A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (84 FR 72438, December 31, 2019), all comments received, the Final Rule, and all background material may be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. A copy of this notice will be placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at http://www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website at http://www.govinfo.gov.

On January 15, 2021, the final rule, “Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft” (RIN 2120-AL31) published in the Federal Register at 86 FR 4390. The final rule requires the remote identification of unmanned aircraft. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United States will address safety, national security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these aircraft into the airspace of the United States, laying a foundation for enabling operational capabilities.

On January 20, 2021, the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff issued a memorandum titled, “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” The memorandum requested that the heads of executive departments and agencies take steps to ensure the President's appointees or designees have the opportunity to review any new or pending rules. With respect to rules published in the Federal Register , but not yet effective, the memorandum asked that agencies consider postponing the rules' effective dates for 60 days from the date of the memorandum for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy the rules may raise.

In accordance with this direction, the Agency has decided to delay the March 16, 2021, effective date of the final rule, Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft (RIN 2120-AL31), until April 21, 2021. Given the highly complex nature and length of Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft final rule, this delay in the final rule's March 16, 2021 effective date will afford the President's appointees or designees an opportunity to review the rule and will allow for consideration of any questions of fact, law, or policy that the rule may raise before it becomes effective. On the same day that FAA published the “Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft final rule”, FAA also published the “Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People” final rule (86 FR 4314, January 15, 2021). The adoption of these two rules is inextricably connected. By separate action published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , FAA is also delaying the effective date of the Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems over People final rule.

Additionally, as a result of the delay in the effective date, the March 16, 2021 compliance date in § 89.520 for production requirements for remote identification broadcast modules is delayed until April 21, 2021.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Federal Aviation Administration generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations and publish rules not less than 30 days before their effective dates. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking or delay effective dates when the agency, for good cause, finds that the requirement is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3). There is good cause to waive both of these requirements here, as they are impracticable and unnecessary. A delay in the effective date of the final rule, Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft, is essential for the President's appointees and designees to have adequate time to review the rule before it takes effect, and neither the notice and comment process nor the delayed effective date could be implemented in time to allow for this review, thereby making notice and comment impracticable. In addition, notice and comment on this delay is unnecessary because the delay is short, the effective dates remain aligned with the Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems over People final rule, and there is no change to the policy effectuated by the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft final rule. This delay is insignificant in its nature and impact, and inconsequential to the regulated community and to the public.

A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (84 FR 3856, Feb. 13, 2019), all comments received, the Final Rule, and all background material may be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. A copy of this final rule will also be placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website at www.govinfo.gov.

On January 15, 2021, the “Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People” final rule (RIN 2120-AK85) published in the Federal Register at 86 FR 4314. The final rule permits routine operations of small unmanned aircraft over people, moving vehicles, and at night under certain conditions. The final rule also makes changes to the recurrent testing framework and expands the list of persons who may request the presentation of a remote pilot certificate.

On January 20, 2021, the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff issued a memorandum titled, “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” The memorandum requested that the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) take steps to ensure that the President's appointees or designees have the opportunity to review any new or pending rules. With respect to rules published in the Federal Register , but not yet effective, the memorandum asked that agencies consider postponing the rules' effective dates for 60 days from the date of the memorandum for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy the rules may raise.

In accordance with this direction, the Agency previously decided to delay the effective dates of the amendments to §§ 107.61, 107.63, 107.65, 107.73 and 107.74 of the final rule, “Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People” (RIN 2120-AK85), until March 16, 2021 (FR Doc. 2021-04093, 86 FR 11623, published on February 26, 2021). Given that the “Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People” final rule is a complex and lengthy rulemaking, the Agency decided to further delay the effective dates of the amendments to §§ 107.61, 107.63, 107.65, 107.73 and 107.74 until April, 6, 2021, and to delay until April 21, 2021, the effective date for the remainder of this final rule. The delay in the rule's effective dates will afford the President's appointees or designees an opportunity to review the rule and will allow for consideration of any questions of fact, law, or policy that the rule may raise before it becomes effective.

On the same day that FAA published the “Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People” final rule, FAA also published a final rule concerning remote identification of small unmanned aircraft. The adoption of these two rules is inextricably connected. By separate action published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , FAA is also delaying the effective date of the remote identification final rule.

Additionally, as a result of the delay in the effective dates, several corrections are necessary. Some of the compliance dates for § 107.29(a)(1) and (d) regarding the operation of a small unmanned aircraft system at night must be corrected so that they do not precede the new effective date. Similarly, a correction to § 107.65(d) regarding the timing of passing the recurrent aeronautical knowledge test or satisfying training requirements must also be made to conform to the delayed effective date.

Lastly, this document corrects a drafting error in § 107.140(d). Section 107.140(d) should refer to paragraph (b)(3) of § 107.140, rather than paragraph (b)(4). Paragraph (b)(4) does not exist.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Agency generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations and publish rules not less than 30 days before their effective dates. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking or delay effective dates when the agency, for good cause, finds that the requirement is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3)). There is good cause to waive both of these requirements here as they are impracticable and unnecessary. A delay in the effective dates of the final rule, “Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People”, is essential for the President's appointees and designees to have adequate time to review the rule before it takes effect, and neither the notice and comment process nor the delayed effective date could be implemented in time to allow for this review, thereby making notice and comment impracticable. In addition, notice and comment on this delay is unnecessary because the delay is short, the effective dates remain aligned with the “Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft” final rule, and there is no change to the policy effectuated by the “Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems over People” final rule. This delay is insignificant in its nature and impact, and inconsequential to the regulated community and to the public.

In FR Doc. 2020-28947 (86 FR 4314) published on January 15, 2021, the following corrections are made:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters, with serial numbers (S/Ns) 920006 through 920334, inclusive. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2020 (85 FR 55388). The NPRM was prompted by the manufacturer discovering non-conforming threads, resulting in a life limit reduction on multiple landing gear components including threaded hinge pins and MLG and NLG actuator pins. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time inspection of the landing gear and the removal from service of certain serial-numbered threaded hinge pins part number (P/N) 92250-12281-101 and certain serial-numbered MLG and NLG actuator pins P/N 92250-12287-101 and 92250-12287-103. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

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

An individual commenter supported the NPRM.

An individual commenter submitted information that was not relevant to the NPRM.

Request: Sikorsky requested the FAA revise the On-Condition Costs table. Sikorsky stated the parts cost for P/N 92250-12281-101 should be revised to $4,535.

FAA Response: The FAA agrees. The FAA obtained the cost information provided in the NPRM from Sikorsky's website at www.sikorsky360.com. However, as Sikorsky has indicated that the price of the part has increased, the cost information in this final rule is updated accordingly.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously. These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM. The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the scope of this AD.

The FAA reviewed Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Alert Service Bulletin 92-32-008, Basic Issue, dated January 21, 2020 (the ASB). The ASB describes procedures for a one-time inspection and replacement of non-conforming components on the MLG and NLG. 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.

This AD requires replacement of only affected hinge pins and MLG and NLG actuator pins. The ASB requires replacement of additional parts, such as the MLG and NLG crossbolt and the MLG and NLG upper nut. The FAA has determined that the MLG and NLG crossbolt and the MLG and NLG upper nut fail in a safe and contained manner and therefore are not subject to this AD.

In addition, this AD requires the one-time inspection within 300 hours time in service after the effective date of this AD and any affected hinge pins and MLG and NLG actuator pins be removed from service before further flight. The ASB requires that the inspection and replacement of the affected hinge pins and MLG and NLG actuator pins occur no later than January 21, 2021.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 85 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

According to the manufacturer, some 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 costs in its 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 Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, and AS350D helicopters; Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters; and Model EC130 B4 and EC130 T2 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 21, 2020 (85 FR 59217). The NPRM proposed to require a one-time inspection to verify the presence and correct installation of the MRM upper bearing retaining rings, a repetitive inspection of the sealant bead on the MRM for damage, and corrective actions if necessary. The proposed requirements were intended to detect, and correct if applicable, a missing retaining ring of the inner race of the MRM upper bearing. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition, which, if not detected and corrected, can lead to damage to the MRM and surrounding elements, possibly resulting in loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2018-0206, dated September 20, 2018 (EASA AD 2018-0206), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350BB, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, and AS350D helicopters; Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters; and Model EC130 B4 and EC130 T2 helicopters. Model AS355BB helicopters 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 helicopters in the applicability. EASA advises that during a scheduled inspection on an Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B3 helicopter, one of the two retaining rings of the inner race of the MRM upper bearing was found missing. These two retaining rings ensure that the inner race is correctly positioned with respect to the rollers, and, if one or both of these retaining rings are missing, it can lead to an unlimited shift of the inner race and compromise the function of the MRM upper bearing. This condition, if not detected and corrected, can lead to damage to the MRM and surrounding elements, possibly resulting in loss of control of the helicopter.

Airbus Helicopters developed an inspection to check that the upper and lower retaining rings of the inner race of the MRM upper bearing are present and correctly installed. EASA determined that the same condition may exist or develop on Airbus Helicopters Model AS350 helicopters, Model AS355 helicopters, and Model EC130 helicopters because they share a similar design and supply chain. Until the check of the upper and lower bearing retaining rings is accomplished, EASA specifies that repetitive inspections of the MRM upper bearing sealant bead (sealant bead) should be accomplished to ensure the MRM remains serviceable. EASA considers its AD an interim measure pending further investigation results, and notes that further AD action may follow.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received 4 comments in support of the NPRM.

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after evaluating all of the information provided by EASA and determining the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Although EASA AD 2018-0206 specifies accomplishing the inspection of the installation of the MRM upper bearing inner race retaining rings within 660 hours time in service (TIS) or 24 months, whichever occurs first, the FAA has determined that interval does not address the identified unsafe condition soon enough to ensure an adequate level of safety for the affected fleet. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, the FAA considered the degree of urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition and the manufacturer's recommendation. In light of all of these factors, the FAA finds that a compliance time of within 660 hours TIS or 6 months, whichever occurs first, represents an appropriate interval of time for affected helicopters to continue to operate without compromising safety.

Although paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2018-0206 specifies that operators may contact the manufacturer for instructions if there are signs of degradation on the MRM inner race, paragraph (i)(3) of this AD requires operators to repair or replace the MRM if there is any degradation as indicated by damage to the retaining rings (including but not limited to cracks, scratches, and gouges), deterioration, or wear.

Airbus Helicopters has issued the following service information.

• Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS350-62.00.42, Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018.

• Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS355-62.00.37, Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018.

• Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC130-62A017, Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018.

This service information describes procedures for a one-time inspection to verify presence and correct installation of the MRM upper bearing retaining rings, a repetitive inspection of the sealant bead on the MRM for damage, and corrective actions. Damage of the sealant bead includes flaws, cracks, folds, separation, or absence of the sealant bead. Corrective actions include repair and replacement. These documents are distinct since they apply to different helicopter models.

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 1,212 helicopters 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 on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

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 helicopters 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 AD 2020-23-02, Amendment 39-21318 (85 FR 73607, November 19, 2020) (AD 2020-23-02), which applied to all Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters. AD 2020-23-02 required repetitive inspections of the bearing in the swashplate assembly of the main rotor mast assembly for discrepancies (ceramic balls that have a hard point or sensitive axial play or both) and, depending on the findings, replacement of an affected main rotor mast assembly with a serviceable main rotor mast assembly. The FAA issued AD 2020-23-02 to address defective ceramic balls in the bearing installed in the swashplate assembly of the main rotor mast assembly, which could lead to premature spalling of the ball itself and of the bearing, loss of function of the bearing, and overload of the main rotor mast scissor, resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.

Since the FAA issued AD 2020-23-02, the FAA has determined that additional main rotor mast assemblies are affected by the unsafe condition.

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0264, dated December 2, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0264) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters. EASA AD 2020-0264 supersedes EASA AD 2020-0079, dated April 1, 2020 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2020-23-02).

This AD was prompted by a report of a manufacturing and control issue regarding the ceramic balls in the bearing installed in the swashplate assembly of the main rotor mast assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to address defective ceramic balls in the bearing installed in the swashplate assembly of the main rotor mast assembly, which could lead to premature spalling of the ball itself and of the bearing, loss of function of the bearing, and overload of the main rotor mast scissor, resulting in reduced control of the helicopter. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Although this AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2020- 23-02, this AD retains all of the requirements of AD 2020-23-02. Those requirements are referenced in EASA AD 2020-0264, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this AD.

EASA AD 2020-0264 describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the main rotor mast swashplate assembly for discrepancies (ceramic balls that have a hard point or sensitive axial play or both), and replacement of an affected main rotor mast assembly with a serviceable main rotor mast assembly. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2020-0264 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, in EASA AD 2020-0264 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD, therefore, requires compliance with EASA AD 2020-0264 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0264 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0264 is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0096.

The FAA considers this AD interim action and further AD action may follow.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because defective ceramic balls in the bearing installed in the swashplate assembly of the main rotor mast assembly could lead to premature spalling of the ball itself and of the bearing, loss of function of the bearing, and overload of the main rotor mast scissor, resulting in reduced control of the helicopter. This AD adds other affected main rotor mast assemblies to those identified in AD 2020-23-02. In addition, the compliance time for the initial instance of the repetitive inspections is 50 hours time-in-service, a time period of less than 2 months based on the average flight-hour utilization rate of these helicopters. Accordingly, the compliance time for the required action is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0096; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00040-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

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

The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 30 helicopters 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 on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required action. The FAA has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need this on-condition action:

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, and

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

AD 2021-02-12, Amendment 39-21395 (86 FR 10787, February 23, 2021) (AD 2021-02-12), currently requires repair of each affected part, or replacement with a serviceable part, as specified in an EASA AD. AD 2021-02-12 applies 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.

As published, the EASA AD number in the preamble and regulatory text is incorrectly identified as “EASA AD 2020-100R1,” where the correct identification is “EASA AD 2020-0100R1.”

EASA AD 2020-0100R1, 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

This document corrects multiple errors and correctly adds the AD as an amendment to 14 CFR 39.13. Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, the FAA is publishing the entire rule in the Federal Register .

The effective date of this AD remains March 30, 2021.

Since this action only corrects references to an EASA AD number, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public procedures are unnecessary.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies 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 (NPRM) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0923 in the Federal Register (85 FR 70093; November 4, 2020), to amend Jet Route J-134, RNAV route Q-67, and VOR Federal airways V-45 and V-119; establish RNAV route Q-176; and remove Jet Route J-91 and VOR Federal airway V-174 in the vicinity of Henderson, WV. The proposed amendment, establishment, and revocation actions were due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Henderson, WV, VORTAC NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Subsequent to the NPRM, the Office of the Federal Register published a NPRM correction for Docket No. FAA-2020-0923 in the Federal Register (85 FR 71293; November 9, 2020), correcting the RNAV route formatting for the Q-67 and Q-176 descriptions in the regulatory text and also adding the missing “Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways” heading between the RNAV route Q-176 and VOR Federal airway V-45 descriptions in the regulatory text. The correct RNAV route formatting and Domestic VOR Federal Airways heading are included in the regulatory text in this rule.

Additionally, subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No. FAA-2020-0709 in the Federal Register (85 FR 79117; December 9, 2020), amending VOR Federal airway V-119 by removing the airway segment overlying the Clarion, PA, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) between the Indian Head, PA, VORTAC and the Clarion, PA, VOR/DME. That airway amendment, effective February 25, 2021, is included in this rule.

Lastly, the state reference for the Henderson, WV, VORTAC was incorrectly listed as Kentucky (KY) in the Proposal section of the NPRM for Jet Routes J-91 and J-134. The correct state is WV and this action corrects those errors.

Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004, United States RNAV Q-routes are published in paragraph 2006, and 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 ATS routes 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 modifying Jet Route J-134, RNAV route Q-67, and VOR Federal airways V-45 and V-119; establishing RNAV route Q-176; and removing Jet Route J-91 and VOR Federal airway V-174. The planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Henderson, WV, VORTAC has made this action necessary.

The Jet Route changes are outlined below.

J-91: J-91 extends between the Volunteer, TN, VORTAC and the Henderson, WV, VORTAC. The route is removed in its entirety.

J-134: J-134 extends between the Los Angeles, CA, VORTAC and the Linden, VA, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the Henderson, WV, VORTAC between the Falmouth, KY, VOR/DME and the Linden, VA, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing route remain as charted.

The RNAV route changes are outlined below.

Q-67: Q-67 extends between the SMTTH, TN, waypoint (WP) and the DARYN, WV, WP. The route end point is changed from the DARYN, WV, WP to the Henderson, WV, DME (located approximately 1 nautical mile southwest of the DARYN WP), and the number of route points listed in the description are reduced while retaining the route as charted. Additionally, the TONIO, KY, fix, which is being retained in the route description, is changed to reflect the fix as a WP. The route will continue to provide RNAV routing capability from the Knoxville, TN, area northeastward to the Henderson, WV, area.

Q-176: Q-176 is a new route that extends between the Cimarron, NM, VORTAC and the OTTTO, VA, WP. This RNAV route mitigates the loss of the J-134 route segment between the Falmouth, KY, VOR/DME and the Linden, VA, VORTAC and is a direct overlay of the existing J-134. Additionally, it provides RNAV routing capability from the Cimarron, NM, area eastward to the Front Royal, VA, area.

The VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.

V-45: V-45 extends between the New Bern, NC, VOR/DME and the Appleton, OH, VORTAC; and between the Saginaw, MI, VOR/DME and the Sault Ste. Marie, MI, VOR/DME. The airway segment overlying the Henderson, WV, VORTAC between the Charleston, WV, VOR/DME and the Appleton, OH, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-119: V-119 extends between the Henderson, WV, VORTAC and the Indian Head, PA, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the Henderson, WV, VORTAC between the Henderson, WV, VORTAC and the Parkersburg, WV, VOR/DME is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-174: V-174 extends between the York, KY, VORTAC and the Elkins, WV, VORTAC. The airway is removed in its entirety.

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

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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this 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 action of modifying Jet Route J-134, RNAV route Q-67, and VOR Federal airways V-45 and V-119; establishing RNAV route Q-176; and removing Jet Route J-91 and VOR Federal airway V-174, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Henderson, WV, VORTAC NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321et 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 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 establishes Class E airspace at Calais Regional Heliport, Calais, ME, to support IFR operations in the area.

The FAA published a notice of prosed rulemaking in the Federal Register (85 FR 70092, November 4, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0935 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Calais Regional Heliport, Calais, ME. 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.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius at Calais Regional Heliport, Calais, ME, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at heliport. Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA found the geographic coordinates in the airport's description were incorrect. This action makes the correction.

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 so 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:

In FR Doc. 2020-25747, starting on page 86464 in the Federal Register of December 30, 2020, the following corrections are made:

1. On page 86464, in column 3, the file number is corrected to read “S7-19-15”.

2. On page 86464, in column 3, the RIN number is corrected to read “3235-AL98”.

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401-5426) (the Act), authorizes HUD to establish and amend the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (the Construction and Safety Standards) codified at 24 CFR part 3280. The Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-569, approved December 27, 2000), established the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) to provide HUD recommendations to adopt, revise, and interpret the Construction and Safety Standards. HUD's Construction and Safety Standards apply to the design, construction, and installation of new manufactured homes.

Following MHCC's third set of recommendations made to HUD, and HUD's review of, editorial revisions to, and addition of proposals to the MHCC's recommendations, HUD published a proposed rule on January 31, 2020 (85 FR 5589). Most commenters on the proposed rule expressed general support for the proposed revisions as part of HUD's effort to update the Construction and Safety Standards, and several commenters provided technical and substantive recommendations. Following HUD's consideration of public comments on the proposed rule, and consideration of HUD's experience with the program, HUD published a final rule on January 12, 2021 (86 FR 2496). The final rule revises certain sections of the Construction and Safety Standards, incorporates six reference standards, and makes minor technical edits to the Construction and Safety Standards. The amendments to the codified regulations reinforce the Act's purposes, namely to provide benefits to consumers, homeowners, and the broader community; promote and improve consumer and home safety, such as by improving smoke and carbon monoxide alarm requirements; reduce regulatory barriers and expand consumer options; and allow the use of the latest building technologies and materials while creating more consistency with State-adopted residential building codes.

HUD's January 12, 2021, final rule has a March 15, 2021, effective date. This final rule delays the March 15, 2021, effective date by 120 days to July 12, 2021, to provide sufficient time for affected stakeholders and manufacturers to implement the new and amended requirements.

HUD recognizes that, as the result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many manufacturers are experiencing backlogs and supply chain challenges that make it difficult for manufacturers to obtain products that the new regulations require in a timely manner. 1 Industry stakeholders stated that these shortages have made it difficult for manufactures to obtain carbon monoxide alarms, combination carbon monoxide and smoke alarms, doors, railings, and other products required to meet the January 12, 2021 regulation. Industry stakeholders have also expressed to HUD a desire for additional time to implement and modify processes to ensure compliance with the new regulation. For example, stakeholders have pointed out that the changes will require consultation with Design Approval Primary Inspection Agencies (DAPIAs) and drafting teams which take additional time.

In response to these concerns, HUD is publishing this final rule to delay the March 15, 2021 effective date to July 12, 2021, to provide additional time for affected stakeholders and manufacturers to implement the new and amended requirements.

Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) permits agencies to omit prior notice and comment procedure when an agency for “good cause” finds such procedure to be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” HUD's regulation on rulemaking at 24 CFR 10.1 implements the APA's requirements for HUD, including the “good cause” exception.

HUD finds that prior public notice and comment for this final rule is contrary to the public interest. This final rule extends the effective date for the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards final rule for 120 days, from March 15, 2021, to July 12, 2021. It does not signal any revision of the requirements included in the January 12, 2021, final rule. All revisions to the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards codified by the January 12, 2021, final rule will still be implemented without change.

Without this extension, manufacturers would be hard pressed to implement and meet new requirements that were scheduled to take effect on March 15, 2021. The inability to meet the March 15, 2021, effective date is largely a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and its disruption of economic activity in the United States, including backlogs and supply chain disruptions within the manufactured housing industry, making compliance by March 15, 2021 unlikely if not impossible. Manufacturers and stakeholders expressed this concern to HUD and asked for additional time to implement and modify processes to ensure compliance with new regulations. Delaying the effective date of the final rule will allow manufacturers and program stakeholders the additional time needed to obtain the products and implement the procedures required to comply with new or amended requirements. For these reasons, HUD finds that there is good cause to issue this final rule without additional public comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. This rule has been determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of the Executive order and therefore was not reviewed by OMB. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has designated this rule not as a major rule under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 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 information collection requirements contained in this final rule have been approved by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2502-0253.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. This rule will not impose any Federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal government or the private sector within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment was made prior to publication of the proposed rule, in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The Finding of No Significant Impact remains applicable, and is available for public inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0500. The Finding of No Significant Impact will also be available for review in the docket for this rule on Regulations.gov.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. HUD has determined that this final rule imposes no additional requirements, and does not have a significant economic impact, on a substantial number of small entities. Of the 222 firms primarily engaged in manufacturing manufactured homes, under the NAICS definition (NAICS 32991), approximately 35 produce manufactured homes subject to HUD's Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards. Of these firms, 31 are considered to be small businesses based on the U.S. Small Business Administration's threshold of 1,250 employees or less. The final rule applies to all the manufacturers and thus would affect a substantial number of small entities. However, this final rule provides all manufacturers, including small manufacturers, more time to implement revisions to the Construction and Safety Standards contained in HUD's January 12, 2021 final rule, but does not itself update or amend the Standards. As a result, this rule does not place any additional costs on any manufactured home manufacturers subject to the January 12, 2021, final rule. Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, an agency from promulgating a regulation that has federalism implications and either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or preempts state law, unless the relevant requirements of section 6 of the Executive order are met. This rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive order.

The final regulations (TD 9936) that are the subject of this correction are issued under sections 1297 and 1298 of the Internal Revenue Code.

As published on January 15, 2021 (86 FR 4516), the final regulations (TD 9936) contain errors that need to be corrected.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

The final regulations (TD 9936) that are the subject of this correction are issued under sections 1297 and 1298 of the Internal Revenue Code.

As published the final regulations (TD 9936) that contain errors that need to be corrected.

Accordingly, the final regulations (TD 9936) that are the subject of FR Doc. 2020-27009, which published on January 15, 2021 (86 FR 4516), are corrected as follows:

1. On page 4532, the third column, the ninth line from the bottom of the last partial paragraph, the language “claims” is corrected to read “claims,”.

2. On page 4534, the third column, the tenth line from the bottom of the first partial paragraph, the language “1000” is corrected to read “1,000”.

3. On page 4541, the third column, the last line of the third paragraph by removing the language “Id.”.

4. On page 4553, the second column, the last line of the first full paragraph, the language “[X]” is corrected to read “1545-1002”.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable based on the unpredictable nature of vessel operations and the fact that details of the port call were not finalized until March 3, 2021. This security zone is required to protect the military vessel, personnel in and around the military vessel, navigable waterways, and waterfront facilities while the vessel is docked at the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this security zone by March 10, 2021.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because the security zone is needed on March 10, 2021 to provide for the security of the military vessel, personnel in and around the military vessel, navigable waterways, and waterfront facilities while the vessel is docked at the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector San Diego (COTP) has determined that the presence of the military vessel at this location presents a potential target for terrorist attack, sabotage, or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of similar nature. This rule is needed to protect the military vessel, personnel in and around the military vessel, navigable waterways, and waterfront facilities while the vessel is docked at the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal.

This rule establishes a security zone from 8:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on March 10, 2021. The security zone will cover all navigable waters within a 200-yard radius around the USCGC BERTHOLF while berthed at 10th Avenue Marine Terminal in San Diego, CA. The duration of the zone is intended to protect the military vessel, personnel in and around the military vessel, navigable waterways, and waterfront facilities while the vessel is docked at the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and limited duration of the security zone. This zone impacts a small designated area of the San Diego Bay for a very limited period. Furthermore, vessel traffic can safely transit around the security zone.

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

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a security zone lasting only 2 hours on the navigable waters of San Diego Bay. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. Immediate action is needed to protect persons and property from the potential safety hazards associated with line pulling operations. Initially, these operations were set to begin from March 4, 2021 through March 10, 2021. However, the contractor handling the line pulling operations informed us that they cannot start the work until March 11, 2021. A temporary final rule for these operations was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2021 (86 FR 12543). The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the event and compromise public safety. We must establish this temporary safety zone immediately and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the line pulling operations in the vicinity of Moncla, LA.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the line pulling operations, would be a safety concern for all persons and vessels on the Red River between MM 58 and MM 60 in the vicinity of Moncla, LA. This rule is needed to protect persons, property, infrastructure, and the marine environment in all waters of the RR within the safety zone while line pulling operations are being conducted.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from March 11, 2021 through March 25, 2021. Initially, these operations were set to begin on March 4, 2021 through March 10, 2021. However, the contractor handling the line pulling operations informed us that they cannot start work until March 11, 2021. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the RR from MM 58 through MM 60 in the vicinity of Moncla, LA. The duration of this safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of waterway users on these navigable waters during line pulling operations.

Entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Lower Mississippi River. Persons or vessels seeking to enter the safety zones must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 901-521-4822. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This emergency safety zone will temporarily restrict navigation on the RR at MM 58 through 60 in the vicinity of Moncla, LA., from March 11, 2021 through March 25, 2021. Moreover, The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate. The rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone on the RR at MM 58 through 60 in the vicinity of Moncla, LA, that will prohibit entry into this zone. The safety zone will only be enforced while operations preclude the safe navigation of the established channel. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. Your comment can help us amend this regulation so that it provides a better solution to the problem we seek to address. We may issue a temporary final rule or other appropriate document in response to your comments.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this temporary interim rule for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this temporary interim rule as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be available in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov, and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the temporary interim rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive. If you visit the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

We do not plan to hold a public meeting but we will consider doing so if we determine from public comments that a meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a meeting.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this temporary interim rule because it is impracticable. Delaying the effective date by first publishing an NPRM would be contrary to the safety zone's intended objections since immediate action is needed to protect persons and property from the potential safety hazards associated with the bridge construction. Such hazards may include failing debris from the construction project.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary interim rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Due to the need for immediate action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to protect life, property and the environment. Therefore, a 30-day notice is impracticable. Delaying the effective date of this temporary interim rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to protect persons and vessels from the potential safety hazards associated with the bridge construction in the vicinity of Little Rock, AR.

We are soliciting comments on this rulemaking. If the Coast Guard determines that changes to the temporary interim rule are necessary, we will publish a temporary final rule or other appropriate document.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge construction, would be a safety concern for all persons and vessels on the Arkansas River between MM 126 and MM 127 in the vicinity of Little Rock, AR. This temporary interim rule is needed to protect persons, property, infrastructure, and the marine environment in all waters of the AR within the safety zone while bridge construction is being conducted.

This temporary interim rule establishes a temporary safety zone from March 10, 2021 through July 12, 2021. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the AR between MM 126 and MM 127 in the vicinity of Little Rock, AR. The duration of this safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of waterway users on these navigable waters during the bridge construction.

Entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Lower Mississippi River. Persons or vessels seeking to enter the safety zones must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 901-521-4822. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This temporary safety zone will temporarily restrict navigation on the AR between MM 126 and MM 127 in the vicinity of Little Rock, AR, from March 10, 2021 through July 12, 2021. Moreover, The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate. The temporary interim rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this temporary interim rule. If the temporary interim rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this temporary interim rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

Also, this temporary interim rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We have analyzed this temporary interim rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This temporary interim rule involves a temporary safety zone on the AR between MM 126 and MM 127 in the vicinity of Little Rock, AR that will prohibit entry into this zone. The temporary safety zone will only be enforced while operations preclude the safe navigation of the established channel. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

EPA is approving changes to Regulation 6.13, Standards of Performance for Existing Storage Vessels for Volatile Organic Compounds, and Regulation 7.12, Standards of Performance for New Storage Vessels for Volatile Organic Compounds, of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District portion of the Kentucky SIP, submitted by the Commonwealth on September 5, 2019. These modifications update the current SIP-approved version of Regulation 6.13 (Version 7) and Regulation 7.12 (Version 7) to Version 8 of each.

In its September 5, 2019, submittals, the District includes a modification that changes the true vapor pressure criteria in subsection 5.1 of Regulations 6.13 and 7.12 from 1.0 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) to 1.5 psia to better align with the general applicability provision in Section 1 of those regulations. Subsection 5.1 is a monitoring requirement which applies only to storage vessels that: (1) Have an external floating roof, (2) have a capacity of greater than 40,000 gallons, and (3) are not equipped with a secondary seal or approved alternative control technology. EPA notes that this change to the monitoring requirement does not alter the number of tanks subject to emission controls. EPA also notes that subsection 5.1 does not apply to any storage vessels that are newly constructed or modified after July 23, 1984, because such vessels would be subject to EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart Kb, which requires that a secondary seal be installed on all vessels with a design capacity greater than or equal to 40,000 gallons and that store volatile organic liquids with a maximum true vapor pressure equal to or greater than 0.75 psia. See 40 CFR 60.112b(a)(2). Furthermore, the District states that the monitoring requirement in subsection 5.1 does not currently apply to any facilities under their jurisdiction. 1 For these reasons, EPA has determined, in accordance with CAA section 110(l), these changes will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), reasonable further progress toward attainment of a NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

The September 5, 2019, SIP revisions also contain the following changes: Necessary renumbering of Regulation 6.13, Section 2; revising units of pressure measurement from millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) to the International System of Units standard kilopascal (kPa) in Regulations 6.13 and 7.12, Sections 1 and 3; correcting 11.1 psia to 11.0 psia as this is equivalent to the pressure of 570 mm Hg in Regulations 6.13 and 7.12, Section 3; changing 10.3 kPa to 10.4 kPa for consistency within Section 3 of Regulation 7.12, Section 3.4.3; clarifying that subsection 3.3 applies only to vessels with a storage capacity of less than 40,000 gallons in Regulations 6.13 and 7.12, Section 3;  2 changing the word “section” to “subsection” in Regulation 6.13, Section 3; and replacing the term “VOCs” with the phrase “volatile organic compounds” in Regulation 7.12, Sections 2 and 3. EPA has determined that these changes will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA because they are minor in nature and do not change the number of tanks that are subject to emission controls under these regulations.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on September 21, 2020 (85 FR 59256), EPA proposed to approve the changes described above to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP provided on September 5, 2019. The September 21, 2020, NPRM provides additional detail regarding the background and rationale for EPA's action. Comments on the September 21, 2020, NPRM were due on or before October 21, 2020. Comments were received on the September 21, 2020, NPRM and are addressed below.

EPA received three comments on its September 21, 2020, NPRM, one in favor and two in opposition. These comments are provided in the docket for this final action. EPA has summarized and responded to the adverse comments below.

Comment 1: The Commenter contends that EPA must quantify the potential emissions increase of raising the cutoff threshold from 1.0 psia (7.0 kPa) to 1.5 psia (10.4 kPa) because “simply reasoning that `a very small portion of hundreds of facilities [are applicable]' is not a valid reason for determining compliance with CAA section 110(l).”

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter and notes that the comment improperly implies that the section 110(l) analysis was based solely on the District's statement regarding the facilities that subsection 5.1 could theoretically apply to. As discussed above and in the NRPM, the removal of the monitoring requirement in subsection 5.1 for vessels storing VOCs of less than 1.5 psia will have no impact on emissions. Subsection 5.1 is a monitoring requirement which applies to certain types of storage vessels. The District changed the true vapor pressure criteria of this monitoring requirement from 1.0 psia to 1.5 psia to better align with the 1.5 psia threshold in the existing general applicability provision (Section 1) and the VOC emission limitations (Section 3). The emission control standards for VOC compounds are contained in Section 3 of rules 6.13 and 7.12, and none of them apply to tanks storing VOCs with a true vapor pressure of less than 1.5 psia. In addition, as noted above, subsection 5.1 does not apply to any existing facilities and also would not apply to any future storage vessels having a design capacity equal to or greater 40,000 gallons and storing liquids with a true vapor pressure equal to or greater than 0.75 psia because NSPS subpart Kb requires that a secondary seal be installed on all such vessels that are newly constructed or modified.

Comment 2: The Commenter states that “EPA should disapprove this SIP because VOCs from existing stationary tanks are emitting harmful pollutants into the air we breathe.” The Commenter further states that EPA “could also . . . not approve this SIP because there are currently no viable ways to remove this pollution from existing stationary tank wells” and that “these pollutants are believed to continue entering and migrating underground from the existing wells and into water bodies.”

Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. A SIP is a federally enforceable plan for each state that identifies how that state will attain and maintain the NAAQS. In formulating its SIP, each state is given wide discretion so long as it is consistent with all applicable requirements of the CAA, including section 110(l), and EPA must approve SIP revisions that meet these requirements. See CAA sections 110(a), (k). EPA initially incorporated Regulations 6.13 and 7.12 into the SIP in 1980 and 1982, respectively, as part of the District's measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. See 45 FR 6092 and 47 FR 25010. The SIP revisions at issue modify those regulations in the manner described above and in the NPRM, and EPA has determined that these revisions meet all applicable requirements of the CAA. Therefore, EPA must approve the revisions.

Regarding the comment about existing stationary tank wells, it is unclear what the Commenter is referring to. Regulations 6.13 and 7.12 contain measures to control air pollution from storage vessels of VOCs and do not mention “wells.” To the extent that the Commenter is concerned with potential non-air related environmental impacts, those impacts are beyond the scope of this action on Kentucky's September 5, 2019, SIP revisions.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference APCD Regulation 6.13, Standards of Performance for Existing Storage Vessels for Volatile Organic Compounds, Version 8, and Regulation 7.12, Standards of Performance for New Storage Vessels for Volatile Organic Compounds, Version 8, effective June 19, 2019, which make minor amendments to units of measurement and the applicability of standards for both existing and new storage vessels for VOCs, and which make minor editorial changes for internal consistency. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into the plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 3

EPA is approving the changes to Regulation 6.13, Standards of Performance for Existing Storage Vessels for Volatile Organic Compounds, and Regulation 7.12, Standards of Performance for New Storage Vessels for Volatile Organic Compounds, of the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP, submitted by the Commonwealth on September 5, 2019. The September 5, 2019, SIP revisions update the current SIP-approved version of Regulation 6.13 (Version 7) and Regulation 7.12 (Version 7) to Version 8 for each. EPA is approving these changes for the reasons discussed above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 10, 2021. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

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

The EPA is making the following corrections to the final rule, “Air Plan Approval; Washington: Inspection and Maintenance Program” as published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2021 (86 FR 10026). That publication contained amendatory instruction removing the entries “173-422-010”, “173-422-020”, “173-422-030”, “173-422-031”, “173-422-035”, “173-422-040”, “173-422-050”, “173-422-060”, “173-422-065”, “173-422-070”, “173-422-075”, “173-422-090”, “173-422-095”, “173-422-100”, “173-422-120”, “173-422-145”, “173-422-160”, “173-422-170”, “173-422-175”, “173-422-090”, and “173-422-095.” The correct citations for the last two entries for removal should have been “173-422-190” and “173-422-195.” This action corrects the citations as intended in the February 18, 2021 final rule.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because, as explained here, the changes to the rule are minor technical corrections, are noncontroversial in nature, and do not substantively change the requirements of the final rule. Rather, the changes correct inadvertent typographical errors and redundant text. Additionally, the corrections to the regulatory text match the revisions described in the preamble to the final rule. Thus, notice and opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

In FR doc 2021-03033 at 86 FR 10026 in the issue of February 18, 2021, the following corrections are made:

This document announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the information collection requirements in 47 CFR 27.1424 and paragraph 384 of the 3.7 GHz Report and Order. This rule was adopted in the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, FCC 20-22, published at 85 FR 22804 on April 23, 2020. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the compliance date for this new rule. OMB approval for all other new or amended rules for which OMB approval is required will be requested, and compliance is not yet required for those rules. Compliance with all new or amended rules adopted in the 3.7 GHz Report and Order that do not require OMB approval is required as of June 22, 2020, see 85 FR 22804 (Apr. 23, 2020). If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, regarding OMB Control Number 3060-1281. Please include the OMB Control Number in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov.

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on March 1, 2021, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 27.1424 and paragraph 384 of the 3.7 GHz Report and Order. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for the information collection requirements in 47 CFR 27.1424 and paragraph 384 of the 3.7 GHz Report and Order is 3060-1281.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1281.

OMB Approval Date: March 1, 2021.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2024.

Title: 3.7 GHz Service Licensee and Earth Station Operator Agreements; 3.7 GHz Licensee Engineering Analysis.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 30 respondents; 30 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours to 5 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; on occasion reporting requirements; third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 5(c), 201, 302, 303, 304, 307(e), 309, and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 155(c), 201, 302, 303, 304, 307(e), 309, and 316.

Total Annual Burden: 120 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The information collected under this collection will be made publicly available. However, to the extent information submitted pursuant to this information collection is determined to be confidential, it will be protected by the Commission. If a respondent seeks to have information collected pursuant to this information collection withheld from public inspection, the respondent may request confidential treatment pursuant to § 0.459 of the Commission's rules for such information.

Needs and Uses: On February 28, 2020, in furtherance of the goal of releasing more mid-band spectrum into the market to support and enabling next-generation wireless networks, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, FCC 20-22, ( 3.7 GHz Report and Order ), in which it reformed the use of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, also known as the C-band. Currently, the 3.7-4.2 GHz band is allocated in the United States exclusively for non-Federal use on a primary basis for Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) and Fixed Service. The 3.7 GHz Report and Order calls for the relocation of existing FSS operations in the band into the upper 200 megahertz of the band (4.0-4.2 GHz) and making the lower 280 megahertz (3.7-3.98 GHz) available for flexible use throughout the contiguous United States through a Commission-administered public auction of overlay licenses.

The Commission concluded in the 3.7 GHz Report and Order that, once this transition is complete, coordination measures are needed to protect incumbent C-band operations in the upper portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. 3.7 GHz Service licensees are required to comply with certain technical rules and coordination practices designed to reduce the risk of interference to incumbent operations. Specifically, 3.7 GHz Service licensees are required to comply with specific power flux density (PFD) limits to protect incumbent earth stations from out-of-band emissions and blocking and to coordinate frequency usage with incumbent Telemetry, Tracking, and Command (TT&C) earth stations. The 3.7 GHz Report and Order allows 3.7 GHz Service licensees and C- Band earth station operators to modify these PFD limits, but it requires a 3.7 GHz Service licensee that is a party to such an agreement to maintain a copy of the agreement in its station files and disclose it, upon request, to prospective license assignees, transferees, or spectrum lessees, and to the Commission. The Commission also required any 3.7 GHz Service licensee with base stations located within the appropriate coordination distance to provide upon request an engineering analysis to the TT&C operator to demonstrate their ability to comply with the applicable −6 dB I/N criteria.

The information that will be collected under this new information collection is designed to ensure that 3.7 GHz Service licensees operate in a manner that ensures incumbent C-band operations in the upper portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band and TT&C operations in the 3700-3980 MHz band are protected. By requiring 3.7 GHz Service licensees to provide a copy of any private agreement with 3.7 GHz earth station operators to prospective license assignees, transferees, or spectrum lessees, and to the Commission, the Commission ensures that such agreements continue to protect incumbent C-band operations in the event a 3.7 GHz service license is subsequently transferred to a new licensee. This collection promotes the safety of operations in the band and reduces the risk of harmful interference to incumbents. It also ensures that relevant stakeholders have access to coordination agreements between 3.7 GHz Service licensees and entities operating earth stations or TT&C operations.

The information provided by the 3.7 GHz Service licensee to the TT&C operator ensures the protection of TT&C operations. The information collection will facilitate an efficient and safe transition by requiring 3.7 GHz Service licensees to demonstrate their ability to comply with the −6 dB I/N criteria, thereby minimizing the risk of interference.

This is a summary of the Commission's Order on Reconsideration ( Reconsideration Order ), MB Docket No. 18-119; FCC 20-141, released October 6, 2020. The full text of the Reconsideration Order is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

1. Introduction. In this Reconsideration Order, adopted and released on October 6, 2020, the Commission addresses petitions for reconsideration (Petitions) of the Report and Order, published at 84 FR 27734 (June 14, 2019) ( Report and Order ) in the FM translator interference proceeding. The Commission dismisses or denies the arguments raised in the Petitions. It also corrects a cross reference contained in the rules established by the Report and Order.

2. Background. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted new rules to improve the FM translator interference complaint and resolution process. Specifically, it: (1) Gave FM translators the flexibility, upon a showing of interference to or from any other broadcast station, to change channels to any available same-band channel using a minor modification application; (2) standardized the information that must be compiled and submitted by any station claiming interference, including the minimum number of listener complaints proportionate to the signal coverage of the complaining station and undesired-to-desired (U/D) data demonstrating the relative signal strength at each listener location (zone of potential interference); and (3) established an outer contour limit of 45 dBu signal strength of the complaining station within which interference complaints will be considered actionable.

4. Discussion. The Commission dismisses or denies the arguments raised in the Petitions, as summarized below. It also corrects a cross reference contained in the rules established by the Report and Order.

5. Channel Changes. The Commission rejects the argument that it erred in the Report and Order by not requiring that low power FM (LPFM) preclusion studies be submitted with each minor change application filed by an FM translator operator to operate on a non-adjacent channel. It affirms its earlier conclusion that neither the plain language of section 5(1) of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 (LCRA) nor subsequent case law mandates preclusion studies for translator minor change applications, explaining that LCRA section 5 pertains only to the licensing of new rather than existing stations. Moreover, the Commission finds that its previous efforts to preserve LPFM availability in the context of waivers for FM translator long-distance “hops” are not relevant to the channel change applications at issue here. Therefore, the Commission both dismisses this argument as previously raised and considered and denies it on the merits.

6. The Commission also dismisses and, on alternative and independent grounds, denies the argument that the non-adjacent channel change rule violates the Ashbacker doctrine. This argument could have been raised earlier in the proceeding. Moreover, the Ashbacker right to comparative consideration for mutually exclusive applications does not apply to prospective applicants, as here. Rather, the Commission may promulgate rules that limit the ability of parties to file mutually exclusive applications. The Commission finds that it is in the public interest to do so here by allowing FM translator stations to remediate interference by changing channels and treating changes as minor, thereby foreclosing competing applications. Doing so provides a low-cost way to resolve interference with little or no reduction in service area and help keep translators on the air. The Commission finds that to treat these changes as major, and therefore subject to competing applications, would undermine the Commission's efforts to provide FM translator stations with an efficient means to remediate interference.

7. Required Contents of Translator Interference Claims. The Commission affirms three as the appropriate minimum number of listener complaints that must be submitted by an LPFM station with fewer than 5,000 people within its protected contours, dismissing the argument that this limit should be set at six. This argument was considered and rejected earlier in the proceeding. The Commission also denies this argument on the alternative and independent ground that the three-listener complaint minimum is a targeted and proportionate requirement, which in any case is applicable only to a small subset of LPFM stations.

8. The Commission rejects the arguments that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the petition clause of the U.S. Constitution (Petition Clause) by holding that multiple listener complaints from the same building will not be applied toward the listener complaint minimum. The APA does not prevent the Commission from adopting a final rule that differs from a proposal in an NPRM. To the contrary, the APA requires that, after providing the public with an opportunity to comment, an agency must then consider the relevant matter presented. In this case, although the NPRM proposed to allow multiple complaints from a single building, in the Report and Order the Commission agreed with commenters that the new rules should ensure that listener complaints come from multiple, unique, locations to demonstrate a real and consistent interference problem. By carefully reviewing the record and modifying its earlier proposal in response to it, the Commission complied with APA requirements.

9. The Commission also denies the argument that the Report and Order denied radio listeners their right under the Petition Clause to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Petitioners do not cite to any court or agency precedent to support the assertion that the Petition Clause requires the Commission to accept and consider all listener complaints of translator interference. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has held that nothing in the First Amendment suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues. Moreover, the Commission explains, from a practical standpoint, it is not necessary to obtain multiple listener complaints from a single location to determine whether that location is experiencing interference. It also clarifies that although multiple listener complaints will not count toward the minimum number of listener complaints, the translator operator must still remediate all valid complaints from the same building if all threshold requirements are otherwise met.

10. Because the Reconsideration Order corrects a cross-reference within new §§ 74.1203(a)(3) and 74.1204(f) to refer to § 74.1204(b) rather than previously cross-referenced § 73.313, the Commission dismisses as moot any objection to the new rules based on § 73.313.

11. The Commission upholds the requirement set out in the Report and Order that each station submitting a translator interference claim package must include U/D data demonstrating that at each listener location the ratio of undesired to desired signal strength exceeds −20 dB for co-channel situations, −6 dB for first-adjacent channel situations or 40 dB for second- or third-adjacent channel situations, calculated using the Commission's standard contour prediction methodology. The Commission declines to allow listener complaints from anywhere within the complaining station's protected contour, even if the listener location does not satisfy this U/D requirement. The U/D requirement serves as a threshold test to eliminate obvious instances where the translator could not be the source of the alleged interference. Including listener complaints from areas within the complaining station's protected contour that do not satisfy the U/D test would undermine this purpose. Moreover, the Commission explains, the strength of the complaining station's signal within its protected contour makes the likelihood of translator interference within the protected contour exceedingly small. In the rare event that a valid U/D showing could be made for a location within a complaining station's protected contour, the Commission states that it would accept a listener complaint at that location if it otherwise met the complaint requirements set out in the Report and Order. Finally, the Commission anticipates that if a real and consistent interference problem caused by a translator should occur, the affected station will be able to readily obtain the required minimum number of listener complaints from within the zone of potential interference as defined in the Report and Order.

12. In response to Skywaves Communications LLC, who points out that the Report and Order does not specify F(50,50) or F(50,10) propagation curves with respect to the 45 dBu contour limit and the U/D zone of potential interference test, the Commission makes a technical change to §§ 74.1203(a)(3) and 74.1204(f) to cross-reference § 74.1204(b) rather than § 73.313. Section 74.1204(b) includes guidance on using F(50, 50) curves for protected contours and F(50, 10) curves for interfering contours and is therefore appropriate for the purpose of making a U/D zone of potential interference showing under the new rules.

13. Contour Limit on Translator Interference Complaints. The Commission dismisses as previously raised and considered the argument that existing translator stations will be harmed by the establishment of an outer contour limit of 45 dBu signal strength of the complaining station within which interference complaints will be considered actionable. On alternative and independent grounds, the Commission denies this argument on the merits, noting that under the previous rules, any interference complaint, at any distance from the complaining station, could have forced a translator station to cease operations. Because the new contour limit protects translator stations from specious interference complaints, it reduces the risk to translator stations rather than increasing it. In this respect, the Commission clarifies that the 45 dBu contour limit does not affect any station's existing protected contour under the rules, including LPFM stations. It affirms that the 45 dBu contour limit represents a carefully considered balance between protecting translator stations from specious interference claims on one hand while preserving existing protections for other broadcast stations on the other.

14. The Commission dismisses as already raised and rejected the argument that the Commission relied on misleading data when it determined that there is significant listenership beyond many stations' 54 dBu signal strength contours. In doing so, the Commssion considered all arguments on this point and concluded that the data presented in the record formed an adequate basis for approximating nationwide listenership at various signal strength contours. On alternative and independent grounds, the Commission denies this argument on the merits, noting that the Nielsen data in the record was supplemented and corroborated by independent listenership data submitted by other broadcasters from various markets nationwide. Therefore, while acknowledging that CUME, zip code-based, and home address-based information may be over- or under-inclusive in individual cases (for example, when a zip code centroid is within a certain signal strength contour but the listening occurs outside it), the Commission finds that this data is sufficiently reliable with respect to broad listenership patterns to support the conclusion that a significant amount of FM listening occurs beyond the average 54 dBu contour and that setting a limit on actionable complaints at this signal strength would be economically damaging to many broadcasters.

15. The Commission dismisses as previously raised and rejected the argument that the new rules contravene LCRA section 5(3). The applicability of the LCRA “equal in status” provision was raised by other commenters earlier in the proceeding and addressed in the Report and Order. The Commission affirms its conclusion that LCRA does not prohibit the establishment of an outer contour limit on translator interference claims.

16. The Commission denies the argument that it acted with bias against the LPFM services by rejecting objections filed by LPFM advocates to pending translator applications in other proceedings. This complaint ignores the Commission's longstanding stewardship of this valuable and unique service as well as the fact that many of the measures taken in the Report and Order have equivalent rules already applicable to the LPFM service, such as the ability to change channels to resolve interference and the contour limitation on listener complaints. Thus, the new rules do not prioritize translator service over LPFM service but bring the two services into closer harmony with each other. Finally, the Commission explains that improving the translator interference process benefits all parties concerned, including LPFM stations, by providing a clearly defined, expeditious, and fair process for resolving translator interference complaints.

17. Pending Proceedings. The Commission affirms the holding in the Report and Order that the rules adopted therein apply to any pending applications or complaints that have not been acted upon as of the date the new rules became effective. It rejects the argument that doing so imposes “impermissible retroactive burdens” on those with pending translator interference complaints. None of the three ways in which a rule can be retroactive are demonstrated here. First, applying the new rules to pending translator interference complaints does not increase complainants' liability for past conduct. Second, applying the new rules to pending translator interference complaints does not impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. Third, applying the new rules to pending translator interference complaints does not impair rights a party possess when it acted. In this respect, the Commission finds that Petitioners do not demonstrate or provide support for the position that the mere filing of an interference complaint endows the complainant with vested rights, or that such rights, if established, would be impaired by application of the new rules. The Commission explains that the purpose of the interference complaint regime addressed in the Report and Order is to resolve complaints that FM translators are causing interference to listeners of FM and LPFM stations. Nothing in the Report and Order eliminated the ability of complainants, including those with pending complaints, to avail themselves of the Commission's processes to resolve such interference concerns. Rather, the rules adopted in the Report and Order changed only the way in which these claims are adjudicated by requiring more specific evidence. Moreover, pending complainants were provided with the opportunity to supplement their complaints to meet the new requirements. If a pending complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with the new rules, nothing precludes that same complainant from pursuing a new interference complaint in the future that complies with the new rules. Therefore, the Commission concludes, applying the new rules to pending complaints does not impair rights a party possessed when it acted because both before and after the effective date of the new rules, FM translators are prohibited from causing interference to listeners of FM and LPFM stations and the Commission provides a complaint process for resolving such interference complaints. It therefore denies the contention that applying the new rules to interference complaints pending against translator stations had an impermissible retroactive effect.

18. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burdens for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198.

19. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that these rules are “non-major” under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

20. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

21. This Order on Reconsideration disposes of petitions for reconsideration in MB Docket No. 18-119. In the Report and Order in this proceeding, the Commission issued a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) that conforms to the RFA, as amended. The Commission received no petitions for reconsideration of that FRFA. This Order on Reconsideration does not alter the Commission's previous analysis under the RFA.

22. In this Order on Reconsideration, the Commission corrects a cross-reference in the rules to direct broadcast applicants and licensees to a more comprehensive set of guidelines for calculating undesired-to-desired (U/D) signal strength ratios in the context of a translator interference claim. Specifically, although both the original cross-reference (47 CFR 73.313) and the new cross-reference (47 CFR 74.1204(b)) accurately describes the Commission's standard contour prediction methodology, the amended cross-reference includes specific instructions for calculating interfering as well as protected contours, both of which are used when calculating U/D ratios. Thus, the amended cross-reference is substantially similar to the original cross-reference but provides additional useful information and is more technically accurate for the type of calculation involved. This change is minor and is not anticipated to have any economic effect on broadcast licensees, including small entities. Therefore, we certify that the requirements of the Order on Reconsideration will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the Order on Reconsideration, including a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Order on Reconsideration and this final certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and will be published in the Federal Register .

14. It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 405, and § 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, this Order on Reconsideration in MB Docket No. 18-119 is adopted and shall be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

15. It is further ordered that part 74 of the Commission rules is amended as set forth in Appendix A and that such rule amendment shall be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

16. It is further ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Louis P. Vito on July 16, 2019, is dismissed in its entirety.

17. It is further ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Charles M. Anderson on July 11, 2019, is dismissed to the extent set out in paragraphs 9, 17, 20, and 21, supra, and is denied to the extent set out in paragraphs 9 and 19, supra.

18. It is further ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the LPFM Coalition on July 15, 2019, is dismissed to the extent set out in paragraphs 4, and 21, supra, and is denied to the extent set out in paragraphs 7, 10-13, 21, and 23-25 supra.

19. It is further ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by KGIG-LP, Salida, California/Fellowship of the Earth on July 15, 2019, is dismissed to the extent set out in paragraphs 4 and 8, supra, and is denied to the extent set out in paragraphs 5-6, 8 and 22, supra.

20. It is further ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Skywaves Communications LLC on July 15, 2019, is dismissed to the extent set out in paragraph 17 and 19, supra, and is denied to the extent set out in paragraphs 15 and 18, supra.

21. It is further ordered that the Stay Request filed by the LPFM Coalition on July 15, 2019, is dismissed as moot.

22. It is further ordered that, should no further petitions for reconsideration or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, MB Docket No. 18-119 shall be terminated , and its docket closed .

23. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

24. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 74 as follows: