to Model AS350BB helicopters, whereas this proposed AD does not because that model is not FAA type-certificated. The EASA AD directs the operators to contact Airbus Helicopters for repairs if more than one screw head is missing, whereas this proposed AD does not.

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

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 1,277 helicopters of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.

Inspecting for any missing MGB suspension bar attachment bracket bolt heads would take about 2 work-hours for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $217,090 for the U.S. fleet.

Measuring the tightening torque of three MGB suspension bar attachment bracket bolts and replacing the set of four MGB suspension bar attachment bracket bolts, washers, and nuts would take about 1 work-hour and parts would cost about $50 for an estimated replacement cost of $135 per helicopter. Sending photos and reporting required information would take about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter.

The FAA does not have the data to estimate the costs to do any FAA-approved repairs if two or more MGB suspension bar attachment bracket bolt heads are missing.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a 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 currently 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 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:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would amend the Class E airspace at Durango-La Plata County Airport, Durango, CO to support instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0296; Airspace Docket No. 18-ANM-1”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

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

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending the Class E airspace, designated a surface area, at Durango-La Plata County Airport, Durango, CO. To properly contain arriving IFR aircraft descending below 1,000 feet above the surface, an extension should be added to the northeast of the airport and the extension to the southwest of the airport should be reduced. The airspace would be described as follows: That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of the airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 040° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 6.3 miles northeast of the airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 217° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 4.7 miles southwest of the Durango-La Plata County Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Additionally, this action proposes to amend Class E airspace, extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, to properly contain arriving IFR aircraft descending below 1,500 feet above the surface and departing IFR aircraft until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface. The area would be described as follows: That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.1-mile radius of the airport, and within 1.6 miles each side of the 044° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.1-mile radius to 12.4 miles northeast of the airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 217° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.1-mile radius to 6.7 miles southwest of the Durango-La Plata County Airport.

Further, this action proposes to remove the Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, this airspace is wholly contained within the Denver en route airspace and duplication is not necessary.

This action also proposes to remove the Durango VOR/DME and associated extensions from the airspace legal descriptions. The Navigational Aid is not required to define the airspace.

Lastly, this action proposes to make several administrative corrections to the airspace legal descriptions. The geographic coordinates do not match the FAA database and should be updated to lat. 37°09′06″ N. long. 107°45′14″ W. The term “Airport/Facility Directory” in the Class E airspace, designated as a surface area, is outdated and should read “Chart Supplement”.

Class E2 and E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would amend the Class D and Class E airspace at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Mountain Home, ID to support instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0282; Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-31”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

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

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending the Class D airspace at the Mountain Home Air Force Base Airport by removing the extensions to the northwest and southeast of the airport. Based on the instrument approach procedures published for the airport, the extensions are no longer required to contain arriving IFR aircraft descending below 1,000 feet above the surface. The Class D area would be described as follows: That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 5,500 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

This action also proposes to amend the Class E surface area to match the new dimensions of the Class D. The amended Class E surface area would be described as follows: That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Additionally, this action proposes to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface by properly sizing the area to contain arriving IFR aircraft descending below 1,500 feet above the surface and departing IFR aircraft until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface. This amended area would be described as follows: That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.2-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB.

This action also proposes to properly size the Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface to contain IFR aircraft transitioning to/from the en route environment. This amended area would be described as follows: That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 30-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB.

Further, this action proposes to remove Mountain Home Municipal Airport from the Class E airspace description, extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface. A notice of proposed rulemaking, FAA-2019-0972, has been published to establish Class E airspace, extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface, for Mountain Home Municipal Airport.

Lastly, this action proposes two administrative corrections to the airspace legal descriptions. The term “Airport/Facility Directory” in the Class D description is outdated and should read “Chart Supplement”. The Class E surface area is part-time and should include the following language in the legal description: This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Class D, E2, and E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

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

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

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

I. Comment Period Extension

On February 14, 2020, the Commission published in the Federal Register a Request for Public Comment on the Federal Trade Commission's Funeral Industry Practices Rule, with an April 14, 2020, deadline for filing comments. 85 FR 8490. The Commission published the proposed rule to solicit public comments about the efficiency, costs, benefits, and regulatory impact of the Funeral Rule as part of its systematic review of all current Commission regulations and guides. Interested parties have subsequently requested an extension of the public comment period to provide additional time to respond to the request for comment in light of the disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

The Commission agrees that allowing additional time for filing comments regarding the Funeral Rule would help facilitate the creation of a more complete record. The Commission has therefore decided to extend the comment period for 60 days, to June 15, 2020. A 60-day extension provides commenters adequate time to address the issues raised in the Notice.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before June 15, 2020. Write “Funeral Rule Regulatory Review, 16 CFR Part 453, Project No. P034410” on your comment. Your comment, including your name and your state, will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the https://www.regulations.gov website.

We strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the https://www.regulations.gov website. Due to the public health emergency in response to the COVID-19 outbreak and the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. If you file your comment on paper, write “Funeral Rule Regulatory Review, 16 CFR Part 453, Project No. P034410,” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, please submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website, https://www.regulations.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information such as your or anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided in section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted publicly at www.regulations.gov —as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

Visit the FTC website to read this request for comment and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before June 15, 2020. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

On April 24, 2017, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Banana River, Indian Harbour Beach, FL in the Federal Register (82 FR 18877) to solicit comments on the proposed rulemaking concerning the request to change the operating schedule. Minimal comments were received. The City of Indian Harbour Beach, FL requested to have the comment period re-opened as they believed their constituency did not have awareness of the initial notice and comment period. On October 23, 2017, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking, reopening comment period entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Banana River, Indian Harbour Beach, FL” in the Federal Register (82 FR 48939).

Due to the numerous comments received both for and against the proposed rule, on February 20, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of temporary deviation from regulation; request for comments entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Banana River, Indian Harbour Beach, FL” in the Federal Register (83 FR 7110). The purpose of this temporary deviation was to test the proposed schedule change to determine whether a permanent change is appropriate to better balance the needs of maritime and vehicle traffic.

The Coast Guard received 199 comments, of those, 130 were against the proposal, 65 were in favor of the proposed change, three suggested removing the bridge in its entirety or build a new one, and one was unrelated to the proposed rule. The comments in favor of the proposal generally felt that placing the bridge on a schedule would help alleviate vehicular traffic on the bridge. The comments to remove or rebuild the bridge are not considered viable options. Upon reviewing the comments against the proposed change, concern was expressed that the change would increase navigation delays, introduce unnecessary hazards to navigation by limiting the bridge openings and create longer bridge openings in an area with a high volume of recreational boaters. The Coast Guard acknowledges all of the above safety concerns, and for that reason, we feel that any benefits of the proposed schedule change at the Mathers Bridge do not outweigh the additional hazards to vessels and mariners transiting the area around the bridge. The current regulation as written in 33 CFR 117.263 shall remain in effect.

The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this notification. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria, we urge you to clearly identify the specific proposed priority, requirement, definition, and selection criteria that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13371 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about the proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria by accessing Regulations.gov . You may also inspect the comments in person at 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E325, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Directed Questions: The Department seeks input on three specific areas of the proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria. Regarding Proposed Priority 2, the Department seeks input from the public regarding whether partnership with a State educational agency (SEA) is necessary for successful systems-level change, such as to allow teacher-directed professional learning to be substituted for other mandatory professional development activities ( e.g., professional development hours required as part of certification renewal); or to provide for a greater selection of professional learning providers and experiences. Likewise, the Department seeks input from the public regarding whether partnership with a local educational agency (LEA) is necessary for successful systems-change. Regarding Application Requirement (d)(1), the Department seeks input from the public regarding what, if any, challenges would applicants have in meeting the proposed requirement that teacher-directed professional learning must replace no less than a majority of the existing mandatory professional development for participating teachers; the Department also seeks input on anticipated technical assistant needs to be able to comply with this requirement.

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for the proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Purpose of Program: The EIR program, established under section 4611 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (ESEA), provides funding to create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students; and rigorously evaluate such innovations. The EIR program is designed to generate and validate solutions to persistent education challenges and to support the expansion of those solutions to serve substantially larger numbers of students.

Program Authority: Section 4611 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7261.

This notification contains three proposed priorities.

Background: Although school-related factors such as curriculum, family engagement, and funding contribute to student academic performance, research suggests that the single most important school-based factor impacting students' achievement is their teacher (Hanushek, 2016; Stronge & Tucker, 2000). Creating every opportunity for teachers to engage deeply with high-quality professional development that is aligned to students' academic and other learning needs holds promise, therefore, in boosting student achievement.

Alignment of professional development to teacher needs is also critical. Research on adult learning (andragogy) posits that adults engage more deeply with learning opportunities when those opportunities are aligned to their interests (Trotter, 2006). Among teachers, those interests can vary between phases of their careers. For example, novice teachers may seek to improve classroom management skills, content knowledge, and pedagogy. In contrast, more experienced teachers may want to develop the advanced skills necessary to take on new leadership roles or increase intensive intervention skills. Andragogy suggests that adult learning can be differentiated by the learner's need—that is, personalized—and indeed should be to maximize engagement in learning (Trotter, 2006).

Leveraging the power of personalization, and the deep engagement with learning it promotes, is critical if teacher professional development is to have an impact on educator practice. The Learning Policy Institute (2017) identifies a set of seven pillars for effective professional development. Among them are: (1) Active learning, (2) collaboration, (3) coaching and support, (4) feedback and reflection, and (5) training of a sustained duration (Learning Policy Institute, 2017). A common thread among each of these practices is that they require teachers to invest meaningful effort and attention. No matter how well designed by the provider, the promise of these pillars to improve teacher practice is only realized when teachers engage fully with their content. Adult learning theory suggests personalization is one way to make it more likely that teachers will (Trotter, 2006).

Giving teachers the financial and other resources needed to personalize their professional development, consistent with their needs and the needs of their students, has the potential to maximize benefits to both themselves and their students. Research indicates that having teachers create professional learning plans and giving them the freedom to select the activities that will support them in achieving the goals outlined in those plans could have positive effects on student achievement and attainment (Rabbitt, et al., 2015). Thus, it may be the case that a stipend program may magnify the efficacy of other personalization efforts by giving teachers access to options that otherwise may have been inaccessible due to other professional development requirements or that were cost prohibitive.

For these reasons, this proposed priority would support innovative projects that develop and test approaches providing teachers with professional learning stipends. With the autonomy to identify instructionally relevant professional learning, teachers can improve their craft to better support student achievement and attainment for high-need students.

Proposed Priority: Under this priority, an applicant must propose a project in which classroom teachers receive stipends to select professional learning alternatives that are instructionally relevant and meet their individual needs related to instructional practices for high-need students. Additionally, teachers receiving stipends must be allowed the flexibility to replace no less than a majority of existing mandatory professional development with such teacher-directed learning, which must also be allowed to fully count toward any mandatory teacher professional development goals ( e.g., professional development hours required as part of certification renewal, designated professional days mandated by districts).

Background: Since teacher certification and training requirements are usually under the purview of an SEA, an SEA is critical to reshaping teacher professional learning opportunities to better serve teachers and the students they teach. Moreover, an SEA may have an opportunity to leverage greater selection of professional learning providers and experiences. One example might include an SEA offering a broad and comprehensive menu of pre-selected options for teachers to choose from that reflect additional options beyond what was available prior to the stipend program. Another example might include an SEA, after implementation of the stipend program, incorporates a micro-credential program (that a teacher paid for with the stipend) is offered statewide to any teacher who wants it by the SEA informing teachers about a new route to fulfilling licensure requirements. Thus, an SEA may have an important role to play in supporting Proposed Priority 1. One way of supporting projects submitted under Proposed Priority 1 is through a partnership that includes an SEA.

Proposed Priority: Under this proposed priority, an application must demonstrate it has established a partnership between an eligible entity and an SEA (with either member of the partnership serving as the applicant) to support the proposed project.

Background: Given that teachers are employees of an LEA, an LEA is critical in coordinating teacher professional learning opportunities and managing the stipends teachers would receive. One example might include an LEA coordinating a new intra-district job shadowing program in which teachers could elect to use the stipend to pay for substitute coverage while shadowing. Another example might include an LEA, after implementation of the stipend program, enters into a contract agreement with an entity that provided online coaching (paid for with the stipend and determined as successful) to allow the coaching option to be available to additional teachers throughout the district. Thus, an LEA may have an important role to play in supporting Proposed Priority 1. One way of supporting projects submitted under Proposed Priority 1 is through a partnership that includes an LEA.

Proposed Priority: Under this priority, an application must demonstrate it has established a partnership between an eligible entity and an LEA (with either member of the partnership serving as the applicant) to support the proposed project.

Types of Priorities: When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register . The effect of each type of priority is as follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

The proposed application requirements specify the necessary components to structure a program for teacher-directed professional learning in ways that prioritize teacher autonomy, high-need students, and high-quality professional learning.

The Assistant Secretary proposes the following requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

An applicant must—

(a) Describe the pool of teachers eligible to request a stipend, including whether the applicant intends to prioritize eligibility based on content areas, strategic staffing initiatives, or other factors (and including a rationale for how such a determination addresses the needs of high-need students, as defined by the applicant);

(b) Describe the anticipated level of teacher participation, including—

(1) Current information on teacher satisfaction with existing professional learning; and

(2) Details on the planned outreach strategy to communicate the stipend opportunity to eligible teachers;

(c) Describe the proposed stipend structure, including—

(1) Estimated dollar amount per stipend, including associated expenses related to the professional learning ( e.g., materials, transportation, etc.);

(2) A rationale for how the estimated dollar amount per stipend is sufficient to ensure access to professional learning activities that are, at minimum, comparable in quality, frequency, and duration to the professional development other non-participating teachers will receive in a given year;

(3) Mechanisms to protect against fraud, waste, and abuse ( e.g., monitoring systems, reviews for conflicts of interest); and

(4) Plans for how the applicant will select participants if there is more interest than available stipends ( e.g., prioritizing by student need, prioritizing by teacher need, teachers teaching in a specific content area, human capital priorities, rubric-based review of requests, lottery);

(d) Describe details about the stipend system, including—

(1) How the applicant will update its policies to offer stipends to teachers such that no less than a majority of existing mandatory professional development is replaced by teacher-directed professional learning, including—

(i) The professional development days or activities from which participating teachers will be released in order to enable teacher-directed learning opportunities and to ensure that teacher-directed learning replaces no less than a majority of existing mandatory professional development; or

(ii) Other methods in which participating teachers will be given the flexibility to participate in teacher-directed learning ( e.g., by providing release from and substitute teacher coverage during regular instructional days) and how such methods will also ensure participating teachers are released from no less than a majority of existing professional development requirements;

(2) How the applicant will ensure that teacher-directed learning will fully substitute for mandatory professional development in meeting mandatory professional development goals or activities ( e.g., professional development hours required as part of certification renewal, district- or contract-required professional development hours);

(3) How the applicant will provide information to teachers about professional learning options not previously available to teachers ( e.g., list of innovative options, qualified providers, other resources);

(4) In addition to any list of professional learning options or providers identified by the applicant, mechanisms for teachers to independently select different high-quality, instructionally relevant professional learning activities connected to the achievement and attainment of high-need students (based on teacher-identified needs such as self-assessment surveys, student assessment data, and professional growth plans); and

(e) Describe strategies for supporting teachers' implementation of changes in instructional practice as a result of their professional learning;

(f) Describe the process for managing the stipend system, including—

(1) For professional learning options that are among a list of options identified by the applicant: The processes for teachers to submit their requests to participate in those options in place of a previously required training and the processes for direct vendor payment using the stipend; and

(2) For different professional learning options selected by a teacher that may not be on the applicant's list of options: How the applicant will determine that the activity meets the definition of “professional learning” and is reasonable, and what processes the applicant will implement to ensure payment or timely reimbursement to teachers;

(g) Describe the proposed strategy to expand the use of professional learning stipends (pending the results of the evaluation), including the following:

(1) Plans for continuously improving the stipend system in order to, over time, offer more teachers the opportunity to engage in teacher-directed professional learning and, for participating teachers, ensure a higher percentage of all mandatory professional learning is teacher-directed.

(2) Mechanisms for incorporating effective practices discovered through teacher-directed professional learning into the professional development curriculum for all teachers; and

(h) Provide an assurance that—

(1) At a minimum, the SEA or LEA involved in the project (as an applicant, partner, or implementation site) will maintain its current fiscal and administrative levels of effort in teacher professional development and allow the professional learning activities funded through the stipends to supplement the level of effort that is typically supported by the applicant;

(2) Project funds will only be used for instructionally relevant professional learning activities and not solely for obtaining advanced degrees, taking or preparing for licensure exams, or for pursuing personal enrichment activities; and

(3) Projects will allow for a variety professional learning options for teachers and not limit use of the stipend to a restrictive set of choices (for example, professional learning provided only by the applicant or partners, specific pedagogical or philosophical viewpoints, or organizations with specific methodological stances). The applicant and any application partners will not be the primary financial beneficiaries of the professional learning stipends, and there is no conflict between the applicant, any application partner, and the purpose of providing teachers the autonomy to select their own professional learning opportunities.

Given the widely varied interpretation of professional learning, we propose a specific definition for this program to promote a shared understanding of the scope of professional learning that could be supported by this program. Specifically, professional “learning” in which teachers play an active role in their continued growth is intended to replace the status quo professional “development” that is provided to teachers.

The Assistant Secretary proposes the following definition for this program. We may apply this definition in any year in which this program is in effect.

Professional learning means instructionally relevant activities to improve and increase classroom teachers'—

(1) Content knowledge;

(2) Understanding of instructional strategies and intervention techniques for high-need students, including how best to analyze and use data to inform such strategies and techniques; and

(3) Classroom management skills to better support high-need students.

Professional learning must be job-embedded or classroom-focused and related to the achievement and attainment of high-need students. Professional learning may include innovative activities such as peer shadowing opportunities, virtual mentoring, online modules, professional learning communities, communities of practice, action research, micro-credentials, and coaching support.

The proposed selection criteria are intended to provide the Department with the opportunity to allow peer reviewers to score applications in ways that reinforce the primary purpose of Proposed Priority 1.

The Assistant Secretary proposes the following selection criteria for evaluating an application under this priority. We may apply one or more of these selection criteria in any year in which this priority is in effect.

(a) The sufficiency of the stipend amount to enable professional learning funded through the stipend to replace a majority of the existing mandatory professional development for participating teachers.

(b) The adequacy of plans to ensure that stipends are appropriately used for professional learning that is instructionally relevant, high-quality, and aligned to the identified needs of high-need students.

(c) The extent to which the proposed project will offer teachers flexibility and autonomy in meeting the majority of professional development requirements, including the extent of the choice teachers have in their professional learning.

(d) The likelihood that the procedures and resources for teachers results in a simple process to select or request professional learning based on their professional learning needs and those identified needs of high-need students.

(e) The adequacy of the mechanisms for teachers to sustain positive changes in instructional practice.

(f) The likelihood that the professional learning supported through the stipends will result in improved student outcomes.

(g) The reasonableness of the payment structure that enables teachers to have an opportunity to apply for and use the stipend with minimal burden.

(h) The adequacy of procedures for leveraging the stipend program to inform continuous improvement and systematic changes to professional learning.

We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register . We will determine the final priorities requirements, definition, and selection criteria after considering responses to the proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria and other information available to the Department. This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Note: This notification does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register .

Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866.

Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For FY 2020, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. However, Executive Order 13771 does not apply to “transfer rules” that cause only income transfers between taxpayers and program beneficiaries, such as those regarding discretionary grant programs. Because the proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria would be used in connection with one or more discretionary grant programs, Executive Order 13771 does not apply.

We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing these proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on an analysis of anticipated costs and benefits, we believe that this proposed regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Proposed Priority 1 would give the Department the opportunity to elevate the teaching profession by increasing the available funds for professional learning while requiring that applicants maintain current levels of investment. Additionally, by acknowledging teachers' ability to identify their professional learning needs and empowering them to select professional learning opportunities to meet those needs, we believe that this proposed priority could result in a number of changes including reducing personal costs that teachers incur when they must pay for professional learning that they want through their own means if their school, district, or State will not. We also believe that teachers are more likely to have a committed investment in professional learning that they select, thereby enhancing the benefits of professional learning, including, but not limited to, increased knowledge and skills. Such changes have the potential to change instructional practices in ways that will improve student outcomes.

Proposed Priorities 2 and 3 may have the result of shifting at least some of the Department's grants among eligible entities by giving the Department the opportunity to prioritize partnerships that might be well suited to achieve the purposes of Proposed Priority 1. By prioritizing projects that are supported by an SEA or LEA—entities that establish professional development requirements—the Department is increasing the likelihood that such teacher-driven approaches can be implemented more widely, should they be determined as more effective. Because this proposed priority would neither expand nor restrict the universe of eligible entities for any Department grant program, and since application submission and participation in our discretionary grant programs is voluntary, there are not costs associated with this proposed priority.

Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand.

The Secretary invites comments on how to make the proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:

• Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated?

• Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?

• Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?

• Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?

• Could the description of the proposed regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?

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

The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a population below 50,000.

The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would affect are public or private nonprofit agencies and organizations, including institutions of higher education, that may apply. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of these proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria would outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant. Therefore, these proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act: The proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria do not contain any information collection requirements.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

In accordance with section 411 of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests comments on whether the proposed regulations would require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of the Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

The proposed revision would change Corps policy regarding the procedure an individual must follow to possess a weapon on Corps projects. The Corps is authorized to issue this regulation under 16 U.S.C. 460, which states “[t]he water areas of all . . . [water resources development] projects shall be open to public use . . . and ready access to and exit from such areas along the shores of such projects shall be maintained for general public use . . . under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Army may deem necessary.” This authority extends to “the waters of such projects” and “any land federally owned and administered by the Chief of Engineers” at the projects. 16 U.S.C. 460d; see also 36 CFR 327.0 & 327.1(c). For purposes of this regulation, this authority would cover, for example, Lake Lanier in northern Georgia, Stanislaus River Parks in central California, and Melvin Price Lock and Dam on the Mississippi River north of St. Louis, Missouri. This authority would not cover projects such as ecosystem restoration, navigation channel maintenance, or coastal storm risk management projects even though they may have been authorized in a Water Resources Development Act.

Specifically, the proposed revision would remove the requirement that an individual obtain written permission before possessing a weapon on a Corps project, which is a requirement except when the possession occurs for certain authorized recreation purposes. In doing so, the revised regulation would permit an individual to possess a weapon and associated ammunition when the possession both complies with the Federal, state, and local law where the project is located, and the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the weapon. This change would reduce the burden on the public by eliminating the requirement to obtain written permission before possessing a weapon, but it would not change the fact that individuals already may, at present, possess weapons on Corps projects if they receive appropriate permission.

The current Corps regulation, 36 CFR 327.13, allows visitors on Corps projects to possess weapons such as firearms only after written permission has been received from the District Commander. Law enforcement officers are excepted from this requirement, as are individuals possessing weapons when the weapon is being used for hunting or fishing, as provided in 36 CFR 327.8, or is being used at an authorized shooting range. Written permission from the District Commander is also required to possess explosives and explosive devices, including fireworks.

In proposing to revise the regulation, the Corps intends to remove the requirement that individuals must apply for written permission from the District Commander before possessing a weapon. Written permission would still be required to possess explosives and explosive devices. Individuals possessing or transporting a weapon would need to meet the Federal, state and local requirements for doing so in the jurisdiction where the Corps project is located, such as by possessing a valid state permit or license. Individuals prohibited by any law from possessing or transporting a weapon would not be permitted to do so on a Corps project. The prohibition on firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities, 18 U.S.C. 930, would continue to apply to those Corps facilities falling within the coverage of that statute.

In addition, the proposed revision would give the District Commander the discretion to modify or revoke the permissions granted under this section when issuing a special event permit under 36 CFR 327.21. Special events require written permission granted by the District Commander. Restrictions may be imposed for security, public safety, or other reasons deemed necessary by the District Commander. Conditions of the special event may include weapon restrictions, and allow the District Commander to revoke permissions upon failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the special event permit.

Legal Authority: The Corps is authorized to promulgate regulations pertaining to the operation of public parks and recreational facilities in the water resource development projects within Corps jurisdiction, as well as for the use, administration, and navigation of the navigable waters of the United States. 16 U.S.C. 460d; 33 U.S.C. 1, 28 Stat 362. Generally, these regulations govern the conduct of public visitors on Corps projects.

Overview: In recent years, other Federal land management agencies have amended their regulations to make them consistent with the law of the state in which the federal lands are located. See, e.g., National Park Service (36 CFR 2.4); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wildlife Refuge System (50 CFR 27.42); Bureau of Land Management (43 CFR 8365.1-7); Bureau of Reclamation (43 CFR 423.30); U.S. Forest Service (36 CFR 261.8(b), 261.57(c)). The approach taken in this proposed rule is consistent with other Federal agencies. Following these other Federal agencies, the Corps now proposes to revise its regulations for conformity with the approach taken toward other Federally managed lands.

The written permission requirement in the current Corps regulation is inconsistent with the regulations and approach by the other Federal land management agencies, which generally authorize the possession of weapons when in accordance with state and local laws and the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the weapon. The revision would also streamline and clarify the requirements to possess weapons on a Corps project for persons traveling to Corps projects from surrounding state areas or areas managed by other Federal agencies.

The Corps is proposing this revision in order to update the Corps regulations in a way that more appropriately reflects the current state and local regulation of the possession of weapons, and firearms in particular. The Corps believes that the current Corps regulation, by requiring individuals to obtain written permission before possessing a weapon, is burdensome on the public and the Corps without providing any corresponding benefit. The current regulation was promulgated before many of the current state laws governing the possession of weapons, in particular the possession of firearms by private individuals for self-defense and other purposes. Following the developments in state law since that time, the Corps believes it is now appropriate to join the other Federal land management agencies in deferring to state law requirements, as the Corps already does for other land management practices. The Corps believes the proposed revision will benefit the public by eliminating the burden to apply for written permission from the Corps as well as by aligning the requirements for possessing a weapon on Corps projects lands with the requirements applicable to the areas surrounding a project.

If finalized, the Corps' policies relating to the possession of firearms on their projects would be substantively the same as the policies of other Federal land management agencies. The Corps believes that such conformity is important for reducing confusion among the public. The Corps is soliciting comments on all aspects of this proposal but are particularly interested in knowing whether, in the interest of further conformity, it should consider additional revisions to further align with the regulations of other land management agencies. The Corps is also interested in whether the impacts of the proposal estimated below are accurate.

Individuals are required under the current regulation to submit a letter to the District Commander requesting approval to carry a weapon. If finalized, this proposal would remove that requirement. One of the benefits of this rule would thus be the savings associated with that removal. The Corps estimates these savings to be $2,340. If finalized, this rule would also make the Corps policy on carrying a weapon consistent with the policies of other Federal agencies. Another benefit of this rule would thus be improved clarity for the public resulting from that conformity. The Corps is not able to quantify the benefits associated from that improved clarity.

The Corps current regulations at 36 CFR 327.13 do not identify the specific information that individuals must include in their written request to the Corps to carry a firearm at Corps projects. However, based on the written requests the Corps has received in the past, we estimate that it takes approximately one hour for an individual to complete and mail to the District Commander the request. Based on a current Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and the cost of a first class stamp being $0.55, we estimate the cost associated with each request to be $7.80. Based on the number of requests the Corps received during the period of 15 May 2018 through 15 May 2019, we estimate that individuals submit approximately 300 letters per year. That results in the application cost associated with the current requirements being approximately $2,340 per year. A benefit of this rule is the removal of that transaction cost.

In addition, removing the requirement that an individual obtain written permission from the District Commander, and instead requiring compliance with the laws otherwise applicable where the Corps project is located, would reduce confusion by further aligning the land management practices of the Corps with the practices of the National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Forest Service.

The Corps is not aware of any costs that would result from this rule if it were finalized but solicits comment from the public on the matter.

In proposing this revision to 36 CFR 327.13, the Corps considered three alternatives: The proposed regulation revision (“Preferred Alternative”); no action (“No Action Alternative”); and, revising the regulation to permit the possession of weapons when consistent with Federal, state, and local laws so long as the weapon is carried either unloaded or concealed on the person, or is being used for hunting, fishing, or target shooting (“Concealed Carry Alternative”). When the Corps evaluated these alternatives, we found that the No Action Alternative would result in continued inconsistencies between the Corps regulation and the regulations of the other Federal land management agencies, as well as inconsistencies in the requirements for possessing a weapon on Corps project lands as compared to the surrounding areas. The Concealed Carry Alternative would revise the current Corps regulation to be more consistent with the regulations of other Federal agencies, but it also would create potentially confusing differences between the Corps regulation and the others by establishing its own rules on how weapons must be carried. It would place an unacceptable level of enforcement responsibility on Corps park rangers, who are unarmed and have limited law enforcement authority. The Preferred Alternative is this proposed action, which is the promulgation of a rule that revises the Corps regulation for consistency with the other Federal land management agencies and to defer to state and local requirements. The Corps consideration of these alternatives is further discussed in the Environmental Assessment included as a supporting document in the docket for this action. The Corps has not identified any other reasonable alternatives that warrant consideration.

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 proposed rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This proposed rule is not expected to be subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 because it is expected to impose de minimis impacts.

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.

I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Due to the procedural nature of this action and because there is no intended change in the use of the areas subject to this regulation, the Corps expects that this regulation, if adopted, will not have a significant impact to the quality of the human environment. Therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement will not be required. A draft environmental assessment has been prepared for publication in conjunction with the public notice period and is included as a supporting document in the docket for this action.

This proposed rule does not impose an enforceable duty among the private sector and, therefore, it is not a Federal private sector mandate and it is not subject to the requirements of either Section 202 or Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. We have also found under Section 203 of the Act, that small governments will not be significantly and uniquely affected by this rulemaking.

The information collection activities in this proposal have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). However, if finalized, this rule would remove the requirement for that collection of information by eliminating the need to submit a letter to the District Commander asking for approval to possess weapon.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 36 CFR part 327 as follows:

The revision and additions read as follows:

I. Why we are publishing this proposed rule and what it does?

Secretarial Order 3376 set forth the policy of the Department of the Interior that E-bikes should be allowed where other, non-motorized types of bicycles are allowed and not allowed where other, non-motorized types of bicycles are prohibited. Accordingly, the proposed rule would include a definition for electric bicycles, or e-bikes. E-bikes may have 2 or 3 wheels and must have fully operable pedals. The electric motor for an E-bike may not exceed 750 watts (one horsepower). E-bikes must fall into one of three classes:

a. “Class 1 electric bicycle” shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour;

b. “Class 2 electric bicycles” shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour; and

c. “Class 3 electric bicycle” shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour.

The Bureau of Reclamation is proposing to make the following changes to 43 CFR part 420:

• Section 420.5(a) will be amended to include E-bikes that satisfy certain criteria in the specified exemptions to the definition of off-road vehicles.

• Section 420.5(h) will be added to define electric bicycles consistent with Secretarial Order 3376.

• Section 420.21(d) will be added to clarify applicability to E-bikes with pedal-assisted propulsion.

Reclamation expects that the changes directed by the proposed rule could facilitate increased E-bike ridership on Reclamation lands in the future. However, the proposed rule would not be self-executing. The proposed rule, in and of itself, would not change existing allowances for E-bike usage on Reclamation-administered public lands. It would neither allow E-bikes on roads and trails that are currently closed to off-road vehicles but open to mechanized, non-motorized bicycle use, nor affect the use of E-bikes and other motorized vehicles on roads and trails where off-road vehicle use is currently allowed. While Reclamation intends for this proposed rule to increase accessibility to public lands, E-bikes would not be given special access beyond what traditional, non-motorized bicycles are allowed. To address site-specific issues, Reclamation would consider the environmental impacts from the use of E-bikes through subsequent analysis in accordance with applicable legal requirements, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The OIRA has waived review of this proposed rule and, at the final rule stage, will make a separate decision as to whether the rule is a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

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

The Department of the Interior certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ).

This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This proposed rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This proposed rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. This proposed rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

This proposed rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. This proposed rule is not a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. It does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the levels of government. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This proposed rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this proposed rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Under the criteria in Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated this proposed rule and determined that it has no potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes. This proposed rule does not have tribal implications that impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments.

This proposed rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required.

This proposed rule is categorically excluded from NEPA analysis under DOI categorical exclusion, 43 CFR 46.210(i), which covers “Policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines: That are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively, or case-by-case.” This proposed rule would not change the existing allowances for E-bike usage on Reclamation lands. Rather, it adds a new definition for E-bikes and directs Reclamation to specifically address E-bike usage in future recreation and land-use decisions. The categorical exclusion is appropriate and applicable because the proposed rule is for an administrative change and the environmental effects of the proposed rule in future land use and implementation-level decisions to open or close lands are too speculative to lend themselves to meaningful analysis in this proposed rulemaking. The environmental consequences of these decisions will be subject to the NEPA process before a land use decision is made to ensure the appropriate management of resources on a case-by-case basis.

Pursuant to 43 CFR 46.205(c), Reclamation has reviewed its reliance upon this categorical exclusion against the list of extraordinary circumstances, at 43 CFR 46.215, and has found that none are applicable for this proposed rule. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required for this proposed rulemaking.

This proposed rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required. This proposed rule will not have a significant effect on the nation's energy supply, distribution, or use.

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

(a) Be logically organized;

(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;

(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the proposed rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us which sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Reclamation proposes to amend part 420 of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Members of the public are invited to present oral statements, and to offer information and views about the NPRM at the public hearing. The hearing will be informal and will be conducted by a representative FRA designates under FRA's Rules of Practice (49 CFR 211.25). The hearing will be a non-adversarial proceeding; therefore, there will be no cross examination of persons presenting statements or offering evidence. An FRA representative will make an opening statement outlining the scope of the hearing. After all initial statements are completed those persons wishing to make a brief rebuttal will be given the opportunity to do so in the same order the initial statements were made. FRA will announce additional procedures necessary to conduct the hearing, at the beginning of the hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to receive oral comments in response to an NPRM for metrics and minimum standards for intercity passenger rail service. FRA will add a transcript of the discussions to the public docket in this proceeding.

Public Participation Procedures. Any person wishing to make a statement at the hearing should notify Katie List by telephone or email ( Katie.List@dot.gov; (202) 493-0530) at least 5 working days before the date of the hearing and should submit a copy of the oral statement they intend to make at the proceeding (late filers will be accommodated to the extent possible). The notification should identify the party the person represents, the particular subject(s) the person plans to address, and the time requested. The notification should also provide the participant's mailing address and other contact information. FRA reserves the right to limit participation in the hearing of persons who fail to provide such notification. FRA also reserves the right to limit the duration of presentations if necessary to afford as many people as possible the opportunity to speak.

For information on services for persons with disabilities, or to request special assistance in connection with the hearing, contact Kristin Ferriter, by telephone or email, at least 5 working days before the date of the hearing by one of the means listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice of www.regulations.gov. Interested parties may also review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.