The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) monitors, evaluates, and takes necessary action to ensure the safety and soundness of State nonmember banks, 1 including industrial banks and industrial loan companies (together, “industrial banks”). 2 In granting deposit insurance, issuing a non-objection to a change in control, or approving a merger, the FDIC must consider the factors listed in sections 6, 3 7(j), 4 and 18(c), 5 respectively, of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act). Congress expressly made all industrial banks eligible for Federal deposit insurance in 1982. 6 As deposit insurer and as the appropriate Federal banking agency for industrial banks, the FDIC supervises industrial banks. A key part of its supervision is evaluating and mitigating the risks arising from the activities of the control parties and owners of insured industrial banks to ensure they do not threaten the safe and sound operations of those industrial banks or pose undue risk to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF).

Existing State and Federal laws allow both financial and commercial companies to own and control industrial banks. Congress expressly adopted an exception to permit such companies to own and control industrial banks, without becoming a bank holding company (BHC) under the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA), as part of the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 (CEBA). 7 Industrial banks today are owned by financial and nonfinancial commercial firms. The FDIC has in recent years received applications from groups seeking to establish new industrial banks that would be owned by commercial parents. Proposals regarding industrial banks have presented unique risk profiles compared to traditional community bank proposals. These profiles have included potential owners that would not be subject to Federal consolidated supervision, 8 affiliations with organizations whose activities are primarily commercial in nature, and non-community bank business models. 9

Given the continuing interest in the industrial bank charter and the evolving business models, the FDIC proposed a rule in March 2020 to codify existing practices utilized by the FDIC to supervise industrial banks and their parent companies, to mitigate undue risk to the DIF that may otherwise be presented in the absence of Federal consolidated supervision of an industrial bank and its parent company, and to ensure that the parent company that owns or controls an industrial bank serves as a source of financial strength for the industrial bank, consistent with section 38A of the FDI Act. 10 The proposed rule described certain commitments that would be required as a condition of the FDIC's approval of, or non-objection to, each deposit insurance application, change in control notice, or merger application resulting in an industrial bank becoming a subsidiary of a company not subject to consolidated supervision by the Federal Reserve Board (FRB; each such parent company a Covered Company). The proposed rule required such a company and the subsidiary industrial bank to enter into one or more written agreements with the FDIC that contain certain commitments to be undertaken by the company to ensure the safe and sound operation of such industrial bank. The required commitments include capital and liquidity support from the parent to the industrial bank that have been incorporated in some form in the FDIC's prior actions to create an appropriate supervisory structure for industrial banks and their parent companies. 11

The FDIC is now issuing a final rule, which is largely consistent with the proposed rule. The final rule makes four substantive changes to the proposed rule. First, the final rule requires compliance from covered entities on or after the effective date of the rule rather than simply after, as proposed. Second, the final rule requires additional reporting by Covered Companies regarding systems for protecting the security, confidentiality, and integrity of consumer and nonpublic personal information. Third, the threshold regarding the limitation of a Covered Company's representation on the board of a subsidiary industrial bank has been raised in the final rule from 25 percent, as proposed, to less than 50 percent. Lastly, the final rule modifies the restrictions on industrial bank subsidiaries concerning the appointment of directors and senior executive officers to apply to the industrial bank only during the first three years after becoming a subsidiary of a Covered Company. These changes are discussed in sections IV.B.1., IV.B.4., and IV.B.5. of this Supplementary Information section below. In addition to providing this comprehensive framework for supervision, the final rule also provides interested parties with certainty and transparency regarding the FDIC's practices when making determinations on filings involving industrial banks.

Industrial banks began as small State-chartered loan companies in the early 1900s to provide small loans to industrial workers. Initially, many industrial banks did not accept any deposits and funded themselves instead by issuing investment certificates. However, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, 12 among other effects, made all industrial banks eligible for Federal deposit insurance. This expanded eligibility for Federal deposit insurance brought industrial banks under the supervision of both a State authority and the FDIC. 13 The chartering States gradually expanded the powers of their industrial banks so that today industrial banks generally have the same commercial and consumer lending powers as commercial banks.

Under the FDI Act, industrial banks are “State banks”  14 and all of the existing FDIC-insured industrial banks are “State nonmember banks.”  15 As a result, the FDIC is the appropriate Federal banking agency for industrial banks. 16 Each industrial bank is also regulated by its respective State chartering authority. The FDIC generally exercises the same supervisory and regulatory authority over industrial banks as it does over other State nonmember banks.

In 1987, Congress enacted the CEBA, which exempted industrial banks from the definition of “bank” in the BHCA. As a result, parent companies that control industrial banks are not BHCs under the BHCA and are not subject to the BHCA's activities restrictions or FRB supervision and regulation. The industrial bank exception in the BHCA therefore allows for commercial firms to own or control a bank. By contrast, BHCs and savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs) are subject to Federal consolidated supervision by the FRB and are generally prohibited from engaging in commercial activities. 17

More specifically, the CEBA redefined the term “bank” in the BHCA to include: (1) Any FDIC-insured institution, and (2) any other institution that accepts demand or checkable deposit accounts and is engaged in the business of making commercial loans. 18 This change effectively closed the so-called “nonbank bank” exception implicit in the prior BHCA definition of “bank.” The CEBA created explicit exceptions from this definition for certain categories of federally insured institutions, including industrial banks, credit card banks, and limited purpose trust companies. The exclusions from the definition of the term “bank” created in 1987 by the CEBA remain in effect today. To be eligible for the CEBA exception from the BHCA definition of “bank,” an industrial bank must have received a charter from one of the limited number of States eligible to issue industrial bank charters, and the law of the chartering State must have required Federal deposit insurance as of March 5, 1987. In addition, an industrial bank must meet one of the following criteria: (i) Not accept demand deposits, 19 (ii) have total assets of less than $100 million, or (iii) have been acquired prior to August 10, 1987. 20

Industrial banks are currently chartered in California, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, and Utah. Under the CEBA, these States were permitted to grandfather existing industrial banks and continue to charter new industrial banks. 21 Generally, industrial banks offer limited deposit products, a full range of commercial and consumer loans, and other banking services. Although some industrial banks that have total assets of less than $100 million accept demand deposits, most industrial banks do not offer demand deposits. Negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts  22 may be offered by industrial banks. 23 Industrial banks have branching rights, subject to certain State law constraints.

The industrial bank industry has evolved since the enactment of the CEBA. The industry experienced significant asset growth between 1987 and 2006 when total assets held by industrial banks grew from $4.2 billion to $213 billion. 24 From 2000 to 2006, 24 industrial banks became insured. 25 As of January 30, 2007, there were 58 insured industrial banks with $177 billion in aggregate total assets. 26 The ownership structure and business models of industrial banks evolved as industrial banks were acquired or formed by a variety of commercial firms, including, among others, BMW, Target, Pitney Bowes, and Harley Davidson. For instance, certain companies established industrial banks, in part, to support the sale of the manufactured products ( e.g. automobiles) or other services, whereas certain retailers established industrial banks to issue general purpose credit cards. In addition, certain financial companies also formed or acquired industrial banks to provide access to Federal deposit insurance for brokerage customers' cash management account balances. The cash balances their customers maintain with the securities affiliate are swept into insured, interest-bearing accounts at the industrial bank subsidiary, thereby providing the brokerage customers with FDIC-insured deposits during the period of time that cash is held for future investment.

Since 2007, the industrial bank industry has experienced contraction both in terms of the number of institutions and aggregate total assets. As of September 30, 2020, there were 23 industrial banks  27 with $173 billion in aggregate total assets. Four industrial banks reported total assets of $10 billion or more; ten industrial banks reported total assets of $1 billion or more but less than $10 billion. The industrial bank sector today includes a diverse group of insured financial institutions operating a variety of business models. A significant number of the existing industrial banks support the commercial or specialty finance operations of their parent company and are funded through non-core sources.

The reduction in the number of industrial banks from 2007 to 2020 was due to a variety of factors, including mergers, conversions, voluntary liquidations, and the failure of two small institutions. 28 For business, marketplace, or strategic reasons, several industrial banks converted to commercial banks and thus became “banks” under the BHCA. Four industrial banks were approved in 2007 and 2008; however, none of those institutions exist today. 29 Moratoria imposed by the FDIC and Congress (as discussed below) were also a factor.

Since the beginning of 2017, the FDIC has received 12 Federal deposit insurance applications related to proposed industrial banks. Of those, two have been approved, 30 eight have been withdrawn, and two are pending. 31 The FDIC anticipates potential continued interest in the establishment of industrial banks, particularly with regard to proposed institutions that plan to pursue a specialty or limited purpose business model.

I. Introduction a. Legal Authority and Background

The Board is issuing this rule pursuant to its authority under the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act). 1 Under the FCU Act, the NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for Federal credit unions (FCUs) and the federal supervisory authority for federally insured credit unions (FICUs). The FCU Act grants the NCUA a broad mandate to issue regulations governing both FCUs and FICUs. Section 120 of the FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority and authorizes the Board to prescribe regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 2 Section 209 of the FCU Act is a plenary grant of regulatory authority to the NCUA to issue regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out its role as share insurer for all FICUs. 3 The FCU Act also includes an express grant of authority for the Board to subject federally chartered central, or corporate, credit unions to such rules, regulations, and orders as the Board deems appropriate. 4

Part 704 of the NCUA's regulations implements the requirements of the FCU Act regarding corporate credit unions. 5 In 2010, the Board comprehensively revised the regulations governing corporate credit unions to provide longer-term structural enhancements to the corporate system in response to the financial crisis of 2007-2009. 6 The provisions of the 2010 rule successfully stabilized the corporate system and improved corporate credit unions' ability to function and provide services to natural person credit unions. Since 2010, and as part of the Board's continuous reevaluation of its regulation of corporate credit unions, the Board has amended part 704 on several occasions. 7 In 2017, the Board amended corporate credit union capital standards to change the calculation of capital after a consolidation and to set a retained earnings ratio target in meeting prompt corrective action (commonly referred to as PCA) standards. 8 In October 2020, the Board issued a final rule to amend several provisions relating to corporate credit union investments in credit union service organizations (CUSOs) and other provisions relating to corporate credit union governance and technical matters, as discussed in the following sections.

On February 20, 2020, the Board approved a notice of proposed rulemaking to update, clarify, and simplify several provisions of part 704 (proposed rule). 9 The proposed rule provided for a 60-day comment period, which the Board later extended by 60 days because of COVID-19. 10 The comment period ended on July 27, 2020.

The NCUA received 35 comment letters on the proposed rule. Comments were received from credit unions, both corporate and natural persons, credit union leagues and trade associations, individuals, corporate CUSOs, and an association of state credit union supervisors. In October 2020, the Board issued a final rule that: (1) Permits a corporate credit union to make a minimal investment in a CUSO without the CUSO being classified as a corporate CUSO and subject to heightened NCUA oversight; (2) expands the categories of senior staff positions at member credit unions eligible to serve on a corporate credit union's board; (3) removes the experience and independence requirement for a corporate credit union's enterprise risk management expert; (4) clarifies the definition of a collateralized debt obligation; and (5) simplifies the requirement for net interest income modeling. 11

The October 2020 final rule deferred final action on the provisions in the proposed rule that addressed the permissibility and capital treatment for corporate credit union purchases of subordinated debt instruments under the Board's January 2020 proposed rule on subordinated debt. 12 In the October 2020 final rule, the Board discussed the comments on this part of the proposed rule and noted that the commenters that addressed these provisions all supported them. The Board did not adopt the provisions at that time because it had not yet finalized the January 2020 proposed rule on subordinated debt.

The Board has now adopted the January 2020 proposed rule on subordinated debt as final. 13 These changes include a reduction in the duration of required pro forma financial statements from five to two years, an adjustment to the definition of Accredited Investor, an increase in the expiration to issue period from one year to two years, clarifying the territorial restrictions on issuances, and clarifying when the Board will publish a fee schedule. The Board notes that none of these changes impact its rationale for requiring corporate credit unions to deduct natural person subordinated debt instruments. Therefore, the Board is now adopting the amendments that it proposed to the corporate credit union regulation in the February 2020 proposed rule.

As discussed previously, in January 2020, the Board issued a proposed rule to permit low-income designated credit unions, complex credit unions, and new credit unions to issue subordinated debt instruments for purposes of regulatory capital treatment. 14 Subsequently, in the February 2020 proposed rule on corporate credit unions, the Board proposed to address whether corporate credit unions may purchase such instruments and, if so, the treatment of the investments under part 704. In the October 2020 final rule on part 704, the Board discussed and analyzed the comments it received on this part of the February 2020 proposed rule but deferred final action in order to coordinate it with the final rule on subordinated debt. Because the Board has now issued the final rule on subordinated debt without any changes that affect the proposed revisions to part 704 on which the Board already solicited and received public comment, the Board is now also finalizing the proposed changes to part 704.

The February 2020 proposed rule created a new definition for the term natural person credit union subordinated debt instrument. The proposed rule defined a natural person credit union subordinated debt instrument as any debt instrument issued by a natural person credit union that is subordinate to all other claims against the credit union, including the claims of creditors, shareholders, and either the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) or the insurer of a privately insured credit union. This definition is designed to include all instruments issued under the authority of the subordinated debt rule. No commenters to the February 2020 proposed rule objected to this proposed definition. Now that the Board has finalized the subordinated debt proposed rule without substantial changes from its proposed form, the Board is now adopting this proposed definition in part 704.

The February 2020 proposed rule also clarified that corporate credit unions may purchase the natural person credit union subordinated debt instruments. This authority is derived from their lending authority because subordinated debt instruments are issued under a natural person credit union's borrowing authority. Additionally, natural person credit unions are also permitted, subject to various restrictions and limits, to purchase such subordinated debt instruments from other natural person credit unions under their lending authority. Treating the purchase of such subordinated debt instruments as lending ensures consistent treatment between natural person credit unions and corporate credit unions. The Board is not making any amendment to the regulatory text in part 704 to this effect because corporate credit unions' current lending authority is sufficiently broad to include purchasing subordinated debt instruments. However, the Board reiterates that these purchases are permissible to avoid doubt.

In addition, the February 2020 proposed rule included a requirement for a corporate credit union to fully deduct the amount of the subordinated debt instrument from its Tier 1 capital to ensure consistent treatment between investments in the capital of other corporate credit unions and natural person credit unions. Under the current regulation, corporate credit unions are currently required to deduct from Tier 1 capital any investments in perpetual contributed capital and nonperpetual capital accounts that are maintained at other corporate credit unions. 15 The proposed rule also asked a question on whether it would be more appropriate to prohibit corporate credit unions from purchasing subordinated debt instruments. No commenter recommended restricting corporate credit union authority to purchase subordinated debt instruments.

The Board believes that investments in natural person credit union subordinated debt instruments should be treated similarly to investments in perpetual contributed capital and nonperpetual capital accounts that are maintained at other corporate credit unions as such instruments may qualify as regulatory capital for the natural person credit union. The Board is also concerned about systemic risk if corporate credit unions own a significant amount of natural person credit union issued subordinated debt. Finally, a natural person credit union subordinated debt instrument would be in a first loss position, even before the NCUSIF and any private insurance fund or entity. Therefore, an involuntary liquidation of the issuing credit union would potentially mean large, and likely total, losses for the holders of those subordinated obligations. The Board believes that fully deducting such instruments from Tier 1 capital ensures any potential losses do not affect the capital position of the investing corporate credit union. This measured approach strikes the right balance between providing corporate credit unions the flexibility to purchase natural person credit union subordinated debt instruments and avoiding undue systemic risk to the credit union system. As discussed previously, the Board's final rule on subordinated debt made no substantial changes to that rule to change this conclusion regarding corporate credit unions' purchases of the instruments. Therefore, the Board is adopting the Tier 1 capital deductions that it proposed in the February 2020 proposed rule.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires agencies to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking and give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of comments. 16 As detailed in the background section of this preamble, the Board provided notice and an opportunity to comment on the changes made in this final rule in the proposed rule issued in February 2020. The Board deferred final action on certain provisions of the February 2020 proposed rule to coordinate with the separate rulemaking on subordinated debt. The final rule on subordinated debt is substantially similar to its proposed form, which means that commenters on the February 2020 proposed rule received notice and an opportunity to comment on these provisions. Therefore, the Board is adopting the amendments in this final rule without issuing a new notice of proposed rulemaking, which would be duplicative in this case.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that, in connection with a final rule, an agency prepare and make available for public comment a final regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a final rule on small entities (defined for purposes of the RFA to include credit unions with assets less than $100 million). 17 A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, however, if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and publishes its certification and a short, explanatory statement in the Federal Register together with the rule.

This final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are no corporate credit unions under $100 million in assets. Therefore, the Board certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to information collection requirements in which an agency creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden. For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirement, each referred to as an information collection. The NCUA may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

The final rule amends 12 CFR part 704 to address the permissibility and capital treatment of natural person subordinated debt instruments purchased by corporate credit unions. The amendments to part 704 revise the Corporate Credit Union Call Report cleared under OMB Control number 3133-0067. Public comments were solicited in a separate Federal Register notice (85 FR 65435, October 15, 2020) and no comment were received. The information collection request has been submitted to the Office of Management Budget for approval.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, the NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the principles of the Executive order. This rulemaking will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the connection between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The NCUA has determined that this final rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the Executive order.

The NCUA has determined that this final rule does not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 18

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) (SBREFA) generally provides for congressional review of agency rules. 19 A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where the NCUA issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the APA. 20 An agency rule, in addition to being subject to congressional oversight, may also be subject to a delayed effective date if the rule is a “major rule.”  21 The NCUA does not believe this rule is a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of SBREFA. As required by SBREFA, the NCUA will submit this final rule to OMB for it to determine if the final rule is a “major rule” for purposes of SBREFA. The NCUA also will file appropriate reports with Congress and the Government Accountability Office so this rule may be reviewed.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Board amends 12 CFR part 704 as follows:

SBA published a final rule revising the regulations pertaining to the 8(a) BD and size programs in order to further reduce unnecessary or excessive burdens on small businesses and to eliminate confusion or more clearly delineate SBA's intent in certain regulations. (85 FR 66146). This is the third set of corrections. The first set of corrections was published in the Federal Register on November 16, 2020. (85 FR 72916). The second set of corrections was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2021. This document augments those corrections.

In the final rule, SBA amended § 121.103(h) to revise and clarify the requirements for joint ventures. In doing so, the sub-paragraphs in this section were reorganized. The language about ostensible subcontractors moved from § 121.103(h)(4) to § 121.103(h)(2). This document removes references to § 121.103(h)(4) and replaces them with references to § 121.103(h)(2) in the introductory text to § 121.103(h), in paragraph § 121.404(d), and in paragraph § 127.504(g).

Accordingly, 13 CFR parts 121 and 127 are corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

In response to the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA 2017), SBA issued regulations relating to ownership and control for the Department of Veterans Affairs verification of Veteran-Owned (VO) and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned (SDVO) Small Business Concerns (SBCs) with the SBA. 83 FR 48908. Pursuant to NDAA 2017, SBA issued one definition of ownership and control for these concerns, which applies to the Department of Veterans Affairs in its verification and Vets First Contracting Program procurements, and all other government acquisitions which require self-certification. The legislation also provided that in certain circumstances a firm can qualify as VO or SDVO when there is a surviving spouse or an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP).

In response to the NDAA 2017 changes, SBA amended the definitions in § 125.11 by incorporating language from VA's regulations and also from SBA's 8(a) Business Development (BD) program regulations. 13 CFR part 124, subpart A. In making these amendments, SBA inadvertently removed the definition of “interested party.” This rule adds back the definition.

Accordingly, 13 CFR part 125 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0103, dated May 7, 2020; corrected May 8, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0103) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318-111, A318-112, A318-121, A318-122 airplanes; Model A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A319-151N, and A319-153N airplanes; Model A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-215, A320-216, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A320-251N, A320-252N, A320-253N, A320-271N, A320-272N, and A320-273N airplanes; and Model A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231, A321-232, A321-251N, A321-252N, A321-253N, A321-271N, A321-272N, A321-251NX, A321-252NX, A321-253NX, A321-271NX, and A321-272NX airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A319-151N, and A319-153N airplanes; Model A320 series airplanes; and Model A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2020 (85 FR 61884). The NPRM was prompted by the results of laboratory tests on non-rechargeable lithium batteries installed in ELTs, which highlighted a lack of protection against certain currents that could lead to thermal runaway and a battery fire. The NPRM proposed to require modifying a certain ELT by installing a diode in the airplane circuit connecting the ELT battery, as specified in an EASA AD.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address this unsafe condition, which could result in local (temporary) fires and could result in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

American Airlines (AA) requested that operators be allowed to use the following Airbus SAS technical adaptations (TAs) during accomplishment of the related Airbus SAS service bulletins that are specified in EASA AD 2020-0103. The commenter noted that certain airplane maintenance manual (AMM) tasks referred to in Airbus SAS Service Bulletin A320-25-1BQN, dated December 5, 2019; and Service Bulletin A320-25-1BQP, dated December 5, 2019; are incorrect. The commenter stated that it contacted Airbus SAS regarding this issue and Airbus SAS' response was that there is no planned revision to these service bulletins to correct the references to the incorrect AMM tasks.

The FAA agrees with the commenter's request for the reason provided. The FAA has added paragraph (h)(4) to this AD to allow use of the correct TAs.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

EASA AD 2020-0103 describes procedures for modifying a certain ELT by installing a diode in the airplane circuit connecting the ELT battery.

Airbus SAS has issued the following TAs, which specify the correct AMM tasks for doing the BITE [built-in test equipment] test of the ELT specified in the related Airbus SAS service bulletins. These TAs are distinct since they apply to different service bulletins specified in EASA AD 2020-0103.

• Airbus SAS TA 80724343/009/2020, Issue 1, dated May 20, 2020.

• Airbus SAS TA 80832689/007/2020, Issue 2, dated October 29, 2020.

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

EASA AD 2020-0103 defines an affected part as an ELT having part number (P/N) 01N65900. When the modification (installation of a diode) is completed, the part number of the ELT does not change. The intent of paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2020-0103 is to require, for airplanes that have an affected ELT installed, operators to do the modification within 24 months. For these airplanes, operators can remove an ELT having P/N 01N65900 and reinstall that same part during maintenance activities within the 24 month compliance for doing the modification. After the modification is done, operators can install an ELT having P/N 01N65900 as long as the modification is not removed.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,100 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Pilatus Model PC-24 airplanes with certain part-numbered evaporator filter assemblies installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2020 (85 FR 74627). The NPRM was prompted by MCAI originated by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA has issued EASA AD No. 2020-0160, dated July 16, 2020 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address the unsafe condition on Pilatus Model PC-24 airplanes. The MCAI states:

Due to a quality escape, the fire retardant used in the original filters installed in production is not sufficient for the conditions in this configuration, which is close to the heater and blowers.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0885.

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

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Pilatus PC-24 Service Bulletin No. 21-006, dated April 3, 2020. This service information specifies procedures replace the cockpit and cabin evaporator filters with new filters contained in a modification kit. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

This AD applies to airplanes with a defective filter installed, whereas the EASA AD applies to airplanes that do not have the modification kit, which was installed in production. This AD identifies the individual part numbers (P/Ns) of the defective filters to address any airplanes that may have had a modification kit filter replaced with a defective filter in the field before this AD becomes effective. This AD also applies to airplanes with a filter where the P/N is unknown. Pilatus advises that the defective filters can only be identified by their packing documents, as they do not have a permanent P/N marked on the actual part. The new filters in the modification kit do have a permanent marking on the frame of the actual part.

The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 36 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it would take 2.5 work-hours per product to comply with the requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $575 per product, if all 4 filters would need to be replaced.

Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $28,350, or $787.50 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0114, dated May 20, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0114) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-04-22, Amendment 39-19858 (85 FR 17487, March 30, 2020) (AD 2020-04-22). AD 2020-04-22 applied to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2020 (85 FR 69522). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2020-04-22 and also require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2020-0114.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

EASA AD 2020-0114 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

This AD also requires Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113877, Revision 12, dated November 2018, of the Dassault Falcon 2000EX Maintenance Manual, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of May 4, 2020 (85 FR 17487, March 30, 2020).

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 17 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2020-04-22 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new revision to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0159, dated July 16, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0159) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes and Model C-295 airplanes.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes and Model C-295 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 10, 2020 (85 FR 71583). The NPRM was prompted by cracks found on certain left- and right-hand stringers in a certain area of the fuselage. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking or broken rivets of certain left- and right-hand stringers and surrounding structure, and repair if necessary, as specified in an EASA AD.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address such cracking in the stringers, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

EASA AD 2020-0159 describes procedures for repetitive detailed visual (DET) or high frequency eddy current inspections of the stringer P0a and P0a' at the riveted line of the attachment to the gusset and along the stringer head, in particular at the area of the last attachment of the gusset to the stringer in the midpoint between frame (FR) 43 and FR44, repetitive DET inspections for fatigue cracks of the fuselage skin, along the stringers' footprint and surrounding structure and the attachment of the gusset to the FR43; repetitive DET inspections for fatigue cracks of the actuator bracket on FR43, along the radius of the vertical nerves, inner lug holes, and attachment holes of the bracket to FR43; repetitive DET inspections for fatigue cracks or broken rivets in the web and joint clips to skin and stringer of both sides of the frame between stringer P1d and P1d' (two stringers for each side from the central stringer P0a); repetitive DET inspections for fatigue cracks or broken rivets of the gussets, along the flange which joins FR43; and repair of any cracking or broken rivets.

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

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

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

The FAA has received no definitive data that enables providing cost estimates for the on-condition action specified in this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ANAC, which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued ANAC AD 2020-07-02, effective July 21, 2020 (ANAC AD 2020-07-02) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Yaborã Indústria Aeronáutica S.A. Model EMB-135, EMB-145, -145EP, -145ER, -145LR, -145MP, -145MR, and -145XR airplanes. Model EMB-145EU, EMB-145LU, and EMB-145MK airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Yaborã Indústria Aeronáutica S.A. Model EMB-135, EMB-145, -145EP, -145ER, -145LR, -145MP, -145MR, and -145XR airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2020 (85 FR 75964). The NPRM was prompted by reports that calculations provided by the ATTCS are incorrect under certain conditions. The NPRM proposed to require updating the software of the installed FADEC systems, as specified in ANAC AD 2020-07-02.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Paragraph (c) of this AD has been revised to correct the reference to Model EMB-145ER airplanes.

Certain paragraph designations have been corrected in the regulatory text of this AD.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

ANAC AD 2020-07-02 describes procedures for updating the software of the installed FADEC systems to version B9.4 or B9.4.1. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 494 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Pilatus Model PC-12/47E airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2020 (85 FR 57804). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require an inspection of the IFFAs for the correct shape and chafing between the IFFA and the associated front inboard tension rod, with corrective action as necessary.

The NPRM was based on MCAI from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD No.: 2019-0231, dated September 13, 2019 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Pilatus Model PC-12/47E airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0813.

The FAA received two comments from Pilatus. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Pilatus requested the FAA reduce the applicability of the proposed AD from all Model PC-12/47E airplanes to Model PC-12/47E airplanes with serial number (S/N) 1576 and higher. Pilatus stated that due to an engineering change in 2014, the left-hand (LH) IFFA, part number (P/N) 557.52.12.223, and the right-hand (RH) IFFA, P/N 557.52.12.224, introduced on airplanes with S/N 1576 and higher, have different attachment hole positions and a maximum hole position difference of more than 12mm. As a result, it is not physically possible to install P/Ns 557.52.12.223 and 557.52.12.224 on airplanes with an S/N lower than 1576.

The FAA partially agrees. The commenter is correct that the affected IFFAs cannot be installed on Model PC-12/47E airplanes with an S/N lower than 1576. The FAA has revised paragraph (f) of this AD to limit the inspection of the IFFAs to airplanes with an S/N 1576 and higher.

Pilatus acknowledged that tension rod P/N 527.52.12.135 can be installed on all Model PC-12/47E airplanes but requested the FAA limit the tension rod inspection for airplanes with an S/N lower than 1576 to only those with maintenance records showing that the tension rod had been installed.

The FAA partially agrees. The FAA has revised the tension rod inspection to limit its scope for airplanes with an S/N lower than 1576. Because the tension rods are not life-limited parts, there is no regulatory requirement for them to be serialized or for operators to record or retain information about the part's traceability. Therefore, operators would be unable to comply with, and the FAA would be unable to enforce, the change requested by the commenter, as maintenance records may not identify if a tension rod was removed from an airplane with an S/N 1576 or higher. Instead, the FAA has changed the AD so that the inspection of the tension rod is required for all airplanes with a S/N 1576 or higher and for airplanes with a S/N 1001 through 1575 if tension rod P/N 527.52.12.135 is installed.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for the changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Pilatus PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 27-026, dated July 10, 2019 (Pilatus SB No. 27-026). The service information specifies procedures for inspecting and correcting chafing between the left and right IFFAs and the associated front inboard tension rods. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

The MCAI only requires inspection of the tension rods if the IFFAs are modified because they have been found to have the incorrect shape. Due to the length of time between manufacture and the issuance of this AD, operators could have installed an affected tension rod onto an airplane that was not manufactured with the defective part. Therefore, this AD requires inspection for chafing damage on the tension rods on all Model PC-12/47E airplanes that have an affected tension rod installed.

The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 18 products of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it will take about 2.5 work-hours per product to comply with the requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $1,600 per product.

Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of this AD on U.S. operators will be $32,634 or $1,813 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2020-07, dated March 17, 2020 (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0843.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2020 (85 FR 58010). The NPRM was prompted by a report of smoke and signs of an overheating condition from the ELB due to excessive corrosion surrounding the internal lead acid batteries, which caused an electrical short circuit that led to the smoke and overheating condition. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine the last replacement date of the ELB, and replacement if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require the incorporation of a new maintenance task into the existing maintenance or inspection program. The FAA is issuing this AD to address smoke and an overheating condition of the ELB due to corrosion, which could cause fire onboard the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.

Bombardier requested that the FAA revise the NPRM to update the email address for obtaining the specified service information from “ thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com ” to “ ac.yul@aero.bombardier.com .”

The FAA agrees with the request and has revised this final rule accordingly.

The FAA has revised paragraph (g) of this AD to clarify when replacement is required. This clarification explains that replacement is required if, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any last replacement date or manufacturing date is found to be 4 years or older.

The FAA has also revised paragraph (h)(2) of this AD to clarify that the compliance time of within 48 months is related to the applicable date specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (ii) of this AD. The proposed AD inadvertently stated that the compliance time was “[w]ithin 48 months after the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (ii) of this AD,” but paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii) of this AD specify dates, not compliance times.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA also determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 700-33-024, dated May 13, 2019. This service information describes procedures for an inspection to determine the last battery replacement date of the ELB, and replacement if necessary.

Bombardier also issued the following service information.

• Global Express BD-700 Supplemental Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (STLMC) Temporary Revision (TR) 05-19091701, dated September 17, 2019.

• Global Express BD-700 STLMC TR 05-19091704, dated September 17, 2019.

• Global Express XRS BD-700 STLMC TR 05-19091705, dated September 17, 2019.

These documents describe an amendment to the aircraft maintenance schedule to include STLMC Chapter 5 task number 33-51-54-603, “Restoration of the Emergency Lighting Batteries (XL245-B Emergency Battery System),” and are distinct since they apply to different airplane serial numbers.

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 estimates that this AD affects 69 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the FAA recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2020 (85 FR 29673). The NPRM was prompted by reports of inboard foreflap departures from the airplane. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive replacement of certain parts; a general visual inspection to determine production configuration for certain parts; a repetitive lubrication of certain parts and a repetitive general visual inspection of certain parts for any exuding grease; repetitive detailed inspections of certain parts for loose or missing attachment bolts, cracks or bushing migration, cracks or gouges, or broken, binding, or missing rollers; repetitive detailed inspections of certain parts for cracks or corrosion; repetitive lubrication; and on-condition actions if necessary.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address departures of the inboard foreflap assembly from the airplane, which could result in damage to the airplane and adversely affect the airplane's continued safe flight and landing.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and Boeing expressed support for the NPRM.

Atlas Air (Atlas) requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to incorporate and provide credit for Atlas's flap inspection and overhaul program. Atlas explained that after four flap failure events, their flap mitigation team formulated a program of actions that successfully address the unsafe conditions cited in the NPRM.

The FAA acknowledges that alternative methods may exist to address the potential unsafe condition, but disagrees with the request to revise this AD to incorporate specific actions from the Atlas flap mitigation program. That program is unique to an individual operator, and Atlas has not provided the FAA substantiating data demonstrating that these proposed changes provide an equivalent level of safety. Atlas may apply for an AMOC with substantiating data. The FAA has not changed this AD with regard to this request.

Cargolux (CLX) requested that the proposed inspection, as specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB, dated November 15, 2019, Table 1, Action 2, no longer include identifying nuts with part number BACN10HR7CD. CLX explained that determining the part number by inspection is difficult due to access restrictions, and operators may have to replace the subject nuts to be compliant with the proposed AD.

The FAA disagrees with the requested exemption because it is unnecessary. Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB, dated November 15, 2019, Table 1, Action 2, specifies a “general visual inspection of the inboard foreflap assembly stop, stop attachment bolts, stop lug attachment bolts, and rollers.” The subject nuts are not specifically identified. Additionally, the service bulletin does not mandate a specific method of compliance for this inspection. It refers to Part 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2367, dated November 15, 2019, where the subject nut is listed, as an accepted procedure. In accordance with Note 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions, “when the words `refer to' are used and the operator has an accepted alternative procedure, the accepted alternative procedure can be used.” The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this request.

CLX requested that approved alternative, substitute, or interchangeable part numbers for specified parts be allowed when demonstrating compliance. CLX is concerned that operators may have trouble obtaining parts if the parts have been replaced and there are interchangeable parts available in lieu of the required part number.

The FAA disagrees with the request. The design approval holder (DAH) identified the parts necessary to address the unsafe condition. Kits with those replacement part numbers may be acquired from the DAH. Additionally, CLX did not provide the FAA any substantiating data to demonstrate that any alternative/substitute part provides an acceptable level of safety. CLX may submit an AMOC request with supporting data that demonstrates an acceptable level of safety for a replacement part not specified in the service information. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this request.

Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) and CLX requested that Boeing document 747-FTD-57-10002 be specified in the proposed AD as an aid for the general visual inspection described in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB, dated November 15, 2019, to identify part numbers currently installed on the airplane. KLM and CLX claimed that dirt, grease, or sealant may prevent part numbers from being identified by way of a general visual inspection and that the document provided by Boeing should be used as a visual aid.

The FAA agrees with using visual aids or other documentation to help identify part numbers during the inspection. However, the FAA disagrees with revising the AD to require the specified document. Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB, dated November 15, 2019, refers to a procedure in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2367, dated November 15, 2019, as an accepted procedure for the general visual inspection to identify the parts production configuration. Note 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions states that “when the words `refer to' are used and the operator has an accepted alternative procedure, the accepted alternative procedure can be used.” The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this request.

Both KLM and CLX requested that a maintenance records check be allowed as an option to the general visual inspection specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB, dated November 15, 2019, for the purpose of identifying parts currently installed on the airplane. Both KLM and CLX stated that operators should be able to determine whether their maintenance records are accurate.

The FAA disagrees with the request. The service information was coordinated with the DAH and it was determined that a physical check, as specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB, dated November 15, 2019, is required. This AD has not been changed regarding this request.

United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that the FAA also accept accomplishment of Work Package 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27-2366, Revision 3, dated March 22, 2016, in lieu of the initial inspection specified by Table 4 of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB, dated November 15, 2019. UPS asserted that there is significant overlap between the two flap inspections.

The FAA does not agree with the request. The inspections specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB, dated November 15, 2019, include additional structure to inspect, compared to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27-2366, Revision 3, dated March 22, 2016, and also specify corrective action if damage is detected. The requirements of this AD have been coordinated with the DAH. UPS did not provide the FAA any substantiating data to demonstrate that the less stringent inspections from Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27-2366, Revision 3, dated March 22, 2016, provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of this comment.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB, dated November 15, 2019. This service information describes procedures for repetitive replacement of certain parts; a general visual inspection to determine production configuration for certain parts; a repetitive lubrication of certain parts and a repetitive general visual inspection of certain parts for any exuding grease; repetitive detailed inspections of certain parts for loose or missing attachment bolts, cracks or bushing migration, cracks or gouges, or broken, binding, or missing rollers; repetitive detailed inspections of certain parts for cracks or corrosion; repetitive lubrication; and on-condition actions if necessary. On-condition actions include replacements and repair. 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 estimates that this AD affects 125 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the FAA to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2020-09, dated April 7, 2020 (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0691.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2020 (85 FR 62626). The NPRM was prompted by evidence that a revised structural life limit of some components of the NLG and/or MLG was not implemented during repair. The NPRM proposed to require verifying that the affected components are installed on the airplane, revising the structural life limits in the existing SDIR airplane document, and replacing affected components if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address structural life limits that are lower than the life limit published in the Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM), Part 2. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to the collapse of the affected NLG and/or MLG, possibly resulting in airplane damage and injury to the occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment received. Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) stated that it supports the NPRM.

This AD has been revised to provide the revised structural life limits in figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD instead of referencing the individual repair engineering orders (REOs) in paragraph (h) of this AD. The REOs did not meet the Office of the Federal Register's criteria for incorporation by reference.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 601R-32-112, dated November 11, 2019. This service information describes procedures for verifying that affected components are installed on the airplane, revising the structural life limits in the existing SDIR airplane document, and replacing affected parts if necessary. 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 estimates that this AD affects 456 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0093, dated April 24, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0093) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 and A330-300 series airplanes, and all Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 and A330-300 series airplanes, and all Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2020 (85 FR 46012). The NPRM was prompted by reports of hydraulic system failure due to fatigue failure of the screws attaching the manual valve to the GSM. The NPRM proposed to require, for certain GSMs, repetitive replacement of the hydraulic system GSM manual valve attachment screws having certain part numbers; and, for certain other GSMs with certain screws installed, replacement of those screws, as specified in an EASA AD.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) stated its support for the NPRM.

Delta Air Lines (Delta) asked that the FAA include an exception statement in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD related to Airbus modification 58345. Delta stated that EASA AD 2020-0093 includes the statement “except those on which Airbus modification (mod) 58345 has been embodied in production.” Delta added that this would remove the need for operators of post mod 58345 airplanes to demonstrate compliance with an AD for which compliance is impossible.

The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request. Paragraph (c) of this AD identifies the affected airplane models and specifies that this AD is applicable to the airplanes identified in EASA AD 2020-0093. Because the applicability identified in EASA AD 2020-0093 excludes airplanes on which Airbus modification 58345 is embodied in production, it is not necessary to restate that exclusion in this AD. EASA AD 2020-0093 is incorporated by reference in its entirety, which includes the applicability therein. Therefore, the FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Delta asked that the “in accordance with” statement in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be replaced by “refer to” Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A29L010-19, Revision 01, dated February 18, 2020, paragraphs 4.4.2.1.(8), 4.4.2.1.(10), 4.4.2.2.(9) and 4.4.2.2.(11). Delta stated that the EASA AD mandates accomplishment of the referenced AOT, and the AOT includes the following note: “NOTE 2: The accomplishment instructions of this AOT include procedures given in other documents or in other sections of the AOT. When the words 'refer to' are used and the operator has a procedure accepted by the local authority he belongs to, the accepted alternative procedure can be used. When the words `in accordance with' are used then the given procedure must be followed.” Delta added that paragraphs 4.4.2.1.(8) and 4.4.2.2.(9) of the AOT use both “refer to” and “in accordance with,” and paragraphs 4.4.2.1.(10) and 4.4.2.2.(11) of the AOT use “in accordance with” when referencing the Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) wirelocking procedures. Delta further noted that in all cases, the AOT refers to standard AMM procedures, testing and wirelocking. As standard procedures, Delta recommended that the “in accordance with” statement be replaced by “refer to” for paragraphs 4.4.2.1.(8), 4.4.2.1.(10), 4.4.2.2.(9) and 4.4.2.2.(11) of the AOT.

The FAA agrees with the commenter's request for further clarification. It should be clear to operators whether specific procedures are mandatory. Paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD specified compliance with “paragraph 4.4.2., Accomplishment Instructions, of the AOT” only. This means that these actions must be completed in accordance with certain procedures specified in the Airbus AMM tasks defined in Airbus AOT A29L010-19, Revision 01, dated February 18, 2020. The FAA has clarified paragraph (h)(3) of this AD as follows: “Where EASA AD 2020-0093 specifies to comply with “the instructions of the AOT,” and “the AOT” specifies that “the accomplishment instructions marked as Required for Compliance (RC) must be done” this AD requires compliance with “paragraph 4.4.2., Accomplishment Instructions, of the AOT [Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A29L010-19, Revision 01, dated February 18, 2020] only; except paragraphs 4.4.2.1(1) and 4.4.2.2(1) which specify gaining access to the ground service manifold and preparation for update and may be accomplished in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program.”

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously, and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA also determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

EASA AD 2020-0093 describes procedures for replacement of the hydraulic system GSM manual valve attachment screws. For GSMs with part number (P/N) 70902-3 or P/N 70902-4 installed with screws having P/N NAS1101-3H8, EASA AD 2020-0093 describes procedures for repetitive replacement of those screws with new screws having P/N NAS1101-3H8. For GSMs with P/N 70902-5 installed with screws having P/N NAS1101-3H8, EASA AD 2020-0093 describes procedures for replacement of those screws with new bolts having P/N EWB0420D-3H-3 or four new screws having P/N NAS1101-3H8; if new screws are installed, EASA AD 2020-0093 describes procedures for replacing them with new bolts having P/N EWB0420D-3H-3 before the screws exceed 10,000 flight cycles since installation on an airplane. EASA AD 2020-0093 also describes an optional terminating modification (replacement of all affected GSMs), which would terminate the repetitive replacements of the attachment screws.

Airbus AOT A29L010-19, Revision 01, dated February 18, 2020, describes procedures for initial and repetitive replacement of certain GSM manual-valve screws and a one-time visual inspection to determine if certain GSM manual-valve screws are installed instead of the correct bolts.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 107 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Piper Models PA-46-350P (Malibu Mirage), PA-46R-350T (Malibu Matrix), and PA-46-500TP (Malibu Meridian) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2020 (85 FR 68255). The NPRM was prompted by the finding of airplanes without the proper stall warning heater modification design change. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require identifying and correcting nonconforming stall warning heat control systems.

The FAA issued AD 2008-26-11, Amendment 39-15777 (73 FR 78934, December 24, 2008) (“AD 2008-26-11”) for certain serial-numbered Piper Model PA-46-350P, PA-46R-350T, and PA-46-500TP airplanes. AD 2008-26-11 requires installing stall warning heat control modification kit part number 88452-002. For those serial-numbered airplanes to which AD 2008-26-11 does not apply, Piper incorporated the modification kit in production.

Since the FAA issued AD 2008-26-11, Piper found 11 airplanes (9 domestic) with the left wing replaced with a wing assembly from salvage that did not have the proper stall warning heater modification design change. Without the proper stall warning heat control modification kit during flights into icing conditions with the landing gear down, ice can form on the stall vane, which may result in failure of the stall warning system. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

This action will not affect AD 2008-26-11 and all actions of that AD will remain in place.

The FAA received a comment from 1 commenter. The commenter supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Piper Service Letter No. 1261, dated July 19, 2019. This service information specifies procedures to identify and correct nonconforming stall warning heat control systems. The intent of these service letters is to ensure that wiring for the stall warning heat control system meets current type design. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

The FAA reviewed Piper Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1192, dated September 15, 2008. This service bulletin is incorporated by reference in AD 2008-26-11.

This AD does not require the first step, which is identified as a “required for compliance” (RC) step, of Piper Service Letter No. 1261, dated July 19, 2019. The first step specifies reviewing the aircraft records to determine whether the inspection of the stall warning heat control configuration must be done. This AD does not require a records review. Instead, all airplanes identified in the applicability of this AD have to inspect the stall warning heat control configuration.

The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 1,261 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary repairs that will be required based on the results of the inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these repairs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0144, dated June 29, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0144) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2020 (85 FR 67696). The NPRM was prompted by a report that certain retaining rings could cause damage to frame forks, brackets and edge frames, and their surface protection; subsequent investigation showed that the depth of the frame fork spotfacing on structural parts is inadequate to accommodate the retaining ring. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of certain areas of each cargo door for damage and corrective action. The NPRM also proposed to provide an optional terminating modification, as specified in an EASA AD.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address inadequate frame fork spotfacing depth for the retaining rings, which could reduce the structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

EASA AD 2020-0144 describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the edge frames, brackets, frame forks, and the access cover on the internal side of each cargo door for damage (including cracks and corrosion) and corrective actions. Corrective actions include repair or rework. EASA AD 2020-0144 also describes procedures for an optional modification of each affected cargo door, which terminates the repetitive inspections. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered Pilatus Model PC-24 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2020 (85 FR 58002). The NPRM was prompted by MCAI originated by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA has issued EASA AD No. 2020-0158, dated July 16, 2020 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI states:

The incorrect length wires are too short in length and do not have appropriate slack, which could lead to wires being pulled loose from the terminals during flight or ground operation. Generation of smell refers to the smell from electrical arcing. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0818.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modifying the electrical harness installation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

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

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Pilatus PC-24 Service Bulletin No. 91-001, dated April 7, 2020. The service information specifies procedures necessary to improve the electrical harness installation in the nose bay, cockpit, avionics rack, fuselage, wing fairing, and rear fuselage. 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 estimates that this AD will affect 36 products of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it will take 20 work-hours per product to comply with the requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $75 per product.

Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of this AD on U.S. operators at $63,900, or $1,775 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2019 (84 FR 52047). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracks in the bear strap between certain stations, sometimes common to fasteners in the gap cover and emanating from rough sanding marks found on the surface of the bear strap. The NPRM proposed to require inspections of the fuselage skin and bear strap at the forward galley door between certain stations for cracks, and applicable on-condition actions.

The FAA issued a supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2020 (85 FR 25348). The FAA issued the SNPRM to revise certain inspections to provide the correct thickness callouts for the fuselage skin and bear strap.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking of the bear strap, which could result in severing of the bear strap, possibly leading to uncontrolled decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

United Airlines stated that it has no technical objection to the SNPRM and that it concurs with the proposed rulemaking.

Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested that the Boeing 737-700/-800 Structural Repair Manual (SRM) 53-10-01, Repair 6, be approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to certain corrective actions specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020. SWA contended that this repair covers the affected inspection zone, and that this SRM repair should be a terminating action to the inspections specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020, because the entire inspection area covered is common to the repair given in Boeing 737-700/-800 SRM 53-10-01, Repair 6. SWA asserted that operators should be able to accomplish this SRM repair without contacting Boeing, provided there are no deviations and that the findings meet the criteria listed in the Boeing 737-700/-800 SRM 53-10-01, Repair 6. SWA also noted that the SRM was published after Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020, so there was no way to reference the SRM repair within it.

The FAA disagrees with the request because the referenced SRM repair has not yet been approved for the specified conditions. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an AMOC if a proposal is submitted that is supported by technical data indicating that the proposed repair will provide an acceptable level of safety. If the referenced SRM repair is determined to be acceptable to address the specified conditions, the FAA may approve, and Boeing may issue, a global AMOC for the SRM repair. The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of this comment.

Southwest Airlines requested that where table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020, states a compliance time of “Before further flight” for certain on-condition actions, the proposed AD should specify this compliance time as “Before 15,000 total flight cycles or within 6,000 flight cycles after the original issue of the AD, whichever occurs later.” Southwest Airlines also requested that the FAA clarify the requirement of Condition 1, Action 1, and Condition 3 and Condition 4.1.1, within Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020, paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” in Tables 1 and 2, to do the alternative inspections and applicable on-condition action(s) before further flight. SWA asserted that there is an equivalent level of safety between an airplane without a repair reaching the compliance time threshold to perform the Boeing service bulletin inspection and an airplane with a repair reaching the compliance time threshold before an action is required. Therefore, the compliance times for obtaining the alternative inspection(s) for the existing repairs should align with the compliance times allowed for the initial service bulletin general visual inspection in lieu of “before further flight.” SWA proposed that this allowance be listed within paragraph (h) of the proposed AD, similar to the allowance provided by paragraph (i) of the proposed AD.

The FAA agrees that allowing the AD compliance time for an airplane with an existing repair to be the same as an aircraft without an existing repair will provide an acceptable level of safety. Any alternative inspection program including compliance times must be done in accordance with an approved AMOC. The FAA has added paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to address this change.

Southwest Airlines requested that the FAA clarify who has the authority to approve an alternative inspection program for any repair found during Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020, paragraph 1.E, “Compliance,” Table 1, Condition 1, Action 1. Paragraph (j)(1) of the proposed AD clearly indicated that the manager of the Seattle ACO Branch has that authority; paragraph (j)(3) of the proposed AD provided the path to obtain an AMOC by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) as delegated only for a repair, modification, and alteration. SWA requested clarification whether paragraph (j)(3) of the proposed AD encompasses both existing repairs and repairs installed as a result of inspection findings. SWA asserted that it is unclear whether the reference to the repair is for an existing repair that is located in the inspection area or for a repair that is installed as a result of any crack finding.

The FAA agrees to clarify. The Boeing Company ODA has authority to approve AMOCs as authorized and delegated for repairs installed prior to the AD and repairs due to a crack finding, as well as repairs not due to a crack finding. An operator would need to provide The Boeing Company ODA with all details and geometry needed to design and analyze the repair data.

SWA commented that Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020, paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” Table 1, note (b), omits the inspection in areas where a repair covers the affected zone, provided conditions 1 and 2 are met. A similar note is included in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” Table 2, note (c). SWA would like clarification of the word “covers” as it relates to repairs in the area. Since the configuration has changed because of the repair, SWA stated that the repair's damage tolerance program provides an equivalent level of safety for this area.

The FAA has coordinated with Boeing to clarify the intent of the wording in this section. Note (b) in Table 1 and note (c) in Table 2 of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020, paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” apply to the area “covered by” a repair, but not for the area “common to” a repair. A repair that is “common to” the area, meaning physically in the same area as the NPRM-proposed repair, but that was not meant to address the issue specified in the NPRM ( i.e., “covered” areas), could potentially be obscuring the inspections that would detect crack growth which this AD is meant to mitigate. Therefore, if a repair was not done as a corrective action for a crack in the bear strap, and the operator does not perform the inspections specified in the Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020, it may result in the unsafe condition. The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of this comment.

SWA commented that paragraph (j)(3) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) stated that an AMOC may be used for any required repair, modification, or alteration if approved by The Boeing Company ODA. SWA stated that inspection programs should be included in this list of conditions for which The Boeing Company ODA can provide an AMOC, as paragraph (h)(2) explicitly states it is acceptable to accomplish alternative inspections approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD.

The FAA agrees with the assertion that the inspection program may be part of the AMOC because the inspection program for the repaired area may be part of the repair, which in turn is part of the AMOC. However, the FAA disagrees with changing this AD because an AMOC issued for a repair will include the inspection program. The request to add certain inspection programs to The Boeing Company ODA-authorized list of AMOC approvals is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, the FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM.

The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1383 RB, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2020. This service information describes procedures for inspecting for cracks of the fuselage skin and bear strap at the forward galley door between certain stations, through the use of two alternative inspection methods for the initial inspections: (1) Internal and external general visual inspections and internal surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections, and (2) external general visual and external eddy current inspections. This service information also describes procedures for applicable on-condition actions including inspections for cracks, HFEC inspections for cracks, low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspections for cracks, and repair, depending on the inspection method selected. 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 estimates that this AD affects 752 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2020 (85 FR 26893). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that the necessary sealant was not applied to the SOB slot as a result of a production drawing providing unclear SOB slot sealant application instructions on certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require a general visual inspection for insufficient sealant in the SOB slot, and related investigative and corrective actions.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address fuel leaking into the air distribution mix bay (ADMB), which if not addressed, could possibly lead to an ignition of flammable fluid vapors, fire, or explosion, or fuel vapor inhalation by passengers and crew.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

United Airlines stated it had no technical objection to the NPRM.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of blended or split scimitar winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect compliance with the proposed actions.

The FAA agrees with the commenter that STC ST00830SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Boeing requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to reference a later revision of the MOM, specifically, Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R2), with an anticipated publication date of July 31, 2020. Boeing stated that the revision has improved illustration and work instructions, clarifies how to distinguish between certain application flaws and more severe flaws and deterioration, and provides relief from certain corrective actions for certain secondary fuel barrier coating conditions.

The FAA agrees to reference a later revision of the service information. However, Boeing has released additional later revisions that provide additional clarity. Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R4), dated September 28, 2020, provides clarification on the definitions of sufficient sealant in the SOB slot, fillet seal in the SOB slot, and secondary fuel barrier. It also provides clarifications to the inspection area, and revisions were made to improve the identification of applicable figures. The changes in the revision provide relief on repairs of serviceable secondary fuel barrier coating. This later revision 4 contains no substantive change from MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R1), dated January 29, 2020. The FAA has revised paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD to reference Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R4), dated September 28, 2020. The FAA has also added paragraph (j) to this AD to provide credit for accomplishing certain earlier revisions of this service information before the effective date of this AD.

Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested clarification on what type of inspection is needed to accomplish the inspection requirements. Delta noted that in the General Notes section of the attachment to Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R2), dated August 4, 2020, the MOM provides a definition of a detailed inspection. However, Delta noted that because “detailed inspection” is not used in other parts of the service information, it seems the definition of a detailed visual inspection should have been provided instead. Delta stated that this inconsistency could lead to an inability to comply with the instructions in the MOM.

The FAA agrees to clarify. As stated previously, the FAA has revised this AD to reference Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R4), dated September 28, 2020, and in this later revision, both the steps and General Notes refer to “detailed inspection” as well as “general visual inspection.” The FAA has removed paragraph (g) of the proposed AD as this definition is no longer needed. The FAA has redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Alaska Airlines (Alaska) and Delta requested that the figures within Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R1), dated January 29, 2020, be revised to add clarity. Alaska and Delta stated that the figures lack clear reference links from the text to the figures. Delta also stated that not addressing the unclear figures could lead to incorrect accomplishment of the SOB slot inspection.

The FAA agrees that the figures are unclear and the internal reference links need to be revised. As stated previously, this AD has been revised to reference Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R4), dated September 28, 2020, which contains improved figure references. No further changes to this AD have been made.

Alaska, Delta, and Southwest Airlines requested clarification on what is considered to be acceptable or insufficient sealant in the SOB slot. Alaska and Delta requested that the inspection area and acceptance criteria for sealant in the SOB slot and secondary fuel barrier be clarified. Southwest Airlines proposed a compliance table be added to the proposed AD to define acceptable sealant conditions, and Alaska supported Southwest Airlines' idea. Delta also suggested that the unclear criteria for sealant could lead to incorrect accomplishment of the SOB slot inspection.

The FAA agrees that the criteria for acceptable sealant are unclear. As described above, the FAA has revised this AD to refer to Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R4), dated September 28, 2020, which clarifies the area of inspection and the acceptable conditions of the sealant.

Delta requested clarification on the inspection area addressed in certain portions (Part 2, Step 3 and View 2D21's flagnote 63) of Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R1), dated January 29, 2020. Delta stated that those parts could be interpreted to specify that the entire front spar of the center tank must be inspected for the fillet seal and SOB slot, or only the SOB slot area.

The FAA agrees that the specifications of the area to be inspected should be clearer. As discussed above, the FAA has revised this AD to reference Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R4), dated September 28, 2020, which clarifies that only the SOB slot area must be inspected as shown in Figure 1 of Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R4), dated September 28, 2020. No additional changes to this AD have been made.

Southwest Airlines requested that a service-based compliance time be added to the calendar-based compliance time proposed in the NPRM. Southwest Airlines proposed that the compliance time be re-written to require compliance within “9 months or 2,000 flight cycles from AD effective date, whichever occurs later.” Southwest Airlines pointed out that due to the reduced flight schedules in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many airplanes are in long-term storage. Southwest Airlines added that some of these long-term storage facilities might not be capable of providing heavy maintenance, and airplanes would need to be ferried to a facility where these actions may be accomplished.

The FAA disagrees with adding the 2,000 flight cycles to the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time, the FAA considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules. In consideration of all of these factors, the FAA determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents an appropriate interval for the general visual inspection for insufficient sealant in the SOB slot within the fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. However, under the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Alaska requested that an additional compliance time deferral of 24 months be allowed under the following conditions: No fuel contamination in the ADMB; no external leak or signs of a previous external leak around the SOB slot; insufficient sealing conditions temporarily corrected with PR-1826 B-1/4 sealant or SF5387 secondary fuel barrier materials, in accordance with certain service information instructions; and repetitive inspections for fuel contamination of the ADMB done at intervals not to exceed 12 months until the repair specified in paragraph (g) of this AD is completed. Alaska stated that the extended compliance time would relieve some of the operational impact and would aid in planning for the time-intensive repair during a heavy maintenance visit.

The FAA does not agree to provide a 24-month compliance time for the repair. The technical specifications provided for the proposed alternative sealant for temporary repair do not provide the FAA with enough information to determine that the temporary repair would comply with the certification basis of the airplane and provide an acceptable level of safety when incorporated into the existing fuel system design. There is also insufficient information on how the procedures for use in the temporary repair would differ from the permanent repair. However, under the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an extension of the repair compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the conditions and temporary repair would provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

American Airlines and Delta requested a revision to the proposed AD to allow removing the air return grilles or sidewall panels to expose a hole in a beam above the SOB slot area so the inspection of the sealant can be done through the opening. Both commenters stated that the access procedure specified in Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R1), dated January 29, 2020, removes seats and cabin floor panels to gain access to the inspection area. American Airlines also stated that allowing the alternative access procedure for the inspection would reduce the amount of time necessary to accomplish an inspection of the SOB slot, and that accomplishing any required corrective action would then require the removal of seats and cabin floor panels to gain access to the SOB slot area.

The FAA agrees that the inspection could be accomplished by removing the air return grilles or sidewall panels. As discussed previously, the FAA has revised this AD to reference Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R4), dated September 28, 2020, which does contain this additional method of compliance for accessing the inspection area. The FAA has not made any additional revisions to this AD in this regard.

Alaska stated that the sealant AC-360 B1/2, which is specified as the sealant to use to fill a void, is discontinued. The FAA infers that Alaska wants the AD to be revised to remove reference to the discontinued sealant.

The FAA agrees that the sealant AC-360 B1/2 has been discontinued. As discussed above, this AD has been revised to reference Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R4), dated September 28, 2020, which removes the reference to the sealant AC-360 B1/2, but retains the reference to sealant BMS 5-142, which is the appropriate sealant to use. The FAA has not made any further changes to this AD in this regard.

Alaska requested that the FAA allow alternative sealants that cure faster than the ones specified in the service information. Alaska suggested allowing the use of sealant PR-1826 B1/4 in place of BMS 5-142, and SF5387 in place of BMS 5-81. Alaska also provided technical data sheets for the proposed sealants. Alaska noted that use of the slower-curing sealants could result in an airplane being out of service for up to 34 hours, and that time could be reduced by use of faster-curing sealants that provide an equivalent level of safety.

The FAA agrees that the alternative sealants would provide a faster cure time. However, the FAA does not have enough data to determine if the alternative sealants comply with the certification basis of the airplane and if they will provide an acceptable level of safety when incorporated into the existing fuel system design. The FAA will consider requests for alternative sealants as an alternative method of compliance if requested using the procedure specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. The FAA has not changed the AD in this regard.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-20-0049-01B(R4), dated September 28, 2020. This service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection for insufficient sealant in the SOB slot. The service information also describes procedures for related investigative actions including a general visual inspection of the ADMB for fuel contamination, a check for external leaks of the center fuel tank external surfaces inside the pressure boundary, and an internal leak check of the center fuel tank to identify the leakage path(s). The service information also describes procedures for corrective actions including removal of all insulation blankets below the crease beam (left side to right side), clean-up of all fuel contamination, repair of any leak, preparation of the SOB slot for sealing, application of sealant, and repair of the secondary fuel barrier. 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 estimates that this AD affects 731 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2020 (85 FR 37031). The NPRM was prompted by a report that during takeoff, both the captain's and first officer's airspeed indications froze at 80 knots. The NPRM proposed to require modifying the ADH system to display the proper airspeed indications, testing, and any applicable corrective actions.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address pitot tubes blocked by ice, which could affect the airspeed indication provided to the flightcrew through the ADH system and result in loss of aircraft controllability.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Three commenters, The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), Boeing, and Patrick Imperatrice, indicated support for the NPRM.

Hawaiian Airlines stated that existing crew procedures would produce the same result as the actions specified in the proposed AD and asserted that the proposed actions should remain optional. The commenter explained that with these existing crew procedures, operators should not be subjected to the requirements specified in the proposed AD. The commenter asserted that operators with strong crew cultures, processes, and procedures would mitigate the unsafe condition addressed by the NPRM without unnecessary and costly modification to the airplane. The commenter provided text from its existing crew procedures with recommended changes and asked that these procedures be considered as alternatives to the actions described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-30A0009, dated March 31, 2020 (which was identified as the appropriate source of service information for completing the actions specified in the NPRM). The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the NPRM be withdrawn.

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The FAA has determined that the crew procedures identified by the commenter do not adequately address the unsafe condition associated with the ADH system. The FAA's determination was based on a report from Boeing that three operators reported that the ADH is not operating correctly. The FAA notes that this AD requires modifying the ADH system to display the proper airspeed indications and testing to address the unsafe condition, while the commenter's proposal involves only procedural changes in lieu of a modification. However, operators may apply for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, provided they can show that their proposed crew/operational procedures would adequately address the unsafe condition. The FAA has determined that it is necessary to proceed with issuing the final rule as proposed and has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-30A0009, dated March 31, 2020. This service information describes procedures for modifying the ADH system by installing new wires between the station (STA) 110 relay panel and the left radio rack, and doing tests and applicable corrective actions until the tests are passed. 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.

Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-30A0009, dated March 31, 2020, are identified as airplanes with a concurrent requirement: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-30A0003. AD 2007-13-01, Amendment 39-15105 (72 FR 33852, June 20, 2007) (AD 2007-13-01) requires accomplishing the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-30A0003, Revision 2, dated November 28, 2006. AD 2007-13-01 requires operators to accomplish the actions (changing the wiring for the air data sensor heating system) within 24 months after July 25, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-13-01). The FAA issued that AD to address the display of suspect or erratic airspeed indications during heavy rain conditions, which could reduce the ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane. Since AD 2007-13-01 already requires the concurrent service information, the FAA has not included Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-30A0003, Revision 2, dated November 28, 2006, as a concurrent requirement in this AD.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 113 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-100R1, dated November 4, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-100R1) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, Model A330-300 series airplanes, Model A330-900 series airplanes, Model A340-200 series airplanes, Model A340-300 series airplanes, Model A340-500 series airplanes, Model A340-600 series airplanes, Model A380-800 series airplanes; and Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, Model A330-300 series airplanes, Model A330-900 series airplanes, Model A340-200 series airplanes, Model A340-300 series airplanes, Model A340-500 series airplanes, Model A340-600 series airplanes, Model A380-800 series airplanes; and Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2020 (85 FR 45350). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a quality issue with a certain repair method of damage-through honeycomb core cargo linings by speed patches applied to both sides. The NPRM proposed to require a detailed inspection of each affected part and, depending on findings, repair of each affected part, or replacement with a serviceable part, as specified in an EASA AD.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address reduced ability of repaired linings to contain smoke or fire, resulting in an increased risk of an uncontained fire in the cargo compartment and consequent structural damage to the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

American Airlines and Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to reference EASA AD 2020-100R1. DAL pointed out that there are several instances where the requirements in EASA AD 2020-0100 are unclear, contradictory to the source documents, or unnecessarily restrictive to operators. DAL further asserted that, if the final rule is published using EASA AD 2020-0100, it will have to request several alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) in order to comply with the proposed requirements. In addition, DAL provided a detailed discussion of the changes identified in EASA AD 2020-100R1 and how those changes would favorably impact operators, pointing out that certain inspection and repair requirements necessary to complete the actions specified in the proposed AD are clarified.

The FAA agrees with the requests for the reasons provided. The FAA has determined that the changes in EASA AD 2020-100R1 are relieving in nature (removing the requirement for a one-time detailed inspection (DET) of each affected part) and that this final rule should reference the revised EASA AD. Therefore, the FAA has revised this AD to refer to EASA AD 2020-100R1, dated November 4, 2020. The FAA has also revised the SUMMARY and Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51 and Costs of Compliance sections of this AD to remove reference to the one-time detailed inspection that is no longer required by this AD.

DAL requested that the proposed AD be revised to use flight days instead of calendar days to ensure that the requirements can be easily accomplished within a C-Check schedule. DAL noted that the inspection and rework of the ceiling, partition, and sidewall linings in the forward, aft and bulk cargo compartments is a labor-intensive activity that will be difficult to accomplish in any check shorter than a C-check without jeopardizing the `return to service' dates for affected aircraft. Further, DAL noted that the required rework might then require special visits in order to be fully accomplished. DAL stated that due to the current global circumstances with the pandemic, some operators have grounded airplanes and reduced workforces to help account for decreased flying demand, so accommodating a special visit will be more difficult than during normal operations. DAL noted that, for operators that are affected by global circumstances, the flammability risk of the discrepant repair should not be present when the airplane is parked with no power and cargo, and that additional time for compliance should be granted with an equivalent level of safety present.

The FAA disagrees with the request. Using flight days versus calendar days would be difficult for operators to track AD compliance. AD compliance requirements are calculated independently of scheduled maintenance periods. Also, showing compliance with the AD does not require the airplane to be on a C-check schedule. The FAA has determined that a compliance time of 23 months from the effective date of the AD represents an adequate amount of time to accomplish the actions required. If an operator is unable to accomplish the actions for whatever reason or has the airplane in storage, it may request approval of an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

DAL requested that the FAA add two exceptions to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to address errors in RC procedures specified in the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-100R1. DAL pointed out that Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task A330-A-25-XX-3743-02001-690A-C specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3743, dated September 23, 2019, includes a typographical error in a measurement. Additionally, DAL pointed out that AMM Task A330-A-25-XX-3743-01001-520A-A specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3743, dated September 23, 2019, also specifies an incorrect AMM task reference for removing cargo liners in the forward cargo compartment. DAL suggested wording for the requested exceptions.

The FAA has confirmed the typographical errors and agrees with the request for the reasons provided. The FAA has revised paragraph (h) of this AD accordingly.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

EASA AD 2020-100R1, dated November 4, 2020, describes procedures for repair of each affected part, or replacement with a serviceable part. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 127 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the FAA to provide cost estimates for the replacements specified in this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2019-02-03, Amendment 39-19550 (84 FR 2437, February 7, 2019) (AD 2019-02-03). AD 2019-02-03 applied to all The Boeing Company Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2020 (85 FR 42749). The NPRM was prompted by reports of warpage of internal engine fire handle components that can cause binding and prevent proper operation, and by the development of a new fire handle design that will eliminate the need for the airworthiness limitations required by AD 2019-02-03. The NPRM proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2019-02-03 and to require incorporation of an airworthiness limitation that applies only to certain airplanes. The NPRM also proposed to require replacing or modifying certain engine fire control panels, which would terminate the revised airworthiness limitation added in this final rule when a certain condition is met. The FAA is issuing this AD to address a latent failure of the engine fire handle, which could result in the inability to extinguish an engine fire that, if uncontrollable, could lead to wing failure.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing asked that paragraph (o)(4) of the proposed AD (paragraph (p)(4) of this AD), which specifies “AMOCs approved previously for AD 2019-02-03 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD,” also include approval of AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (k) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that approved AMOC RA-19-00263 (Boeing letter requesting an AMOC for AD 2019-02-03) provides inspection instructions equivalent to Airworthiness Limitation 28-AWL-FIRE in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. Boeing added that the inspection instructions of 28-AWL-FIRE in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD and in figure 2 to paragraph (k) of the proposed AD are identical.

The FAA partially agrees with the commenter's request. The FAA previously approved Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB260007-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 22, 2019, as an AMOC to the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2019-02-03. The inspection instructions provided in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB260007-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 22, 2019, are equivalent to 28-AWL-FIRE in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD and in figure 2 to paragraph (k) of this AD. Because paragraph (k) is a new requirement of this AD, the FAA has instead added the action as an alternative terminating action, paragraph (l) of this AD, for the repetitive inspections for airplanes equipped with an engine fire control panel having part number (P/N) 412600-001 or an engine fire shutoff switch having P/N 417000-101 or P/N 417000-102.

American Airlines, All Nippon Airways (ANA), and United Airlines asked that the FAA revise paragraph (n) of the proposed AD to continue to allow, for a limited time, the installation of the engine fire handle with the part numbers on which an unsafe condition has been identified after the effective date of the AD. American Airlines and United Airlines asked that installing the parts be allowed for 15 months after the effective date of the AD, which is consistent with the referenced service information. ANA asked that it be allowed to install the parts until the engine fire handle with new part numbers is installed in accordance with paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. ANA also asked that the compliance time specified in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD be extended to 24 months after the effective date of the AD.

American Airlines stated that this change is necessary because the repetitive inspections of the engine fire handle with the part numbers on which an unsafe condition has been identified remain in place until those part numbers are replaced by the new part numbers. American Airlines added that they would need a full panel or two new switches if there were findings of failed fire handles because they can't mix old and new parts. American Airlines, ANA, and United Airlines expressed their concern regarding parts availability due to limited supply. ANA stated that the supply of the engine fire handles with new part numbers is insufficient worldwide due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

The FAA partially agrees with the commenters' requests, based on the limited supply of new part numbers available due to extenuating circumstances. The FAA has received a number of reports of failed engine fire handles found during the repetitive inspections. The frequency of failures found in service, and the provisions of the “Parts Installation Prohibition” of paragraph (n) of the proposed AD, could have forced operators to install the new part numbers from a limited supply before reaching the compliance time in paragraph (i) of this AD. Furthermore, as American Airlines stated, the repetitive inspections required by 28-AWL-FIRE remain in place until a fire handle with new part numbers is installed. The repetitive inspections do not eliminate the latent failure of the engine fire handle, but they will limit the number of flights the airplanes can operate with a failed engine fire handle. Since paragraph (n) of the proposed AD would have applied to all airplanes including those airplanes delivered with the engine fire control panel having the new part number required by paragraph (i) of this AD, and since it is necessary to prohibit the replacement of the new part number with the old part number for those airplanes that are not covered by paragraph (i) of this AD, the FAA has revised paragraph (o) of this AD (paragraph (n) of the proposed AD) to include an exception for airplanes identified in Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB260008-00 RB, Issue 001, dated March 10, 2020. For airplanes affected by paragraph (i) of this AD, once operators comply with the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD by installing parts with new part numbers, operators must continue to maintain the airplane configuration compliant with the AD requirements. For airplanes delivered with the fire control panel having the new part number, paragraph (o) of this AD prohibits the replacement of the new part numbers with the old part numbers on which the unsafe condition was identified.

The FAA does not agree with ANA's request to revise the compliance time in paragraph (i) of this AD to 24 months. Since the level of impact of parts supply may vary for each operator, we are unable to determine an appropriate change to the compliance time in paragraph (i) of this AD that will result in a minimal impact on safety and on operators' ability to comply with the AD requirements. Therefore, operators that encounter limited parts supply that could hinder the ability to meet the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD within the compliance time indicated should request an AMOC to extend this compliance time. If data are provided to show that the extended compliance time addresses the unsafe condition, operators may request approval of an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (p) of this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) asked that the FAA revise Airworthiness Limitation 28-AWL-FIRE to remove the language that allows the flightcrew to perform an operational check of the engine fire handle. ALPA stated that because the proposed AD retains the actions required by AD 2019-02-03, the proposed AD also retains the allowance for the flightcrew to perform the engine fire handle operational check in a manner approved by the principal operations inspector in lieu of being performed by specifically trained maintenance personnel per the procedures in 28-AWL-FIRE. ALPA previously highlighted concern with the flightcrew conducting the check required by AD 2019-02-03, and reiterated that concern in comments on the NPRM. ALPA noted that without specific training to flightcrews, the opportunity exists for the operational check to be performed inaccurately. ALPA concluded that to ensure that the check is effective until the terminating action is accomplished, consistent procedures should be followed and documented by appropriately trained maintenance personnel, as specified in the proposed AD.

The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request. Airworthiness Limitation 28-AWL-FIRE includes an allowance for the flightcrew to perform an operational check of the engine fire handle since the inspection interval is relatively short and the inspection procedure is relatively straightforward. Based on this allowance, operators can develop the procedures for the flightcrew to perform an operational check in a timely manner. Operators must ensure that the operational check required by 28-AWL-FIRE is accurately performed by the flightcrew in order for the procedures to be approved by the principal operations inspector. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously, and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB260008-00 RB, Issue 001, dated March 10, 2020. The service information describes procedures for replacing the engine fire control panel with a new or modified panel.

The FAA also reviewed Boeing Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB260007-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 22, 2019. The service information describes procedures for performing repetitive operational checks of the engine fire handle.

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 estimates that this AD affects 122 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2019-02-03 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new maintenance or inspection program revision to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all GE GEnx-1B64, -1B64/P1, -1B64/P2, -1B67, -1B67/P1, -1B67/P2, -1B70, -1B70/75/P1, -1B70/75/P2, -1B70/P1, -1B70/P2, -1B70C/P1, -1B70C/P2, -1B74/75/P1, -1B74/75/P2, -1B76/P2, and -1B76A/P2 model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2020 (85 FR 43752). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a crack in the outer fuel manifold causing fuel leakage. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require initial and repetitive visual inspections of the p-clamp and, depending on the results of the inspection, a spot FPI of the outer fuel manifold. Depending on the results of the FPI, the NPRM proposed to require replacement of the outer fuel manifold. The NPRM also proposed to require initial and repetitive replacements of the p-clamp. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from six commenters. The commenters were Air Lines Pilots Association, International (ALPA); American Airlines (AAL); Boeing Commercial Airplanes (Boeing); GE Aviation (GE); Ethiopian Airlines; and United Airlines (UAL). One commenter requested changes to paragraph (g), Required Actions, of this AD and to On-Condition Costs. Two commenters requested a change to compliance that was not implemented. Two commenters requested clarification of the AD requirements. Four of the six commenters expressed support for the AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

GE requested that the FAA update paragraph (g), Required Actions, of this AD to include the affected p-clamp SIN when the p-clamp is referenced. GE recognized that the p-clamp SIN is defined in paragraph (h), Definition, of this AD. However, GE reasoned that as there are multiple p-clamps to be inspected per GEnx-1B Engine Manual, 05-21-00, MANDATORY INSPECTION, listing the p-clamp SIN in paragraph (g) of this AD avoids confusion.

The FAA agrees to include the p-clamp SIN in paragraph (g) of this AD.

GE requested that the FAA revise the replacement of the outer fuel manifold in On-Condition Costs from 250 work hours to 2 work hours. GE reasoned that GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin (SB) 73-0080 R01, dated August 29, 2019, references GE GEnx-1B SB 73-0053 for instructions to replace the outer fuel manifold. GE noted that GE GEnx-1B SB 73-0053 estimates that two hours are needed to replace the outer fuel manifold. GE stated that the discrepancy between the NPRM and service information could cause confusion or lead operators to opt to remove the engine to perform the outer fuel manifold replacement.

The FAA agrees. The FAA changed the estimated labor hours for replacing the outer fuel manifold in the On-Condition Costs section of this AD from 250 work hours to 2 work hours. The FAA also changed the estimated cost per product for replacing the outer fuel manifold in the On-Condition Costs section of this AD from $39,650 to $18,570, which reflects the reduction in labor hours.

AAL and UAL requested that the FAA add the phrase “or later” when referencing the service information in this AD. AAL stated that the manufacturer indicated that the service information is intended only to be a containment measure. Specifying “or later” could prevent numerous requests for Alternative Methods of Compliance if the manufacturer revises the service information. UAL stated that the manufacturer is developing a terminating action and, as a result, a revision to the service information is expected.

The FAA disagrees with adding language that allows the use of later revisions of the service information when performing the required actions of this AD. Later revisions of the service information have not been published by the manufacturer or reviewed by the FAA.

AAL requested that the FAA clarify if the removed outer fuel manifold needs to be sent for repair. AAL cited references within paragraph 3.B.(4)(b) of GE GEnx-1B SB 73-0080 R01, dated August 29, 2019, that instructs operators to send removed outer fuel manifolds for repair.

The FAA agrees that sending a removed outer fuel manifold for repair, as stated in paragraph 3.B.(4)(b) of GE GEnx-1B SB 73-0080 R01, dated August 29, 2019, is not mandated by this AD. This AD addresses the unsafe condition by requiring the removal of an outer fuel manifold if a crack or a sign of leakage is found and replacing it with a part eligible for installation. This AD does not require sending an outer fuel manifold removed in accordance with paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD for repair. The FAA clarified this by adding paragraph (i), No Repair Requirement, to this AD.

Ethiopian Airlines asked if operators who inspected and replaced the affected p-clamp using GE GEnx-1B SB 73-0080 R01, dated August 29, 2019, before the effective date of this AD, need to comply again.

If operators performed the initial visual inspection and replacement of the p-clamp as required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (3) of this AD before the effective date of this AD, then these actions meet the initial visual inspection and replacement requirements of this AD. Paragraph (f), Compliance, of this AD requires compliance with this AD within the times specified, unless already done. If the initial visual inspection and replacement of the p-clamp was already performed prior to the effective date of this AD, operators must perform the repetitive inspections, follow-on-actions, and replacements of the p-clamp required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (2), and (3) of this AD using the stated compliance intervals.

AAL, ALPA, Boeing, and UAL expressed support for the AD.

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

The FAA reviewed GE GEnx-1B SB 73-0080 R01, dated August 29, 2019. This SB describes procedures for replacing the p-clamp located at the signal fuel tube hose, SIN 34200, and instructions for removing the signal fuel tube hose when a p-clamp is found damaged or missing. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

The FAA considers this AD interim action. The manufacturer is still reviewing this unsafe condition and may develop a terminating action.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 190 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary FPIs and replacements that are required based on the results of the visual inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that require FPI or replacement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-25, dated July 16, 2020 (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1110.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2019-23-15, Amendment 39-19809 (84 FR 67830, December 12, 2019) (AD 2019-23-15). AD 2019-23-15 applied to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2020 (85 FR 78805). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA is issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane or reduced controllability of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) stated that it supports the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Airbus Canada Limited Partnership has issued A220 Airworthiness Limitations BD500-3AB48-11400-02, Issue 011.00, dated June 18, 2020. This service information describes airworthiness limitations for fuel tank systems, safe life limits, and certification maintenance requirements. 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 estimates that this AD affects 11 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2020-0892 in the Federal Register (85 FR 67317; October 22, 2020) removing the Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class D and modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL at Bucholz AAF, Kwajalein Island. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6004 and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020 and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the order.

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

The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by removing the Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class D and modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL at Bucholz AAF, Kwajalein Island.

The FAA removes the Class E4 airspace as aircraft using the published approaches do not descend below 1,000 feet more than 2 miles outside the Bucholtz AAF Class D surface area. Thus, the airspace does not meet the requirements for a Class E airspace area designated as an extension to a Class D.

In addition, the FAA amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth by removing that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet AGL within a 100-mile radius of the airport and adding language to exclude anything beyond the U.S. Territorial Zone.

Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area, and Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth are published in section 6004, and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Airspace listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

As part of this action relates to navigable airspace outside the United States, this notice is submitted in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) International Standards and Recommended Practices. The application of International Standards and Recommended Practices by the FAA, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Airspace & Rules, in areas outside the United States domestic airspace, is governed by the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Specifically, the FAA is governed by Article 12 and Annex 11, which pertain to the establishment of necessary air navigational facilities and services to promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of civil air traffic. The purpose of Article 12 and Annex 11 is to ensure that civil aircraft operations on international air routes are performed under uniform conditions.

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

In accordance with Article 3 of the convention, state-owned aircraft are exempt from the Standards and Recommended Practices of Annex 11. The United States is a contracting state to the Convention. Article 3(d) of the Convention provides that participating state aircraft will be operated in international airspace with due regard for the safety of civil aircraft.

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

The FAA has determined that this airspace action of removing the Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class D and modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL at Bucholz AAF, Kwajalein Island qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of 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 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Billy Free Municipal Airport, Dumas, AR, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (85 FR 73655, November 19, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-1016 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Billy Free Municipal Airport, Dumas, AR, by removing the Monticello VOR and associated extension from the airspace legal description; and removing the city associated with the airport to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

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

The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Billy Free Municipal Airport, Dumas, AR, by removing the Monticello VOR and associated extension from the airspace legal description; and removing the city associated with the airport to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. These changes are necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations in the area.

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. 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 minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures an air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2020-0003 in the Federal Register (85 FR 3290; January 21, 2020), amending VOR Federal airways V-12, V-74, and V-516 in the vicinity of Anthony, KS, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Anthony, KS, VORTAC. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11E dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

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

The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-12, V-74, and V-516. The planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Anthony, KS, VORTAC NAVAID has made this action necessary. The VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.

V-12: V-12 extends between the Gaviota, CA, VORTAC and the Shelbyville, IN, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME); and between the Allegheny, PA, VOR/DME and the Pottstown, PA, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Mitbee, OK, VORTAC and the Wichita, KS, VORTAC is removed. Additionally, the Amarillo, TX, VOR listed in the airway description is corrected to reflect the Panhandle, TX, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-74: V-74 extends between the Garden City, KS, VORTAC and the Magnolia, MS, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Dodge City, KS, VORTAC and the Pioneer, OK, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-516: V-516 extends between the Liberal, KS, VORTAC and the Oswego, KS, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Liberal, KS, VORTAC and the Pioneer, OK, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portion of the existing airway remains as charted.

All radials listed in the VOR Federal airway descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

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. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal airways V-12, V-74, and V-516, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Anthony, KS, VORTAC NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of 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 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Greater Kankakee Airport, Kankakee, IL, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (85 FR 71586; November 10, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0879 to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Greater Kankakee Airport, Kankakee, IL. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

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

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.6-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of Greater Kankakee Airport, Kankakee, IL; removes the Kankakee VOR/DME and associated extensions from the airspace legal description; and amends the southwest extension to 4 (increased from 2) miles each side of the 214° (previously 218°) bearing from the Greater Kankakee: RWY 04-LOC (previously the airport) extending from the 6.6-mile (decreased from 7-mile) radius to 16.8 (increased from 16.6) miles southwest of the airport; and removing the city associated with the airport to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Kankakee VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.

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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of 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 revokes the Class E surface airspace at Tri-County Regional Airport, Lone Rock, WI, and amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Tri-County Regional Airport and Richland Airport, Richland Center, WI, which is contained within the Lone Rock, WI, airspace legal description, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (85 FR 75267; November 25, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-1059 to revoke the Class E surface airspace at Tri-County Regional Airport, Lone Rock, WI, and amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Tri-County Regional Airport and Richland Airport, Richland Center, WI. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:

Revokes the Class E surface airspace at Tri-County Regional Airport, Lone Rock, WI, as the weather reporting and communications requirements of FAA Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, are no longer being met to retain this airspace;

Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile (increased from a 6.4-mile) radius of Tri-County Regional Airport, Lone Rock, WI; removes the city associated with the airport to comply with changes in FAA Order 7400.2M; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 7.3-miles) radius of Richland Airport, Richland Center, WI, which is contained within the Lone Rock, WI, airspace legal description; and updates the name (previously Richland Center Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

This action is the result of airspace reviews caused by the decommissioning of the Lone Rock VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures these airports, as part of the VOR MON Program.

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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would expand the availability of RNAV in Florida to improve the efficiency of the NAS by lessening the dependency on ground-based navigation aids.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2020-0525 in the Federal Register (85 FR 36355; June 16, 2020) amending two existing low altitude RNAV routes (T-routes), and establishing nine new T-routes in support of the South-Central Florida Metroplex Project. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. One comment was received, which was not germane to the NPRM.

United States Area Navigation routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV routes listed in the document would be subsequently published in the Order.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending two existing low altitude RNAV routes (T-routes), and establishing nine new T-routes in support of the South-Central Florida Metroplex Project. The purpose of the routes is to expand the availability of RNAV, and improve the efficiency of the NAS by reducing the dependency on ground-based navigation systems. The following is a general description of the amended and new routes.

T-208: The FAA is amending T-208. T-208 is an existing route that extends from the Gators, FL (GNV), VORTAC eastward to the CARRA, FL, fix, then to the Ormond Beach (OMN) VORTAC. This action removes the Gators VORTAC, the CARRA fix, and the Ormond Beach VORTAC from the route. T-208 is realigned to start at the WALEE, FL, waypoint (WP) (located to the east of the current Gators, FL, VORTAC). The route then proceeds eastward to the MMKAY, FL; and the FOXAM, FL, WPs, (near the Florida east coast), then it turns southward through the SUUGR, FL, WP, the SMYRA, FL; OAKIE, FL; MALET, FL; TICCO, FL; and INDIA, FL, fixes, then continues southward through the DIMBY, FL, WP; the VALKA, FL, fix, the SULTY, FL; WIXED, FL; CLEFF, FL; DURRY, FL; and BOBOE, FL, WPs; and, terminates at the SHANC, FL, fix (located about 17 nautical miles (NM) northwest of the Fort Lauderdale, FL, VOR/DME). The amended route extends between the WALEE, FL, WP, and the SHANC, FL, fix.

T-210: The FAA is amending T-208. T-210 is an existing route that extends from the Taylor, FL (TAY), VORTAC, to the OHLEE, FL, WP, to the BRADO, FL, fix. The FAA is removing the Taylor, FL, VORTAC from the route and adding the MARQO, FL, WP (in the vicinity of the Taylor VORTAC) as the new start point. From the MARQO, FL, WP, the route proceeds southeastward through the OHLEE, FL, WP, and BRADO, FL, fix (as currently charted). After the BRADO, FL, fix, the route turns southward through the MMKAY, FL, and MRUTT, FL, WPs, the GUANO, FL, fix, and the KIZER, FL, fix (located about 23 NM north of the Orlando, FL (ORL), VORTAC). After KIZER, FL, the route turns southwestward through the EMSEE, FL; DAIYL, FL; AKOJO, FL; and PUNQU, FL, WPs, and terminates at the VARZE, FL, WP.

T-336: T-336 is a new route that extends between the TROYR, FL, WP, and the WIXED, FL, WP.

T-337: T-337 is a new route that extends between the SWENY, FL, WP, and the WEZER, FL, WP.

T-339: T-339 is a new route that extends between the KARTR, FL, WP, and the ODDEL, FL, WP.

T-341: T-341 is a new route that extend between the MEAGN, FL, WP, and the MARQO, FL, WP.

T-343: T-343 is a new route that extends between the WORPP, FL, WP, and the INDIA, FL, WP.

T-345: T-345 is a new route that extends between the MARKT, FL, WP, and the DEARY, FL, WP.

T-347: T-347 is a new route that extends between the CLEFF, FL, WP, and the SEBAG, FL, WP.

T-349: T-349 is a new route that extends between the VARZE, FL, WP, and the TROYR, FL, WP.

T-353: T-353 is a new route that extends between the FEBRO, FL, WP, and the ASTOR, FL, WP.

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. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of amending low altitude RNAV routes T-208 and T-210, and establishing low altitude RNAV routes T-336, T-337, T-339, T-341, T-343, T-345, T-347, T-349, and T-355 in the south-central United States qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of 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 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at: Aitkin Municipal Airport-Steve Kurtz Field, Aitkin, MN; Appleton Municipal Airport, Appleton, MN; Benson Municipal Airport, Benson, MN; Cambridge Municipal Airport, Cambridge, MN; Cloquet Carlton County Airport, Cloquet, MN; Crookston Municipal Airport Kirkwood Field, Crookston, MN; Glencoe Municipal Airport, Glencoe, MN; and Mora Municipal Airport, Mora, MN, to support instrument flight rule operations at these airports; and revokes the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Silver Bay Municipal Airport, Silver Bay, MN, as this airspace is no longer required.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (85 FR 76497; November 30, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-1058 to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at multiple Minnesota Towns and revoke the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Silver Bay Municipal Airport, Silver Bay, MN. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

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

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:

Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile (increased from a 6.4-mile) radius of Aitkin Municipal Airport-Steve Kurtz Field, Aitkin, MN; removes the Aitkin NDB and associated extension from the airspace legal description; and updates the name (previously Aitkin Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Appleton Municipal Airport, Appleton, MN, by removing the extension northwest of the airport as it is no longer required; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of Benson Municipal Airport, Benson, MN; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of Cambridge Municipal Airport, Cambridge, MN; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of Cloquet Carlton County Airport, Cloquet, MN; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of Crookston Municipal Airport Kirkwood Field, Crookston, MN; and updates the name (previously Crookston Municipal Kirkwood Field) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Glencoe Municipal Airport, Glencoe, MN, by removing the Glencoe NDB and associated extension from the airspace legal description; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

Amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 6.5-mile) radius of Mora Municipal Airport, Mora, MN; removes the Mora NDB and associated extension from the airspace legal description; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

And revokes the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Silver Bay Municipal Airport, Silver Bay, MN, as the instrument procedures at this airport have been cancelled and the airspace is no longer required.

This action is the result of airspace reviews caused by the decommissioning of the Aitkin, Appleton, Benson, Cambridge, Cloquet, Crookston, Glencoe, Mora, and Silver Bay non-federal NDBs which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures these airports.

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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 amends the Class E surface airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bradford Regional Airport, Bradford, PA, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (85 FR 74302; November 20, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-1015 to amend the Class E airspace at Bradford Regional Airport, Bradford, PA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

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

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:

Amends the Class E surface area airspace to within a 4.1-mile (decreased from a 4.3-mile) radius of Bradford Regional Airport, Bradford, PA; removes the Bradford VORTAC and the associated extension from the airspace legal description; adds an extension to 1 mile each side of the 134° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 4.2 miles southeast of the airport; and replaces the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”;

And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.6-mile (increased from a 6.5-mile) radius of Bradford Regional Airport; removes the Bradford VORTAC and the associated extension from the airspace legal description; removes the BRAFO LOM and the associated extension from the airspace legal description; and removes the city associated with the airport to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Bradford VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.

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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On March 24, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published notice of its decision to temporarily limit the travel of individuals from Canada into the United States at land ports of entry along the United States-Canada border to “essential travel,” as further defined in that document. 1 The document described the developing circumstances regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and stated that, given the outbreak and continued transmission and spread of the virus associated with COVID-19 within the United States and globally, DHS had determined that the risk of continued transmission and spread of the virus associated with COVID-19 between the United States and Canada posed a “specific threat to human life or national interests.” DHS later published a series of notifications continuing such limitations on travel until 11:59 p.m. EST on February 21, 2021. 2

DHS continues to monitor and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. As of the week of February 14, 2021, there have been over 108.2 million confirmed cases globally, with over 2.3 million confirmed deaths. 3 There have been over 27.6 million confirmed and probable cases within the United States, 4 over 820,000 confirmed cases in Canada, 5 and over 1.9 million confirmed cases in Mexico. 6

Given the outbreak and continued transmission and spread of COVID-19 within the United States and globally, the Secretary has determined that the risk of continued transmission and spread of the virus associated with COVID-19 between the United States and Canada poses an ongoing “specific threat to human life or national interests.”

U.S. and Canadian officials have mutually determined that non-essential travel between the United States and Canada poses additional risk of transmission and spread of the virus associated with COVID-19 and places the populace of both nations at increased risk of contracting the virus associated with COVID-19. Moreover, given the sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus, returning to previous levels of travel between the two nations places the personnel staffing land ports of entry between the United States and Canada, as well as the individuals traveling through these ports of entry, at increased risk of exposure to the virus associated with COVID-19. Accordingly, and consistent with the authority granted in 19 U.S.C. 1318(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2), 7 I have determined that land ports of entry along the U.S.-Canada border will continue to suspend normal operations and will only allow processing for entry into the United States of those travelers engaged in “essential travel,” as defined below. Given the definition of “essential travel” below, this temporary alteration in land ports of entry operations should not interrupt legitimate trade between the two nations or disrupt critical supply chains that ensure food, fuel, medicine, and other critical materials reach individuals on both sides of the border.

For purposes of the temporary alteration in certain designated ports of entry operations authorized under 19 U.S.C. 1318(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2), travel through the land ports of entry and ferry terminals along the United States-Canada border shall be limited to “essential travel,” which includes, but is not limited to—

• U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents returning to the United States;

• Individuals traveling for medical purposes ( e.g., to receive medical treatment in the United States);

• Individuals traveling to attend educational institutions;

• Individuals traveling to work in the United States ( e.g., individuals working in the farming or agriculture industry who must travel between the United States and Canada in furtherance of such work);

• Individuals traveling for emergency response and public health purposes ( e.g., government officials or emergency responders entering the United States to support federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial government efforts to respond to COVID-19 or other emergencies);

• Individuals engaged in lawful cross-border trade ( e.g., truck drivers supporting the movement of cargo between the United States and Canada);

• Individuals engaged in official government travel or diplomatic travel;

• Members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and the spouses and children of members of the U.S. Armed Forces, returning to the United States; and

• Individuals engaged in military-related travel or operations.

The following travel does not fall within the definition of “essential travel” for purposes of this Notification—

• Individuals traveling for tourism purposes ( e.g., sightseeing, recreation, gambling, or attending cultural events).

At this time, this Notification does not apply to air, freight rail, or sea travel between the United States and Canada, but does apply to passenger rail, passenger ferry travel, and pleasure boat travel between the United States and Canada. These restrictions are temporary in nature and shall remain in effect until 11:59 p.m. EDT on March 21, 2021. This Notification may be amended or rescinded prior to that time, based on circumstances associated with the specific threat. 8

The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is hereby directed to prepare and distribute appropriate guidance to CBP personnel on the continued implementation of the temporary measures set forth in this Notification. The CBP Commissioner may determine that other forms of travel, such as travel in furtherance of economic stability or social order, constitute “essential travel” under this Notification. Further, the CBP Commissioner may, on an individualized basis and for humanitarian reasons or for other purposes in the national interest, permit the processing of travelers to the United States not engaged in “essential travel.”

On March 24, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published notice of its decision to temporarily limit the travel of individuals from Mexico into the United States at land ports of entry along the United States-Mexico border to “essential travel,” as further defined in that document. 1 The document described the developing circumstances regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and stated that, given the outbreak and continued transmission and spread of the virus associated with COVID-19 within the United States and globally, DHS had determined that the risk of continued transmission and spread of the virus associated with COVID-19 between the United States and Mexico posed a “specific threat to human life or national interests.” DHS later published a series of notifications continuing such limitations on travel until 11:59 p.m. EST on February 21, 2021. 2

DHS continues to monitor and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. As of the week of February 14, 2021, there have been over 108.2 million confirmed cases globally, with over 2.3 million confirmed deaths. 3 There have been over 27.6 million confirmed and probable cases within the United States, 4 over 820,000 confirmed cases in Canada, 5 and over 1.9 million confirmed cases in Mexico. 6

Given the outbreak and continued transmission and spread of COVID-19 within the United States and globally, the Secretary has determined that the risk of continued transmission and spread of the virus associated with COVID-19 between the United States and Mexico poses an ongoing “specific threat to human life or national interests.”

U.S. and Mexican officials have mutually determined that non-essential travel between the United States and Mexico poses additional risk of transmission and spread of the virus associated with COVID-19 and places the populace of both nations at increased risk of contracting the virus associated with COVID-19. Moreover, given the sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus, returning to previous levels of travel between the two nations places the personnel staffing land ports of entry between the United States and Mexico, as well as the individuals traveling through these ports of entry, at increased risk of exposure to the virus associated with COVID-19. Accordingly, and consistent with the authority granted in 19 U.S.C. 1318(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2), 7 I have determined that land ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border will continue to suspend normal operations and will only allow processing for entry into the United States of those travelers engaged in “essential travel,” as defined below. Given the definition of “essential travel” below, this temporary alteration in land ports of entry operations should not interrupt legitimate trade between the two nations or disrupt critical supply chains that ensure food, fuel, medicine, and other critical materials reach individuals on both sides of the border.

For purposes of the temporary alteration in certain designated ports of entry operations authorized under 19 U.S.C. 1318(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2), travel through the land ports of entry and ferry terminals along the United States-Mexico border shall be limited to “essential travel,” which includes, but is not limited to—

• U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents returning to the United States;

• Individuals traveling for medical purposes ( e.g., to receive medical treatment in the United States);

• Individuals traveling to attend educational institutions;

• Individuals traveling to work in the United States ( e.g., individuals working in the farming or agriculture industry who must travel between the United States and Mexico in furtherance of such work);

• Individuals traveling for emergency response and public health purposes ( e.g., government officials or emergency responders entering the United States to support federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial government efforts to respond to COVID-19 or other emergencies);

• Individuals engaged in lawful cross-border trade ( e.g., truck drivers supporting the movement of cargo between the United States and Mexico);

• Individuals engaged in official government travel or diplomatic travel;

• Members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and the spouses and children of members of the U.S. Armed Forces, returning to the United States; and

• Individuals engaged in military-related travel or operations.

The following travel does not fall within the definition of “essential travel” for purposes of this Notification—

• Individuals traveling for tourism purposes ( e.g., sightseeing, recreation, gambling, or attending cultural events).

At this time, this Notification does not apply to air, freight rail, or sea travel between the United States and Mexico, but does apply to passenger rail, passenger ferry travel, and pleasure boat travel between the United States and Mexico. These restrictions are temporary in nature and shall remain in effect until 11:59 p.m. EDT on March 21, 2021. This Notification may be amended or rescinded prior to that time, based on circumstances associated with the specific threat. 8

The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is hereby directed to prepare and distribute appropriate guidance to CBP personnel on the continued implementation of the temporary measures set forth in this Notification. The CBP Commissioner may determine that other forms of travel, such as travel in furtherance of economic stability or social order, constitute “essential travel” under this Notification. Further, the CBP Commissioner may, on an individualized basis and for humanitarian reasons or for other purposes in the national interest, permit the processing of travelers to the United States not engaged in “essential travel.”

I. Background

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , FDA gave notice that approval of the seven NADAs listed in table 1, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is withdrawn, effective February 23, 2021, for lack of compliance with reporting requirements in 21 CFR 514.80. As provided in the regulatory text of this document, the animal drug regulations are amended to reflect withdrawal of approval of the following applications and a current format. Withdrawal of approval of NADA 065-067 for Tetracycline Hydrochloride (HCl) Tablets did not require amending the regulations.

Following these withdrawals of approval, Alaco, Inc.; ConAgra Pet Products Co.; OXIS International, Inc.; RSR Laboratories, Inc.; and Walco International, Inc., are no longer the sponsors of an approved application. Accordingly, 21 CFR 510.600(c) is being amended to remove the entries for these firms.

This rule sets forth technical amendments to the regulations to codify recent actions on approved new animal drug applications and corrections to improve the accuracy of the regulations, and as such does not impose any burden on regulated entities. This rule is issued under section 512(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(i)), which requires Federal Register publication of the conditions of use of an approved or conditionally approved new animal drug and the name and address of the drug's sponsor in a “notice, which upon publication shall be effective as a regulation.” A notice published pursuant to section 512(i) is not subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. See section 512(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(i)); 21 CFR 10.40(e)(3); S. Rep. 90-1308, at 5 (1968).

This document does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a “rule of particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. Likewise, this is not a rule subject to Executive Order 12866, which defines a rule as “an agency statement of general applicability and future effect, which the agency intends to have the force and effect of law, that is designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency.”

The holders of approved applications to market new animal drugs are required to submit annual reports to FDA concerning each of their approved applications in accordance with § 514.80 (21 CFR 514.80).

In the Federal Register of January 8, 2020 (85 FR 919), FDA published a notice offering an opportunity for a hearing (NOOH) on a proposal to withdraw approval of seven NADAs because the sponsors had failed to submit the required annual reports for these applications. The holders of these applications did not respond to the NOOH. Failure to file a written notice of participation and request for a hearing as required by § 514.200(b) (21 CFR 514.200(b)) constitutes an election by the applicant not to make use of the opportunity for a hearing concerning the proposal to withdraw approval of the applications and a waiver of any contentions concerning the legal status of the drug products. Therefore, approval of the seven applications listed in table 1 is being withdrawn.

The Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner), under section 512(e)(2)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(e)(2)(A)), finds that the holders of the applications listed in this document have repeatedly failed to submit reports required by § 514.80. In addition, under § 514.200(b), the Commissioner finds that the holders of the applications have waived any contentions concerning the legal status of the drug products. Therefore, under these findings, approval of the applications listed in this document, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn, effective February 23, 2021.

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect the withdrawal of approval of these applications.

The Copyright Act authorizes the Register of Copyrights to specify by regulation the administrative classes of works available for the purpose of seeking a registration and the nature of the deposits required for each class. In addition, Congress gave the Register the discretion to allow registration of groups of related works with one application and one filing fee, a procedure known as “group registration.”  1 Pursuant to this authority, the Register has issued regulations permitting the Office to issue group registrations for certain types of works, including for groups of newspapers, unpublished works, newsletters and serials, unpublished and published photographs, contributions to periodicals, secure test items, and short online literary works. 2

On May 20, 2019, the Office published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) proposing to create a new group registration option for musical works, sound recordings, and associated literary, pictorial, and graphic works contained on an album. This option is referred to as “Group Registration of Works on an Album of Music,” or “GRAM.”  3 The proposed rule would allow an applicant to register up to twenty musical works and twenty sound recordings, i.e., forty total works, if the works were fixed in the same phonorecord, if the works were created by the same author or had at least one common author, and if the claimant for each work in the group was the same. The proposed rule also would permit the registration of associated literary, pictorial, and graphic works in the album, such as cover art, liner notes, or posters. To exercise this option, the Office proposed that applicants would be required to submit their claims through the online copyright registration system using the Standard Application.

The Office received thirteen comments in response to the NPRM, eleven from individuals, one from the National Music Publishers Association (“NMPA”), and a joint comment by the American Association of Independent Music (“A2IM”) and the Recording Industry Association of America (“RIAA”). Each commenter supported the Office's proposal to create the new group registration option, though some suggested various amendments to the proposed rule, including removing the proposed limit on the number of works that may be included in each claim and clarifying who could be listed as a claimant of a work in a GRAM registration.

Having reviewed and carefully considered the submitted comments, the Office now issues a final rule that generally follows the proposed rule, with some modifications. First, the rule requires claims under this option to be submitted using a new online application specifically created for GRAM filings, rather than on the Standard Application. Second, to avoid inefficiencies in the examination process and ambiguities in the public record, the final rule requires groups of musical works and groups of sound recordings to be registered using separate applications.

The NPRM proposed limiting this group registration option to musical works, sound recordings, and any associated literary, pictorial, or graphic works on an album of music, such as liner notes and cover artwork. It defined an “album” as “a single physical or electronic unit of distribution containing at least two musical works and/or sound recordings embodied in phonorecords, including any associated literary, pictorial, or graphic works distributed with the unit.”  4 Three commenters requested clarification to ensure that the rule is sufficiently flexible to accommodate streaming services and other distribution models that do not involve the purchasing of copies. A2IM and RIAA argued that the term “album” should be eliminated, as it “appear[s] to be tied to physical distribution and to an ownership model” of music. 5 They proposed instead using the term “release,” which would be defined as “a collection of two or more sound recordings or other media that are grouped together as those terms are used in the Copyright Act.”  6 In their view, this approach would have the advantage of “avoid[ing] the single unit of distribution concept” and would be “generic enough to embrace new release formats, such as a playlist that contains all new recordings released by a single artist and grouped together for commerce.”  7 NMPA did not propose a change to the regulatory text but urged the Office to consider adding language to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices or a circular to clarify that “the GRAM option extends to albums that are not offered for digital purchase.”  8

The proposed definition of “album” is not intended to be limited to albums distributed under a model in which copies are acquired and retained by a purchaser— e.g., downloads or physical media. A collection of musical recordings presented and offered to the public under authority of the copyright owner as a self-contained, fixed group would qualify as “a single physical or electronic unit of distribution” for purposes of the rule, regardless of whether the works are accessed via download, stream, or other mechanism. The key consideration is whether there is some indication of the copyright owner's intention to release the works together as a single collection, as distinguished from, for example, releasing them over time as additions to an evolving playlist. 9 Thus, a group of songs presented together on a streaming service may qualify as an album, provided the other eligibility requirements are met.

It is partly for this reason that the final rule defines “album” as a “unit of distribution.” As discussed in the NPRM, the Office's existing “unit of publication” option has long provided a vehicle for registering albums released in physical formats, such as a “CD packaged with cover art and a leaflet containing lyrics” or a “box set of music CDs.”  10 While the Office has declined to extend the unit of publication option to digital products, the GRAM option is intended to provide an analogous mechanism for digital music albums, in part to ensure that albums “released first (or only) in digital formats” are eligible for similar registration options. 11 The final rule accordingly retains the proposed definition, and the Office intends this further guidance to address comments regarding the scope of eligibility for the GRAM option.

Some commenters expressed concern with the proposed requirement that an applicant “submit documentation . . . confirming that the musical works and/or sound recordings were included on the album.”  12 A2IM and RIAA and an individual commenter, Jesse Morris, argued that it should be sufficient for an applicant to submit a sworn statement to that effect. 13 The Office agrees with this recommendation. As part of the application, the applicant will be required to certify that the works being registered satisfy the requirements for this group registration option, including that the works in the group were all published on the same album. The language regarding documentation accordingly has been removed from the final rule.

The NPRM also proposed to allow applicants to register up to twenty musical works or twenty sound recordings contained in an album. Some commenters requested that the Office remove or at least raise the twenty-work cap. In addition to noting that some albums contain more than twenty tracks, 14 commenters pointed out that the Standard Application does not contain a title cap and voiced concern that applicants could include more than twenty tracks in error. 15 NMPA suggested that such mistakes could result in a refusal to register or delays due to required correspondence. 16 As discussed further below, however, the Office will not be using the Standard Application for this registration option, and therefore believes that such errors are less likely. The new application for claims registered under this option will include a system validation that should prevent applicants from listing more than twenty musical works or sound recordings in the application.

More generally, the Office has concluded that a twenty-work cap is appropriate to balance the needs of applicants with the administrative capabilities of the Office. As noted in the NPRM, the Office believes that this limit will make this group option available to the majority of albums actually distributed in the market, and in any event, albums with more than twenty works would still benefit from this group option because applicants may be able to register additional works with a separate GRAM application. 17 Removing or raising the cap would likely increase the average processing time for these applications and thereby undermine the efficiency of this group option. Indeed, there is a potential that even the twenty-work cap may prove inefficient if the average number of works on each application approaches twenty. The Office remains open to revisiting this issue based on data that become available after implementation, including with respect to fees, staffing, and processing times. 18

Under the proposed rule, an applicant could register up to twenty musical works and twenty sound recordings, i.e., forty total works, using the Standard Application if the works were fixed in the same phonorecord and the other regulatory requirements were met. 19 A2IM and RIAA expressed concern over the requirement to use the Standard Application, urging the Office to instead “create a dedicated GRAM application that runs on the existing system.”  20 They observed that this approach would “[n]ot only . . . encourage use of GRAM by smaller, less sophisticated, less frequent users,” but also would “lead to fewer telephone inquiries from copyright owners and [would] require less correspondence from registration specialists, both of which will save the Office time and money.”  21 The Office agrees that decoupling GRAM applications from the Standard Application would greatly simplify the registration process for both applicants and Office staff, and therefore it has worked with the Library's Office of the Chief Information Officer to develop new applications specifically for GRAM that can be accessed and submitted through the electronic registration system (“eCO”). The final rule has been updated to reflect this change.

In the course of developing this functionality, the Office also determined that permitting the registration of both musical works and sound recordings using one application may give rise to complexities in the examination process that could hinder the Office's efficient administration of the group option. For example, in cases where the musical works and sound recordings on an album have different authors, an applicant would be required to list all the authors of both the music and sound recordings, to list the titles of the works created by each author, and to provide an appropriate authorship statement to describe each author's contribution(s) to each work. In the Registration Program's experience, challenges or inaccuracies are likely to arise where the nature of the applicant's authorship differs with respect to the musical work and the sound recording for multiple album tracks. For example, if an author created twenty sound recordings on an album, but wrote only ten of the musical works embodied in those recordings, she would be required to provide titles for all twenty works and exclude from the musical work claim the ten compositions she did not author by listing their titles in the Material Excluded field. Given the number of possible permutations, such requirements would likely lead to ambiguities requiring correspondence with the applicant, as well as potential inaccuracies in the public record, particularly where the applicant is unfamiliar with the distinction between musical works and sound recordings for copyright purposes. Because such correspondence would likely result in additional refusals or a higher fee for this group registration option to accommodate the additional Office resources needed, the Office has determined that it is preferable to create a bifurcated group option.

The final rule accordingly provides for two separate types of applications. An applicant may register up to twenty musical works on an album using the application designated for “musical works from an album.” An applicant may register up to twenty sound recordings, as well as any associated literary, pictorial, or graphic works first published with the same album, using the application designated for “sound recordings from an album.” The initial version of the application for “musical works from an album” will not include an option for registration of these ancillary materials because the Office understands that typically these works are not authored or owned by the party that authored or owns the musical works. To the extent there is a need in the marketplace, however, the Office is open to considering a future update that would permit registration of such materials on the application for “musical works from an album.” The Office welcomes public input on whether copyright owners would benefit from such an option.

The NPRM proposed that an applicant be required to provide a title for the album, a title for each musical work and/or sound recording, titles for any associated literary, pictorial, or graphic works that are included in the group, and a title that identifies the group as a whole, starting with the word “GRAM.”  22 Some commenters objected to the requirement to provide a separate title for the group. Among other concerns, they noted that the registration certificate would start with “GRAM,” while the album offered for sale would not, causing potential confusion in the public record and in litigation. 23

In light of these concerns, and because the group-title requirement was necessitated by the limitations of the Standard Application, 24 the Office has eliminated this requirement. Instead, the GRAM applications will include a mandatory field for the title of the album, which will appear on the registration certificate and in the public record. The album title will be used to automatically generate a group title ( e.g., “Works published on the album [ALBUM TITLE]”). The group title and the album title will both appear in the registration certificate and the public record. For applications that include literary, pictorial, or graphic works, the system will automatically generate titles for those works ( e.g., “Liner notes, photograph(s), and/or artwork first published on the album [ALBUM TITLE]”), although the applicant may provide a more specific title for those works by following the instructions given in the help text. The Office will add those titles to the public record when it examines the claim.

RIAA and A2IM requested that the Office allow applicants to include the full album as a collective work as one of the works that can be registered on the GRAM application. 25 They noted that some existing group registration options permit registration of both a collective work and the individual component works, citing the unit of publication and group serial options as examples. 26 But these commenters did not explain why they believe there is a need for such an option in the GRAM application given that applicants already have the ability to register both a collective work and the individual works comprising it by filing a collective work claim using the Standard Application. As discussed in the NPRM, a collective work registration will extend to the individual component works if the copyright in those works is held by the owner of the collective work copyright, provided the component works contain sufficient original authorship and have not been previously published or registered. 27 Thus, where a party seeks to register an album as a collective work in addition to registering the individual sound recordings and/or musical works, it may do so under the existing collective work option. The GRAM option will complement this option by facilitating registration of multiple works in cases where parties own copyrights in multiple individual works on an album but are ineligible for collective work registration—for example, because they are not the owner of the collective work copyright or because the particular selection and arrangement of tracks does not qualify as a collective work. Based on the record at this time, the final rule accordingly does not include this option.

Under the proposed rule, “all of the works claimed in the group must have a common author,” and “the copyright claimant(s) for each work must be the same person(s) or organization.”  28 The NPRM explained that “the claimant may either be (1) the author or co-author of all of the works, or (2) the party that owns all of the exclusive rights that initially belonged to the author or co-authors.”  29

NMPA asked the Office to clarify the definition of “claimant” for GRAM registration eligibility. Specifically, it expressed concern over the NPRM's statement that “if the works were created by two or more co-authors, the claimant or co-claimant must own or co-own all of the rights that initially belonged to the co-authors. If a party owns or co-owns the rights that initially belonged to some, but not all, of the co-authors, that party cannot be named as a copyright claimant.”  30 In NMPA's view, this statement could “suggest that a claimant who has been assigned rights by a co-author of a work (for example, a music publisher to whom a songwriter who is a co-author of a song has assigned their rights) must have obtained all of the rights from all of the co-authors of a song.”  31

To clarify, the definition of “claimant” for purposes of the GRAM option is not intended to differ from the generally applicable definition of that term. Under the Office's regulations, a copyright claimant is either “(i) [t]he author of a work” or “(ii) [a] person or organization that has obtained ownership of all rights under the copyright initially belonging to the author.”  32 Thus, a publisher that is the transferee of all of the exclusive rights of a joint author of eligible works may be listed as a claimant for purposes of a GRAM application, even if the publisher has not received rights from other joint authors. If, however, only a subset of a joint author's exclusive rights have been transferred to it, the publisher would not qualify as a claimant. While the Office cannot advise as to how this standard may apply to specific types of assignments, whether a given transaction constitutes a transfer of copyright ownership—as distinguished from merely a nonexclusive license—will be governed by the statutory definition of that term. 33

To the extent NMPA's comment is raising concerns regarding the “claimant” definition more generally, the Office notes that any changes to that provision would have implications for a broader range of stakeholders than those affected by the GRAM option. The Office therefore does not believe that this proceeding is the appropriate forum for consideration of such changes, although it is open to considering this question more broadly. 34 As the Office continues development of its next-generation registration system, however, it will continue to explore ways to better accommodate registrations involving jointly owned works, and welcomes input from NMPA and other interested parties. The Office also notes that a third party who is assigned a copyright interest but does not qualify as a claimant for GRAM registration purposes may record its ownership information in the Office's public record. 35 Moreover, as noted above, an author of the work may always be listed as a claimant.

Commenting parties did not object to the requirement that a GRAM application must “specify the date and nation of publication for the album.” 36 NMPA, however, expressed concern over the requirement that all eligible works in the group be published on the album on the same date, noting that it is common for a song to be published as a single before it is published as part of an album. 37 It suggested that the Office allow previously published works that are later included on an album to be included in a GRAM registration “to maximize the [GRAM option's] usefulness” and “to encourage an accurate public record.”  38 The Office has amended the final rule to allow for the registration of a musical work or sound recording that was previously published as an individual work only ( e.g., as a single), provided that the application includes the statutorily-required date of first publication for each of the works. 39 Applicants should provide this information in the “Note to Copyright Office” field in the relevant GRAM application. The certificate of registration will be annotated to reflect the additional publication dates.

In addition, A2IM and RIAA and Jesse Morris separately asked for a clarification in the final rule that previously published or registered works that were later contained on an album may be excluded from the GRAM application claim. 40 These parties were concerned that the inclusion of a previously published single would disqualify the entire album from the GRAM registration option. This was not the intent of the proposed rule. Applicants should disclaim ineligible works by listing the titles of those works in the Material Excluded field.

As discussed, the Office is developing two new online applications specifically for this group option—one application for musical works, and another application for sound recordings and any associated literary, pictorial, or graphic works included with the same album. These applications are currently expected to be implemented into the eCO system this spring by the OCIO. Nevertheless, the availability of the GRAM applications is ultimately dependent on the completion of system development and may be affected by unanticipated delays in that process. The Office will issue a public announcement when implementation is complete and this option is available to applicants.

The Office will provide detailed information on group eligibility requirements and instructions on completing the applications on its website, including a video and webinar.

The NPRM provided that the filing fee for the GRAM option would be $55, the fee applicable to claims submitted on the Standard Application. It further noted that the Office had recently proposed to increase the Standard Application fee to $75 and that if that proposal were adopted, the new fee would apply to GRAM claims. 41 Subsequently, the Office submitted a final proposed schedule and analysis of fees to Congress in which it reduced the proposed increase to $65. 42 Based on the comments received in the fee study proceeding, and in light of the Office's inability under the current registration system to charge different prices for different types of works submitted on the Standard Application, at the time its fee study was submitted to Congress, the Office reiterated its recommendation that the GRAM fee be the same as the Standard Application fee. 43

Following the 120-day statutory period for congressional review, 44 the Office promulgated a final rule implementing the proposed fee schedule. 45 The rule noted the Office's expectation that GRAM registrations would “require a workflow similar to claims submitted on the Standard Application” and that commenters in the fee study proceeding generally supported linking the two fees. 46 To avoid potential confusion, the Office did not adopt the GRAM fee as part of that rule, noting that it instead would adopt the fee when it issued a final rule implementing the GRAM option. 47

Although the Office is now providing standalone applications for GRAM submissions, it continues to believe it is appropriate to charge the same fee as is charged for Standard Application filings. The Office believes that it is reasonable to set the GRAM fee, at least initially, at the same level as previously noted, given the similarities in expected workflow associated with examining these claims and the lack of additional data to support an alternate level. The final rule therefore establishes a $65 fee. Given, however, that the Office now has greater flexibility to adjust fees specifically for this option, it will gather additional data to determine if this amount should be adjusted once this option is implemented. 48 The Office also is open to considering differential price options following implementation of its next-generation registration system. 49

The NPRM noted that “[t]he deposit requirements for this group registration option will be the same as the requirements that normally apply to claims involving musical works, sound recordings, and associated album material.”  50 The Office proposed that for GRAM claims that include sound recordings, “the applicant should submit two physical phonorecords, along with two physical copies of any related album material,” if the album was published in physical form or in both physical and digital form. 51 “If the album was published solely in digital form, the applicant may upload a digital phonorecord along with a digital copy of any related album material.”  52 For GRAM claims that do not include sound recordings, the Office proposed that “the applicant should submit a complete phonorecord of each musical work being registered” and a complete copy of any associated literary, pictorial, or graphic works associated with the claim. 53