3782 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

certified that this rule, when Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 4, 106 describes the authority of the FAA promulgated, does not have a significant 2021. Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation economic impact on a substantial Martin A. Skinner, Programs, describes in more detail the number of small entities under the Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, scope of the agency’s authority. criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. ATO Central Service Center. This rulemaking is promulgated [FR Doc. 2021–00022 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] under the authority described in Environmental Review BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section The FAA has determined that this 44715 Controlling aircraft noise and action qualifies for categorical exclusion sonic boom. Under that section, FAA is under the National Environmental DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION charged with prescribing regulations to Policy Act in accordance with FAA measure and abate aircraft noise. This Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental Federal Aviation Administration regulation is within the scope of that Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ authority since it provides for certain paragraph 5–6.5.a. This airspace action 14 CFR Part 91 operations of new supersonic aircraft in is not expected to cause any potentially [Docket No.: FAA–2019–0451; Amdt. No. approved areas where the significant environmental impacts, and 91–362] environmental impact of the operations no extraordinary circumstances exist has been assessed. RIN 2120–AL30 that warrant preparation of an I. Overview of Final Rule environmental assessment. Special Flight Authorizations for This rulemaking amends the Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Supersonic Aircraft administrative requirements for a special flight authorization originally Airspace, Incorporation by reference, AGENCY: Federal Aviation published as appendix B to part 91, Navigation (air). Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). Authorizations to exceed Mach 1 Adoption of the Amendment (§ 91.817), of title 14 of the Code of ACTION: Final rule. Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This In consideration of the foregoing, the SUMMARY: In consideration of the rulemaking is intended to streamline the Federal Aviation Administration application procedure for these special amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: continuing development of a new generation of supersonic aircraft, FAA is flight authorizations by clarifying the PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, modernizing the procedure for information that is needed for B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR requesting a special flight authorization submission and specifying the program TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND to operate in excess of Mach 1 over land office within FAA that processes the REPORTING POINTS in the United States. The renewed applications. This rule sets forth the interest in development of supersonic application criteria in a more user- ■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 airplanes caused FAA to review its friendly format. FAA is adopting the continues to read as follows: application procedures that allow for rule largely as it was proposed, with flight tests of these aircraft. This final some minor changes to the regulatory Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, rule modifies the criteria for applying text, as discussed in Section IV and the 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, accompanying preamble discussion. 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. for these authorizations and moves the material from an appendix to a II. Background § 71.1 [Amended] regulation to make it easier to find and understand. Outside the context of In a notice of proposed rulemaking ■ 2. The incorporation by reference in (NPRM) titled Special Flight 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E, special flight authorizations under this final rule, the FAA continues generally Authorizations for Supersonic Aircraft Airspace Designations and Reporting (84 FR 30961, June 28, 2019), FAA Points, dated July 21, 2020, and to prohibit civil supersonic flight over land in the United States. proposed to modernize the procedures effective September 15, 2020, is for requesting special flight DATES: amended as follows: Effective February 16, 2021. authorizations that are needed to ADDRESSES: For information on where to accomplish testing and development of Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas obtain copies of rulemaking documents new supersonic aircraft. The NPRM Extending Upward from 700 feet or More and other information related to this Above the Surface of the Earth. provided a brief history of FAA’s final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain regulation of civil supersonic aircraft * * * * * Additional Information’’ in the beginning in the 1970s with the AGL WI E5 Prairie Du Chien, WI SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of introduction of the Concorde, including [Amended] this document. the history of the application procedure Prairie Du Chien Municipal Airport, WI FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For for special flight authorizations that is (Lat. 43°01′09″ N, long. 91°07′25″ W) questions concerning this action, the subject of this rulemaking. That airspace extending upward from 700 contact: Sandy Liu, Office of FAA is clarifying the application feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile Environment and Energy, AEE–100, procedure for requesting a special flight radius of Prairie Du Chien Municipal Airport, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 authorization to fly faster than Mach 1 and within 1 mile each side of the 110° Independence Avenue SW, Washington, following increased interest by industry bearing from the airport extending from the DC 20591; telephone (240) 267–4748; to develop such aircraft. The revisions 6.6-mile radius to 6.8 miles east of the email [email protected]. adopted here do not change the general airport, and within 1 mile each side of the prohibition against overland supersonic 140° bearing from the airport extending from SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: flight in the United States that has been the 6.6-mile radius to 10.4 miles southeast of Authority for This Rulemaking the airport, and within 1 mile each side of in place since 1973 (14 CFR 91.817). the 320° bearing from the airport extending FAA’s authority to issue rules on This rule replaces the procedure from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.6 miles aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the described in part 91, appendix B, with northwest of the airport. United States Code. Subtitle I, Section regulatory text that clearly describes the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3783

application process and criteria. The authorization to perform supersonic in effect since 1973, and no change to new regulation provides clarity, aircraft development testing. that regulation was proposed. includes noise testing as another reason In the proposed rule, FAA identified Rather, the proposed rule focused on for which an authorization may be three areas intended to improve the administrative application process issued, and requires one additional provisions that comprised appendix B. for special flight authorizations to piece of information to be provided in The first designated the proposed office exceed Mach 1 for certain reasons, and an application, which is discussed in FAA to which applicants are to send for flight in limited areas that would be below. This rule does not introduce any applications and direct questions. The determined in advance. The rule does new FAA policy or change the intent of second proposed to gather the scattered not in and of itself authorize the the original application process. application requirements into a list, and operation of any specific airplane over Recognizing the renewed interest of present them according to modern any particular area; rather, any flights the aviation industry in developing regulatory formatting standards. As part authorized under the rule could only supersonic aircraft, Congress instructed of this effort, FAA proposed also to occur upon receiving FAA authorization FAA in Section 181 of the FAA correct the regulatory text for after completion of the application Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. consistency throughout the new section. process and considerable regulatory 115–254, Oct. 5, 2018) to assume a Third, FAA proposed the addition of a prerequisites, including analyses of the leadership role in the development of new reason for flight testing to environmental impacts on the area over international policies, regulations, and accommodate future noise certification which an applicant proposes to operate, standards that facilitate the safe and actions. as required by law. Neither these efficient operation of such aircraft. The NPRM invited interested persons regulatory prerequisites nor the Section 181 further directed FAA to to participate in the rulemaking by assessments of environmental impacts undertake reforms of its regulations submitting written comments, data, or were the subject of FAA’s proposed regarding civil supersonic aircraft. views. It also invited comments relating changes. Comments that suggested FAA’s first step in response to Section to the economic, environmental, energy, changes to the required assessments 181 was to propose changes to the or federalism impacts that might result were beyond the scope of this special flight authorization application from adopting the proposal. rulemaking. process. The second step was FAA’s The special flight authorizations that III. Discussion of Public Comments publication of an NPRM that proposes are the subject of this rulemaking have landing and takeoff noise limits under FAA received a total of 206 comments been available since the FAA adopted 14 CFR part 36 for the first group of on the NPRM: 43 comments generally the supersonic prohibition in 1973. This supersonic aircraft expected to be supported the NPRM, 45 generally rulemaking only presents an update of presented for certification (85 FR 20431, opposed the NPRM, and 118 are the administrative application process, Apr. 13, 2020). The relationship considered outside the scope of the rule. without affecting FAA’s underlying between the two rulemakings is The majority of comments from the duty to assess the environmental impact minimal. An aircraft developer would public focused on the current routing of of any flight it authorizes, whether eventually use the final rule adopted aircraft under the NextGen program, or under the National Environmental here to test aircraft under development expressed general annoyance regarding Policy Act (NEPA) or the requirements at supersonic speed. Eventually, a aircraft noise, and did not include any imposed by the regulation itself. developer might further use the comments specific to the proposal B. The National Environmental Policy authorization procedure adopted here updating the application procedure. Act (NEPA) for flight tests to demonstrate A. General Environmental Concerns Paragraph (b) of appendix B to part 91 compliance with certain supersonic Regarding Civil Supersonic Flight directed applicants generally to submit noise criteria when those criteria are ‘‘all information requested by the eventually adopted. The part 36 NPRM, Approximately 77 commenters Administrator’’ necessary for the by contrast, included only subsonic included some combination of general Administrator to make a determination standards for new supersonic aircraft concerns about the possible under the National Environmental and addressed the noise limits for environmental effects of supersonic Policy Act (NEPA).1 In the proposed landing and takeoff. Because landing airplanes—whether they were about the rule, FAA tried to provide applicants and takeoff do not occur at supersonic noise anticipated from new supersonic with better clarity by adding the text in speeds, a special flight authorization airplanes, the effect of supersonic proposed § 91.818(c)(2)(i)–(iii) to under this final rule would be operations on the atmosphere, or both. suggest the form that such information unnecessary to test for landing and Some commenters generally cited the might take to support FAA’s NEPA takeoff noise levels of supersonic Concorde model airplanes as an determination. Specifically, the aircraft, just as subsonic aircraft do not example. Those opposing the rule, proposed language gave as examples an require such special permission to including two municipalities, stated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) accomplish part 36 testing. their opposition to the addition of for the proposed flight area, an EIS Neither this final rule nor the part 36 supersonic airplanes, citing detrimental previously prepared for the proposed noise limit NPRM alters the general environmental effects, but did not flight area, or another statement or prohibition on supersonic flight over comment on the changes proposed for finding of environmental impact for the land in the United States found in the application procedure. proposed flight test area, such as an § 91.817. In response, FAA emphasizes that the Environmental Assessment (EA). proposed rule would not have allowed Summary of the NPRM In the final rule, FAA revises supersonic flights to occur on a regular § 91.818(c)(2) to remove these This modernization of the basis in the United States. The suggestions, because they proved to be authorization process for certain civil regulation that generally prohibits civil a source of confusion among supersonic flights is intended to airplanes from operating at speeds in simplify and clarify the process for excess of Mach 1 over land in the 1 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 applicants interested in obtaining an United States (14 CFR 91.817) has been (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 3784 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

commenters, as discussed below. The Nothing in the special flight with metrics from previous flights of the proposed language providing more authorization regulation, however, SpaceX Falcon Heavy landings and detail about what an applicant could either requires or permits applicants for operations of the Concorde. Based on its submit was not intended to imply that special flight authorizations to conclusion that impacts of special flight FAA would forego independently determine what level of NEPA review is authorizations would never reach FAA’s evaluating the information or closely required or whether issuance of a threshold of significance for noise examining the environmental impacts special flight authorization would have impacts, either individually or on a proposed test area in determining significant environmental impacts. cumulatively on an annual basis, Boom whether to grant a particular special Those determinations are FAA’s alone. proposes a series of qualifying criteria flight authorization. The language was Further, FAA’s finding under NEPA that, if met, should lead FAA to also not intended to imply shifting the regarding the significance of presume no significant impacts exist. burden of complying with NEPA to the environmental effects is not dispositive FAA finds that this proposal fails for applicant rather than FAA. of the application under consideration. two reasons. First, as Boom NEPA requires Federal agencies to The NEPA analysis informs FAA’s acknowledged, FAA may use consider the environmental impacts of decision on whether to grant a special supplemental metrics when evaluating their actions in their decision-making flight authorization for supersonic flight noise, and gives special consideration to processes. Specifically, an agency must over a certain area, and the NEPA certain types of noise-sensitive areas determine whether the action it is analysis must be completed before a where the standard significance considering (in this case, whether to decision to grant a special flight threshold may not adequately capture issue a special flight authorization authorization. However, the NEPA environmental effects. Although FAA allowing one or more supersonic flights) determination (regarding significance of uses all available methods to increase constitutes a ‘‘major Federal action the environmental effects of granting the efficiency in its environmental review significantly affecting the quality of the authorization) is distinct from the process, and in appropriate individual human environment’’ (i.e., whether a Administrator’s findings on the circumstances could make a finding of proposed action would have significant application as a whole. The no significant impact for some or even environmental impact). FAA makes this circumstances behind each application most special flight authorizations, it determination in accordance with will be unique. Under § 91.818(c)(1) of cannot prejudge the outcome of Council on Environmental Quality the final rule, the application is denied individual applications submitted under 2 (CEQ) regulations, which provide the if the Administrator finds that such this regulation, or their effects if procedural requirements for Federal action is necessary to protect or enhance considered cumulatively on an annual agency compliance with NEPA. the environment. basis. CEQ regulations include, at 40 CFR Because both the NEPA determination Second, Boom’s proposal to create 1506.5, the option for agencies to seek referenced in § 91.818(c)(2) and the criteria that, if satisfied, create a necessary information from applicants substantive finding that can be made presumption that no significant effects to support the agency’s required under § 91.818(c)(1) are environmental will occur appears to be consistent with environmental review of proposed establishing a categorical exclusion 3 in nature, the final rule is revised to Federal actions under NEPA. That guard against the risk of the two being under 40 CFR 1501.4. Categorical analysis may require varying amounts conflated. Specifically, § 91.818(c)(2) as exclusions are categories of actions that and types of data to make the adopted focuses more expressly on in ordinary circumstances do not have determination whether approval of the supporting the NEPA significance significant individual or cumulative underlying request would result in determination, which better impacts on the quality of the human environment. However, although Boom significant environmental impacts. distinguishes the purpose of paragraph In order to complete that analysis in suggested that the Administrator could (c)(2) from the purpose of an a timely fashion, FAA benefits from use this rulemaking to establish that the Administrator finding made under applicants’ providing as much of the collective level of noise generated by all paragraph (c)(1) of that section. information as they can, in accordance Boom Technology (Boom) submitted a foreseeable test activities is not 4 environmentally significant if with 40 CFR 1506.5. That information comment regarding streamlining the conducted pursuant to these particular may be incorporated into an EA or EIS NEPA process in the context of special conditions, categorical exclusions must that is developed subject to FAA flight authorizations. Boom initially be identified in agency NEPA supervision, or it may provide the basis presents two factual conclusions. procedures and are subject to the for FAA to apply a categorical exclusion Boom’s first conclusion is that FAA requirements for public review and of the action from further NEPA would be unlikely to identify any 5 review by CEQ as specified in 40 CFR review. significant sonic boom noise impacts for 1507.3. Moreover, the anecdotal individual supersonic flight test 2 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 (2020). evidence offered by Boom related to programs under the FAA’s threshold of 3 The CEQ regulations were updated in July 2020, flights of other aircraft that were not while this final rule was in process. See 85 FR significance for noise impacts in its subject to § 91.817 would not be 43304 (July 16, 2020). The revised CEQ regulations NEPA procedures (FAA Order 1050.1). sufficient to establish a categorical became effective on September 14, 2020. Boom’s second conclusion is that the 4 exclusion under NEPA with respect to The regulation states that ‘‘an agency may FAA programmatically could examine require an applicant to submit environmental supersonic flights requested in a special information for possible use by the agency in all supersonic test flight campaigns flight authorization. The establishment preparing an environmental document.’’ The covering all applicants in a single year of ‘‘parameters’’ relating to the NEPA regulation does not allow the agency to use such without the impacts triggering the review of supersonic flight tests would information without considerable additional FAA’s threshold of significance for analysis and verification. require an analysis of part 91 operations 5 FAA’s NEPA procedures, as set forth in FAA noise. Boom supports these conclusions in order to justify a categorical Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies exclusion, and the supporting and Procedures (July, 2015), do not currently have application of a categorical exclusion. However, as a categorical exclusion that would be applicable to discussed further below, FAA might be able to documentation would need to go applications for special flight authorizations. establish an applicable categorical exclusion, but through the public process required for Accordingly, current FAA policy would not allow only after following appropriate procedures. all changes to FAA’s NEPA procedures

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3785

as set forth in Order 1050.1F. Although remains FAA’s duty. Further, FAA did C. Application Approval Process at some point in the future FAA might not intend for the applicant’s In proposed paragraph (a) of § 91.818, undertake the necessary analysis and submission, whatever form it may take, the FAA sought to locate into a more- public review process to establish such to represent the completion of the NEPA user friendly format the application a categorical exclusion, absent a change process. That process involves, where requirements previously scattered to Order 1050.1F, FAA currently must appropriate, public outreach, FAA’s throughout appendix B to part 91. individually consider the potential objective evaluation of any information Specifically, proposed § 91.818(a)(6) environmental impacts of requested prepared by the applicant, as well as the would require a ‘‘description of the special flight authorizations. exercise of independent judgment as to flight area requested by the applicant, Boom also commented on an aspect of whether the NEPA process can be including any environment analysis the proposed standard for special flight concluded with a finding of no required under paragraph (c) of this authorization operations outside the test significant impact, or whether it section.’’ This requirement was area—in particular, that the operation unchanged from appendix B. does not cause a measurable sonic boom requires preparation of an GE Aviation and Boom suggested that overpressure outside the test area. While environmental impact statement. FAA adopt an expedited application that topic is discussed below, Boom’s The CBD concluded that, ‘‘Because approval process under certain characterization of it in the context of Special Flight Authorizations for circumstances. As a means to this NEPA is relevant here. Boom indicated Supersonic Aircraft are major federal expedited approval, both commenters that the standard (unchanged from actions, an application for such suggested that a pre-approved set of appendix B) ‘‘goes far beyond what is authorization would trigger the need to parameters could form the basis for required under the National prepare an EIS.’’ This conclusion is Environmental Policy Act, as allowance these approvals. GE Aviation suggested based on CBD’s reading of the 1970 automatic approval when an applicant of measurable overpressure is not preamble that accompanied the necessarily a major Federal action can show ‘‘that there have been no adoption of the supersonic prohibition. meaningful changes in the expected ‘significantly affecting the quality of the FAA disagrees that the 1970 rule human environment’ as interpreted environmental impacts.’’ Noting what it presumed that all supersonic flights considered a recognized lack of under agency guidance under Order were likely to create significant 1050.1F . . .’’ Boom inaccurately significant environmental impact environmental impacts under NEPA and (discussed above), Boom stated that a combined the scope of the regulation therefore require FAA to produce an governing the consideration and predefined set of parameters would EIS. While an application for a special approval of special flight authorizations provide certainty and reduce costs for flight authorization is a major Federal itself with the process tool of NEPA and manufacturers as well as reduce the FAA Order 1050.1F, which describes action subject to NEPA review, the burden on the FAA. FAA’s NEPA policy and procedures. specific facts associated with such an FAA is not adopting the suggested Further, Boom does not accurately application determine what level of expedited application approval process. reflect the definition of a major Federal NEPA review is required. CBD First, the FAA does not find that pre- action as defined by the CEQ regulations presupposes a universal outcome approved circumstances can be and FAA, relying on concepts actually regarding the proper level of NEPA determined, because there are several related to significance of effects of a review, disregarding the fact-specific factors FAA considers for each Federal action. The overpressure nature of this determination. application for supersonic testing, measurement standard is a specific The proposed addition of the form of including performance of the particular factor set forth in the regulation that information to be submitted by aircraft. Second, the time-sensitive nature of environmental considerations considers the effect of the proposed applicants caused some commenters to can make prior determinations flights and is relevant for substantive misunderstand the FAA’s intent, and is unreliable without reassessment at the approval purposes under the regulation. an indication that the proposed time of each application, and could While this information may also be regulatory changes were not helpful. cause the FAA to fail in its considered in NEPA analysis, it does Accordingly, FAA has removed not dictate that analysis, nor does it environmental responsibilities. Under proposed § 91.818(c)(2)(i) through (iii) FAA policy, environmental assessments affect the process that FAA follows to from the final rule. This final rule reach a finding regarding significance of or EISs are not presumed valid revises the language in § 91.818(c)(2) to indefinitely; after three years, a written impacts under NEPA. modernize it consistent with the The Center for Biological Diversity reevaluation must be prepared. (See recently revised CEQ regulations and (CBD) made several arguments with FAA Order 1050.1F.) However, FAA regard to NEPA requirements in its the NEPA practice as it has developed would accept previous environmental comment. In part, the CBD read the since appendix B was first promulgated. analyses of a proposed flight area as proposed rule to ‘‘suggest that The revised language clarifies that the long as the material remains current and preparation of an EA will fulfill FAA’s information needed to support any relevant, or has been updated by an duties’’ under NEPA. The CBD also particular application will be applicant to meet those requirements. commented that the list of examples in considered by FAA in its determination Third, FAA intends with this proposed § 91.818(c)(2) suggesting the of whether the environmental impacts rulemaking to consider all applications form of information an applicant could of the special flight authorization are uniformly. While the actual number of provide ‘‘oversimplifies the NEPA significant. The provision of this applications for authorization has been review process’’ for FAA. As stated at information and the subsequent limited, FAA experience is that the beginning of this discussion, FAA development of the appropriate level of incomplete information submitted by an agrees that the submission of environmental documentation will be applicant has caused delays in the information by an applicant (whether to carried out in accordance with the CEQ authorization approval process. support an EIS, EA, categorical regulations and FAA procedures in the While FAA is not changing the exclusion, or other materials) does not most recent version of FAA Order requirement in § 98.818(a)(6), FAA has itself satisfy NEPA requirements, which 1050.1. revised it slightly from the proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 3786 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

rule to clarify that the requirement calls each operator intending to share the use area. As a matter of implementation, for information that supports analyses of, or the costs associated with there must be a ‘‘first’’ applicant that rather than the analyses themselves. requesting, a test area will need to submits all of the required information submit its own application with all of for FAA to make the first determination D. Test Area Selections the information required for the about an area based on the proposed The term ‘‘designated test area’’ in processing of the application. In the flights. Subsequent applicants could use appendix B created confusion for case of a test area that has been the same information, and include any prospective applicants that interpreted previously approved under another differences that apply to the subsequent the phrase to mean that designated test application, the next applicant will applicant, such as duration of the areas already exist, when they in fact do need to submit information that authorization, number of flights, or not. Rather, the term was used to refer includes a description of the (same) probable impact. The need for each to the proposed test area described requested test area and the required operator individually to apply for and (designated) in an application. FAA environmental information. receive an authorization remains proposed eliminating this phrase and The final rule does not include unchanged from the current replacing it with § 91.818(a)(6) requiring suggestions from commenters for the requirements. No changes are being an applicant to describe its requested FAA to establish ‘‘dedicated’’ test areas made to the requirement to describe the test area in its application. Description or a ‘‘civilian supersonic corridor’’ test areas based on these comments. of the proposed test area is one without proposed users or without a consideration in determining the specific application. The regulation E. Conducting Noise Testing During acceptability of the application overall. requires an applicant to show the Supersonic Flight Several commenters stated that the probable impact of the applicant’s FAA proposed the measurement of final rule should provide more requested operations over a proposed noise characteristics in § 91.818(a)(8)(v) flexibility for test area selections to test area. There can be no proper as an additional reason to conduct a allow more than one operator to use a determination of any environmental supersonic flight. The new provision test area, and to support the impact on a test area without a proposal allows for the FAA to issue a special development of test areas outside of from an operator that includes the flight authorization for flights in excess military operation areas (MOAs). GE timing, duration, and expected noise of Mach 1 when measuring the noise Aviation, Aerospace Industries impacts of the operator’s planned Association (AIA), General Aviation characteristics of an aircraft for flights. A change in this fundamental compliance with noise certification Manufacturer’s Association (GAMA), nature of the process would require Supersonic Flight Alliance (SSFA), requirements, including conducting a additional rulemaking and analysis. noise test during supersonic flight. AeroTEC, and Boom suggested that FAA Moreover, the final rule, as is the case Appendix B addressed only flights allow multiple manufacturers to use the under the existing regulation, does not necessary to comply with airworthiness same flight test area, as opposed to limit proposed test areas to MOAs. certification testing, not noise tests. This limiting areas to a single flight test Several commenters disagreed with change is forward-looking, as there are campaign. Generally, the commenters what they perceived to be FAA’s no standards for assessing noise at stated that doing so would provide safer assumption that applicants will only and more effective testing, and cost- test within existing MOAs. The supersonic speed at this time. This saving benefits to industry and FAA. commenters note that MOAs may not be limited expansion will facilitate noise Lockheed Martin Corporation suitable for civil supersonic testing and certification testing for future (Lockheed) suggested establishing that applicants may develop their own supersonic aircraft when such noise dedicated supersonic flight test areas. supersonic test areas. The commenters’ standards are adopted. On April 13, Additionally, Boom, SSFA, and concern might reflect a 2020, FAA issued an NPRM proposing AeroTEC expressed the general need for misunderstanding stemming from the noise certification standards for a supersonic test areas outside of MOAs, Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) certain class of new supersonic citing concerns such as crowded statement that was published as part of airplanes under part 36 (85 FR 20431), airspace within MOAs and lack of the NPRM (see 84 FR 30965–66). FAA but those proposed standards are only available MOAs for civil flight testing. is required to estimate the information for subsonic landing and takeoff. No The Town of Milton, Massachusetts, collection burden involved in special flight authorization would be stated that test sites should not be complying with a regulation. FAA’s needed to conduct the tests for subsonic determined by industry applicants and only historical data for special flight noise compliance (landing and takeoff), urged FAA to limit test sites to MOAs. authorization came from applications as that noise is proposed to be measured To support current industry proposing to use MOAs as test areas. in the same manner as subsonic aircraft. development efforts, FAA provides FAA was thus unable to estimate any GE Aviation commented that the rule supersonic flight test applicants with reliable information collection impact should address the full set of the broadest opportunity to request an on future applicants for anything other circumstances for requesting a special appropriate flight test area, consistent than using a MOA that has underlying flight authorization, including with the applicable regulations and environmental data already available. requirements for testing airworthiness environmental impacts. FAA But the use of MOAs as part of the and operational capabilities. FAA notes emphasizes that the regulation does not required PRA statements supporting this that the proposed change allows an limit a flight test area to use by one rulemaking was not an indication that additional reason to request testing. The applicant. As stated in the NPRM, the rule prevents an applicant from rule has always required applicants to nothing about the application process choosing other areas. The choice of test specify the reason particular tests need should be read to impede more than one area remains with each applicant after to be conducted from the list provided prospective supersonic operator from assessing its financial considerations in the regulation. FAA has not proposed seeking to use the same area or sharing and business needs. to remove any of the general reasons the costs of the environmental studies Finally, nothing in the regulation from appendix B that an operator may that may be required (85 FR 30961, at prevents a group of operators from have to test an airplane, including 30964). FAA does expect, however, that sharing the costs of establishing a test airworthiness testing.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3787

Accordingly, the provision is adopted data as support for an application if an flight tests and the availability of as proposed. applicant chooses to use it. FAA notes diversion airports. Boom requested that that if all supersonic operation is FAA ‘‘remove the requirement to show F. Overocean Testing conducted over water outside U.S. that the test could not be safely FAA proposed maintaining the airspace and at a distance that ensures accomplished over the ocean’’ in part requirement for an applicant to show no sonic boom effect on land, there is because the showing ‘‘will never be why its test cannot be accomplished by no need to even request a special flight decisive’’ and that a ‘‘rejection based on flight over the ocean. The placement of authorization. It is only when an inadequate safety justification could this application requirement in supersonic flight over land is requested lead to a tragic loss of life.’’ appendix B often caused it to be that an application need be submitted, FAA disagrees with Boom that there overlooked as a prerequisite. The in which case the applicant needs to is no economic or other justifiable basis proposed rule placed the same explain why it cannot be accomplished for the requirement. The provision for overocean requirement in new over the ocean, in order to avoid overocean testing reinforces the § 91.818(a)(9) with minor modification unnecessary noise exposure on the principal purpose underlying appendix to state that an ‘‘applicant must indicate ground. B to part 91, to protect humans and the why its intended operation cannot be 2. Economic Reasonableness environment in the United States from safely or properly accomplished over the effects of sonic booms. The the ocean at a distance ensuring that no Boom raised economic concerns with appendix establishes as a ‘‘default’’ the sonic boom overpressure reaches any the overocean provision. Boom stated position that supersonic flight testing be land surface in the United States.’’ The that FAA’s 1970s-era economic rationale conducted over the ocean rather than on addition of the last phrase aligns the for the prohibition on supersonic land where sonic booms would impact rule with the requirement in § 91.817(b) overland flight and application process the surface environment. The appendix that restricts supersonic operation of for overland testing is not valid because and this rule provide applicants with an aircraft, including over the ocean, it was based on a market assessment of avenue to conduct supersonic test unless there are flight limitations to supersonic aircraft that did not flights over land if they are able to ensure that no sonic boom could impact materialize. Boom also stated that the explain why testing cannot be safely or the U.S. shoreline. overocean requirement is not properly conducted over the ocean. economically reasonable because testing 1. Alternatives to Overocean Testing supersonic aircraft over the ocean Three other commenters submitted Commenters who are not in favor of would require manufacturers located suggestions to clarify the overocean the overocean testing requirement farther from the U.S. coastline to incur provision. AIA and GAMA suggested suggested alternatives. GE Aviation enormous expenses to set up additional that FAA clarify that a special flight stated that there should be a provision test facilities with closer proximity to authorization is not required if a test can and process to allow supersonic flight the ocean. Boom added that ‘‘for such be performed over the ocean at a testing to move from over the ocean to an enormous expense, the public may distance ensuring that no sonic boom over land and should involve various be spared a few dozen half-second overpressure reaches any land surface in stages of modeling, along with testing disturbances per year.’’ the United States. GE Aviation made the and validation through flights over the The FAA notes that the determination same comment but used ‘‘application’’ ocean. Lockheed expressed appreciation made in the 1970s that no level of sonic rather than ‘‘authorization.’’ As stated for clarifying the applicability of the boom is acceptable over land still previously, no special flight overocean provision, but suggested that applies and is not based exclusively on authorization is required if the an applicant provide FAA with the economics. Furthermore, the FAA is not supersonic portion of any flight is results of prior test modeling activity, persuaded that a re-evaluation of the conducted over the ocean at a distance which would then be used to shape an reasonableness of the overocean testing ensuring that no sonic boom will reach overwater validation test activity as a provisions is warranted simply because land in the United States. The Town of precursor to overland test operations. the anticipated size of the commercial Milton suggested that FAA require The SSFA and AeroTEC suggested that fleet has not materialized. Neither Boom overocean supersonic testing in such a the collection of noise data over ground nor any other commenters provided any manner that no sonic boom terrain would provide better quality data or persuasive argument indicating overpressure reaches land before any data than over water. An individual that the overocean testing requirement testing over land is authorized. commenter suggested adding the word has been a primary reason for, or even However, FAA recognizes that there ‘‘efficiently’’ to the regulatory text of a contributing factor to, why the may be situations where testing may not § 91.818(a)(9), but did not provide any estimated commercial fleet of be safely or properly accomplished over supporting explanation. An individual supersonic airplanes never materialized. the ocean, such as there being no from Louisiana suggested that testing be Rather, Boom’s comment suggests that effective way to measure noise on flights done ‘‘over the Pacific Ocean or large the requirement could pose a financial over water, including any noise impact bodies of water around 70 miles off the obstacle to Boom’s particular business that might be discernable on land. coast,’’ but provided no support for the plans, not that the regulation in general For the reasons discussed, FAA specificity of this suggestion. is economically unreasonable. adopts the overocean testing provision FAA recognizes that there may be as proposed. valid reasons why an applicant cannot 3. Miscellaneous Overocean Provision G. Operation Outside a Test Area conduct an overocean test properly. The Comments provision in appendix B allowed for this In addition to its economic FAA proposed a new § 91.818(b) to possibility, as does the provision reasonableness position, Boom stated maintain the provisions in section 2(b) adopted in § 91.818(a)(9), which simply that it ‘‘believes that a requirement to of appendix B that allow an applicant to restates that an applicant needs to justify the safety benefits of conducting request supersonic non-test flights explain why overocean testing would a supersonic operation over land could outside of a test area. The prerequisites not work. Furthermore, the rule does erode safety,’’ for which Boom for this supersonic operation are not restrict the submission of modeling hypothesized situations of production considerable and are discussed below.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 3788 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

1. Foreseeable Operating Conditions not recognize the possibility for a sonic standard than ‘‘no measurable sonic Outside of a Test Area boom to be produced that is barely boom overpressure’’ would be to ensure Proposed § 91.818(b)(3) would noticeable on the ground, but can still that no significant impacts on the maintain the requirement of appendix B be detected by scientific measurement, environment or communities result section 2(b) that a supersonic non-test such as a small pressure disturbance. from granting an authorization. flight applicant show—as part of a prior SSFA and AeroTEC referenced NASA’s The scope of the provision, both as it test conducted inside a test area—that supersonic flight tests that show appears in the appendix and in the ‘‘[t]he conditions and limitations overpressure wave remnants at ground proposed rule, appears to be a determined by that test present all level that do not have the sharp-edged continued source of confusion for some foreseeable operating conditions and are characteristic of a sonic boom. Boom commenters. The section in the effective on all flights conducted under indicated that the standard (unchanged appendix that was proposed as an authorization.’’ from appendix B) ‘‘goes far beyond what § 91.818(b) sets the ‘‘no measurable Aerion, GE Aviation, AIA, and GAMA is required under the National sonic boom overpressure’’ criterion only stated that this requirement is Environmental Policy Act, as allowance for civil supersonic flights that would unreasonable because it is not possible of measurable overpressure is not take place outside a test area. Several to predict all conditions under which an necessarily a major Federal action commenters seemed to presume aircraft may operate. Aerion noted that ‘significantly affecting the quality of the inaccurately that this standard would be the appendix B requirement originated human environment’ as interpreted applied to all applications for special before reliable sonic boom prediction under agency guidance under Order flight authorizations, even those that technologies existed. All four 1050.1F.’’ 6 would be within a test area. The commenters suggested replacing Other commenters also supported the requirement to show conservatively that § 91.818(b)(3) with a standard based on elimination of the provision. Both AIA no measurable sonic boom overpressure currently available sonic boom and GAMA read the phrase ‘‘no reaches the surface does not apply to prediction and control technology. measurable sonic boom’’ to be an test flights that are authorized to be In general, the phrases ‘‘conditions absolute prohibition on supersonic conducted in an approved test area. An and limitations’’ and ‘‘operating operations, finding it overly restrictive operator with an authorization to flight conditions,’’ as they are commonly and something ‘‘that an applicant would test at supersonic speeds for one of the applied to any flight authorization, do be unable to guarantee during a test permissible purposes set forth in not require operators or FAA to predict flight.’’ The Town of Milton, § 91.818(a)(8) may potentially (subject to every conceivable operating condition Massachusetts, stated that FAA should the conditions and limitations of its that may occur. FAA clarifies that ‘‘all remove § 91.818(b) in its entirety authorization) operate a flight that foreseeable operating conditions’’ refers because no aircraft can satisfy the ‘‘no results in sonic boom overpressures to the reasonable expected conditions overpressure’’ provision, adding that it reaching the surface inside the test area, under which the aircraft would be should be replaced by a new regulation as expected. Accordingly, FAA operated, and is not meant to require a only after supersonic testing disagrees that the standard is overly prediction of every possible condition. demonstrates no measurable sonic boom restrictive. It restricts sonic boom 2. Measurable Sonic Boom Overpressure overpressure. overpressures from reaching the surface Outside of a Test Area New Frontier Aerospace is the only when flights are conducted outside of commenter that supported retaining the test areas, consistent with the overall The application for operation outside intent of the regulations to prohibit a test area also includes a requirement provision, stating that it foresees the need to apply for the § 91.818(b) routine or non-test supersonic flights that allows for such flights when it over land. FAA emphasizes, though, conservatively can be shown that ‘‘no operating allowance in order to conduct extensive testing of an aircraft, and that that in accordance with § 91.818(a)(7) measurable sonic boom overpressure’’ no sonic boom overpressures are will reach the surface. FAA proposed to the removal of this provision could have a serious impact on its aircraft that is allowed to reach the surface outside of retain this provision as § 91.818(b)(2). the test area. Moreover, as required by FAA stresses that the requirement to still in development. In the NPRM, FAA stated that it is not § 91.818(a)(6) and (c), the operator must show ‘‘no measureable sonic boom provide FAA with the information overpressure’’ applies only to flights seeking to propose alternatives to this provision as a means to approve routine necessary for the agency to assess the outside of a test area, and not as an environmental impacts resulting from application for operations in a requested civil supersonic flight, but simply seeks comment on whether the provision as such flights. test area under proposed Further, commenters’ written retains any current value. § 91.818(a)(8)(iv). recommendations either to replace the However, several commenters submitted Several commenters, including ‘‘no measurable sonic boom alternatives. New Frontier Aerospace prospective supersonic airframe and overpressure’’ standard with a specific suggested that in place of ‘‘no engine manufacturers, stated that the perceived decibel level or to remove it provision should be eliminated because measureable sonic boom’’ it would be entirely go beyond the scope of what it is overly restrictive and outdated. beneficial to provide a specific numeric FAA proposed and the intent of this Aerion stated that the provision ‘‘was limitation for overpressure or noise rulemaking, which is to modernize the originally adopted in the 1970s out of an levels. Aerion stated that the provision administrative process for applying for abundance of caution based on the should be replaced with a standard the special flight authorization. The relatively undeveloped state of sonic based on currently available sonic boom noise levels recommended by some boom technology at that time.’’ Aerion prediction control technology. Other commenters are relative to existing added that sonic boom prediction and commenters (GE Aviation, AIA, and noise levels applicable to subsonic control technology has advanced to the GAMA) suggested a more appropriate aircraft and would not be appropriate point where it is possible to make for measuring noise levels of aircraft 6 The inclusion of NEPA language and FAA Order accurate predictions of the location and 1050.1F in Boom’s comment on measurable sonic flying at supersonic speeds. There are intensity of sonic booms. Aerion and GE boom overpressure were addressed above in the no accepted means of measuring Aviation noted that the provision does NEPA comment disposition. supersonic noise, nor are there any

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3789

noise limits that have been deemed H. Necessary To Protect or Enhance the (NAS), particularly with ‘‘see and acceptable as a community standard, Environment avoid.’’ AOPA also commented that whether expressed in decibels or as FAA proposed § 91.818(c)(1) to FAA should carefully review any sonic overpressure. Establishing provide that an authorization will not be applications for overland flight below supersonic noise levels for operations granted ‘‘if the Administrator finds that 18,000 feet altitude, and conduct a safety risk assessment of how outside a test area would need to be such action is necessary to protect or supersonic airplane design may impact accomplished in a future rulemaking enhance the environment.’’ This speed restrictions below 10,000 feet and and supported by appropriate data. provision maintains the requirement the effectiveness of sense and avoid stated in section 1(d) of appendix B. None of the commenters suggested systems. anything more than a future expectation Commenters (GE Aviation, GAMA, and Most of AOPA’s considerations center that non-test flights might need to occur. AIA) generally opposed this provision around anticipation of eventual routine FAA fully expects that, at some point, and read it to suggest that the operation of supersonic aircraft in the flights outside a test area would need to Administrator would be required or able same airspace as smaller, slower occur. But FAA does not have a to deny an authorization because airplanes. This rule does not grant reasonable expectation of what might be approving such flights would not lead to authorizations to exceed Mach 1 in needed, since there have been no an enhancement of the environment. GE airspace where the flights would application for flights within a test area Aviation suggested that § 91.818(c)(1) negatively impact the safety of the NAS designated by an applicant and instead state that an application would or persons on the ground without approved by FAA (where prior not be denied if an applicant notice. This rule is limited to the demonstrates that the flights would not measurements would have to occur), application for an authorization to have a significant impact on the nor applications that describe a test area exceed Mach 1 during test flights over environment. that may need to be exceeded. After a specific area to be determined in each FAA notes that this language has been more testing occurs, and development application. The impact on routine in the regulation since its adoption in aviation operations would be a factor in has progressed to require such flights, the 1970s. Under this provision, the more modern standards for measuring analyzing the proposed flight area. Administrator may consider adverse Many of the considerations expressed supersonic noise events and their environmental impacts that would come impacts may have developed as well. At by AOPA speak to characteristics of from granting any particular flight individual airplane designs that would that time, the industry and FAA will be authorization. The provision does not better positioned to suggest supportable not be available for evaluation before create a presumption that any particular the aircraft actually fly or are presented changes to the rule on flights outside a application and grant would have to test area. For these reasons, the for certification. No change to the demonstrate a positive impact on the proposed regulation was suggested in suggestions that compare computer environment, as suggested by this comment. simulations of unrealized aircraft to the commenters. Commenters provided no noise of the current subsonic fleet are indication that the authorizations that K. Miscellaneous Comments not considered a sufficient basis to have been approved thus far have The Information Technology and change the standard for flights outside included or required any such Innovation Foundation suggested that a test area at this time, and no such demonstration of environmental FAA lift the supersonic ban based on changes were proposed. enhancement. Therefore, the provision speed and replace it with a set of noise Eliminating the ‘‘no measurable sonic is adopted as proposed. standards to provide clarity for boom overpressure’’ regulatory text is I. Using Software for Predictive Analysis manufacturers that are developing also not appropriate in this rulemaking. supersonic airplanes. FAA notes that The provision was adopted in the 1970s Commenters provided general the NPRM specifically mentioned that as a kind of relief valve to the suggestions that the rule should the proposed revisions did not affect the specifically allow applicants to use prohibition in § 91.817, based on the general prohibition on supersonic flight. software programs for predictive principle that a supersonic flight with As also noted, FAA took the first step analyses in applications for special no measureable overpressure (shown in developing noise standards for new flight authorizations. In response, FAA during previous flights in a valid test supersonic airplanes in its April 2020 notes that nothing in the existing or area) should not summarily be NPRM proposing changes to 14 CFR proposed rule prohibits an applicant prohibited. In that sense, the part 36. The comment is considered from using such prediction and control beyond the scope of this rulemaking. circumstances have not changed, and technologies to supplement its there is no current data to support either application for a special flight IV. Changes From the Proposed Rule eliminating the rule or determining a authorization. Further, FAA supports In the final rule, FAA made the level of acceptable measurable sonic applicants using existing software tools following changes from the proposed boom overpressure other than zero, to predict the location and intensity of rule: which would be necessary before flights sonic boom ground impacts as 1. Section 91.818(a)(6) was revised to outside a test area could be considered. supporting data in their test flight say ‘‘environmental information’’ rather FAA will continue to review advances authorization applications, as they are than ‘‘environmental analysis’’ to avoid in technology that affect noise values available and apply to an applicant’s confusion about the nature of the produced by supersonic airplanes and specific circumstances. No change in material being submitted. the evaluation of those noise events. the rule is made based on these 2. In § 91.818(c)(2), the subordinate Accordingly, as the provision represents comments. paragraphs describing the types of a safeguard from unknown sonic boom information that might be submitted by effects that may be unrelated to aircraft J. NAS Concerns an applicant were removed to prevent testing, no change to the rule is AOPA expressed concerns with the confusion over what information and supported by the comments, and safe integration of supersonic aircraft what format would be acceptable. Other § 91.818(b) is adopted as proposed. into the National Airspace System language in the paragraph was added to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 3790 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

clarify FAA’s responsibilities under (§ 91.817). This rule supports However, if an agency determines that NEPA, as noted above in the disposition innovation in the development of new a rule is not expected to have a of comments. civil supersonic aircraft by streamlining significant economic impact on a existing regulations. This rule substantial number of small entities, V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses streamlines the application procedure section 605(b) of the RFA provides that Changes to Federal regulations must for special flight authorizations by the head of the agency may so certify undergo several economic analyses. clarifying the information needed for and a regulatory flexibility analysis is First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 submission, and specifying the program not required. The certification must direct that each Federal agency shall office within FAA that processes the include a statement providing the propose or adopt a regulation only upon applications. This rule sets forth the factual basis for this determination, and a reasoned determination that the application criteria in a more user- the reasoning should be clear. benefits of the intended regulation friendly format. FAA is adopting this As noted in the Regulatory Evaluation justify its costs. In addition, DOT rule largely as it was proposed, with section, this final rule will not have rulemaking procedures in subpart B of some minor changes to the regulatory additional costs. Therefore, this final 49 CFR part 5 instruct DOT agencies to text, as discussed in Section IV and the rule would not have a significant issue a regulation upon a reasoned accompanying preamble discussion. economic impact on a substantial determination that benefits exceed As noted above, FAA provides a new number of firms. Therefore, as provided costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility reason for part 91 special flight in section 605(b), the head of FAA Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires authorizations—to measure the noise certifies that this rulemaking would not agencies to analyze the economic characteristics of an aircraft for result in a significant economic impact impact of regulatory changes on small compliance with noise certification on a substantial number of small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements requirements, including conducting entities. Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies noise testing during supersonic flight. C. International Trade Impact from setting standards that create This provision is beneficial as it Assessment unnecessary obstacles to the foreign anticipates the addition of future part 36 commerce of the United States. In noise certification requirements for The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 developing U.S. standards, this Trade supersonic aircraft. Including the (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the Act requires agencies to consider provision now will ensure the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. international standards and, where availability of testing as an option and L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies appropriate, that they be the basis of that it is not overlooked when the part from establishing standards or engaging U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 36 standards are established. in related activities that create Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. Since there are no substantive unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a changes to the requirements for these commerce of the United States. written assessment of the costs, benefits, special flight authorizations, this rule Pursuant to these Acts, the and other effects of proposed or final would not have additional costs. The establishment of standards is not rules that include a Federal mandate rule provides increased clarity for considered an unnecessary obstacle to likely to result in the expenditure by applicants and may reduce the number the foreign commerce of the United State, local, or tribal governments, in the of follow-up requests for additional States, so long as the standard has a aggregate, or by the private sector, of information between FAA and legitimate domestic objective, such as $100 million or more annually (adjusted applicants. the protection of safety, and does not for inflation with base year of 1995). operate in a manner that excludes B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination This portion of the preamble imports that meet this objective. The summarizes FAA’s analysis of the The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 statute also requires consideration of economic impacts of this final rule. (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes as a international standards and, where In conducting these analyses, FAA principle of regulatory issuance that appropriate, that they be the basis for has determined that this final rule: (1) agencies shall endeavor, consistent with U.S. standards. Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is the objectives of the rule and of FAA has assessed the potential effect not an economically ‘‘significant applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and of this final rule and has determined regulatory action’’ as defined in section informational requirements to the scale that it will have a legitimate domestic 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not of the businesses, organizations, and objective, in that it will provide ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s governmental jurisdictions subject to increased clarity and information to Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) regulation. To achieve this principle, applicants as to the requirements for will not have a significant economic agencies are required to solicit and special flight authorizations to test impact on a substantial number of small consider flexible regulatory proposals supersonic aircraft. This rule will not entities; (5) will not create unnecessary and to explain the rationale for their operate in a manner as to affect foreign obstacles to the foreign commerce of the actions to assure such proposals are trade directly and, therefore, will have United States; and (6) will not impose given serious consideration. The RFA little or no effect on foreign trade. an unfunded mandate on State, local, or covers a wide-range of small entities, D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment tribal governments, or on the private including small businesses, not-for- sector by exceeding the threshold profit organizations, and small Title II of the Unfunded Mandates identified above. These analyses are governmental jurisdictions. Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) summarized below. Agencies must perform a review to requires each Federal agency to prepare determine whether a rule will have a a written statement assessing the effects A. Regulatory Evaluation significant economic impact on a of any Federal mandate in a proposed or This rule amends the administrative substantial number of small entities. If final agency rule that may result in an requirements for a special flight the agency determines that it will, the expenditure of $100 million or more (in authorization originally published in agency must prepare a regulatory 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, appendix B to 14 CFR part 91, flexibility analysis as described in the local, and tribal governments, in the Authorizations to exceed Mach 1 RFA. aggregate, or by the private sector; such

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3791

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant Individuals and organizations may C. Executive Order 13609, International regulatory action.’’ FAA currently uses send comments on the information Cooperation an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 collection requirement to the address Executive Order 13609, Promoting million in lieu of $100 million. listed in the ADDRESSES section at the International Regulatory Cooperation, This rule does not contain such a beginning of this preamble by March 16, promotes international regulatory mandate. Therefore, the requirements of 2021. Comments also should be cooperation to meet shared challenges Title II of the Act do not apply. submitted to the Office of Management involving health, safety, labor, security, and Budget, Office of Information and E. Paperwork Reduction Act environmental, and other issues and to Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk reduce, eliminate, or prevent Officer for FAA, New Executive The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 unnecessary differences in regulatory Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street, (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that FAA requirements. FAA has analyzed this NW, Washington, DC 20503. consider the impact of paperwork and action under the policies and agency other information collection burdens F. International Compatibility responsibilities of Executive Order imposed on the public. According to the 13609, and has determined that this 1995 amendments to the Paperwork In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International action will not have an effect on Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), international regulatory cooperation. an agency may not collect or sponsor Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to the collection of information, nor may it conform to International Civil Aviation D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing impose an information collection Organization (ICAO) Standards and Regulation and Controlling Regulatory requirement unless it displays a Recommended Practices to the Costs maximum extent practicable. FAA has currently valid Office of Management This final rule is considered an E.O. and Budget (OMB) control number. reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 13771 deregulatory action. Details on This final rule contains the following the streamlining effects of this rule can amendments to the existing information and has identified no differences with these regulations. be found in the rule’s regulatory collection requirements for OMB evaluation. Control Number 2120–0005. As G. Environmental Analysis discussed in the NPRM, the original VII. How To Obtain Additional FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA Information estimated annual number of responses actions that are categorically excluded (applications) was high, 20 annually, from preparation of an environmental A. Rulemaking Documents and the annual time burden (hours per assessment or environmental impact response) was low, 14 hours. The An electronic copy of a rulemaking statement under the National document may be obtained by using the changes to both the number of annual Environmental Policy Act in the responses and the hours per request is internet— absence of extraordinary circumstances. 1. Search the Federal eRulemaking not a result of any of the changes FAA has determined that this described in this rulemaking, but Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); rulemaking action updating the 2. Visit FAA’s Regulations and reflects a change in the understanding of application process for special flight Policies web page at http:// both the number of applicants expected, authorizations qualifies for the www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or and the requirements for environmental categorical exclusion identified in 3. Access the Government Printing information between the original paragraph 5–6.6 and involves no Office’s web page at collection request and now. With extraordinary circumstances. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. limited PRA comment responses, FAA VI. Executive Order Determinations Copies may also be obtained by submits the following changes due to sending a request (identified by notice, agency discretion/experience of this A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism amendment, or docket number of this information collection to OMB for its FAA has analyzed this final rule rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation review and approval. under the principles and criteria of Administration, Office of Rulemaking, Summary: Authorization to exceed Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Mach 1 over land. agency determined that this action will Washington, DC 20591, or by calling Use: To authorize supersonic airplane not have a substantial direct effect on (202) 267–9680. test flights at approved sites. the States, or the relationship between B. Comments Submitted to the Docket Respondents (including number of): the Federal Government and the States, Three producers of civil supersonic or on the distribution of power and Comments received may be viewed by airplanes. responsibilities among the various going to http://www.regulations.gov and Frequency: Three applications in a levels of government, and, therefore, following the online instructions to three-year period. does not have federalism implications. search the docket number for this Annual Burden Estimate: One action. Anyone is able to search the application annually. B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations electronic form of all comments FAA estimates fully burdened labor That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, received into any of FAA’s dockets by cost to be about $200 per hour, making Distribution, or Use the name of the individual submitting the annual cost $200 × 40 = $8,000. This FAA analyzed this final rule under the comment (or signing the comment, estimate is based on the assumption that Executive Order 13211, Actions if submitted on behalf of an association, an applicant will not need to develop a Concerning Regulations that business, labor union, etc.). new environmental document for the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Administrator’s NEPA determination. Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). C. Small Business Regulatory FAA assumes that applicants would FAA has determined that it is not a Enforcement Fairness Act qualify to use airspace in U.S. military ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the The Small Business Regulatory test ranges where supersonic flights executive order and it is not likely to Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of already occur and a NEPA document have a significant adverse effect on the 1996 requires FAA to comply with already exists. supply, distribution, or use of energy. small entity requests for information or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1 3792 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

advice about compliance with statutes any environmental information required impacts resulting from the issuance of and regulations within its jurisdiction. to be submitted pursuant to paragraph an authorization for a particular flight A small entity with questions regarding (c) of this section; area pursuant to the National this document, may contact its local (7) All conditions and limitations on Environmental Policy Act of 1969 FAA official, or the person listed under the flight(s) that will ensure that no (NEPA) (42 U.S.C 4321 et seq.), all the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT measurable sonic boom overpressure applicable regulations implementing heading at the beginning of the will reach the surface outside of the NEPA, and related Executive orders and preamble. To find out more about proposed flight area; and guidance. Accordingly, each applicant SBREFA on the internet, visit http:// (8) The reason(s) that operation at a must provide information that www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ speed greater than Mach 1 is necessary. sufficiently describes the potential rulemaking/sbre_act/. A special flight authorization to exceed environmental impact of any flight in Mach 1 may be granted only for List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91 excess of Mach 1, including the effect of operations that are intended to: a sonic boom reaching the surface in the Aircraft, Aviation safety, Noise (i) Show compliance with proposed flight area, to enable the FAA control, Reporting and recordkeeping airworthiness requirements; to determine whether such impacts are requirements. (ii) Determine the sonic boom significant within the meaning of NEPA. characteristics of an aircraft; The Amendment (d) Issuance. An authorization to (iii) Establish a means of reducing or operate a civil aircraft in excess of Mach In consideration of the foregoing, the eliminating the effects of sonic boom, 1 may be issued only after an applicant Federal Aviation Administration including flight profiles and special has submitted the information described amends chapter I of title 14, Code of features of an aircraft; Federal Regulations as follows: (iv) Demonstrate the conditions and in this section and the Administrator limitations under which speeds in has taken the required action regarding PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND excess of Mach 1 will not cause a the environmental findings described in FLIGHT RULES measurable sonic boom overpressure to paragraph (c) of this section. (e) Duration. (1) An authorization to ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 91 reach the surface; or exceed Mach 1 will be granted for the continues to read as follows: (v) Measure the noise characteristics of an aircraft to demonstrate compliance time the Administrator determines Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, with noise requirements imposed under necessary to conduct the flights for the 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, described purposes. 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, this chapter, or to determine the limits 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, for operation in accordance with (2) An authorization to exceed Mach 46504, 46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 47528– § 91.817(b). 1 is effective until it expires or is 47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114–190, 130 Stat. 615 (9) For any purpose listed in surrendered. (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of paragraph (a)(8) of this section, each (3) An authorization to exceed Mach the Convention on International Civil applicant must indicate why its Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). 1 may be terminated, suspended, or intended operation cannot be safely or amended by the Administrator at any § 91.817 [Amended] properly accomplished over the ocean at time the Administrator finds that such a distance ensuring that no sonic boom ■ 2. In § 91.817(a) and (b)(2), remove the action is necessary to protect the overpressure reaches any land surface in environment. words ‘‘under appendix B of this part’’ the United States. and add in their place the words ‘‘in (b) Operation outside a test area. An (4) The holder of an authorization to accordance with § 91.818’’. applicant may apply for an exceed Mach 1 may request ■ 3. Add § 91.818 to read as follows: authorization to conduct flights outside reconsideration of a termination, a test area under certain conditions and amendment, or suspension issued under § 91.818 Special flight authorization to paragraph (e)(3) of this section within exceed Mach 1. limitations upon a conservative showing that: 30 days of notice of the action. Failure For all civil aircraft, any operation to request reconsideration and provide that exceeds Mach 1 may be conducted (1) Flight(s) within a test area have been conducted in accordance with an information why the Administrator’s only in accordance with a special flight action is not appropriate will result in authorization issued to an operator in authorization issued for the purpose specified in paragraph (a)(8)(iv) of this permanent termination of the accordance with the requirements of authorization. this section. section; (a) Application. Application for a (2) The results of the flight test(s) (5) Findings made by and actions special flight authorization to exceed required by paragraph (b)(1) of this taken by the Administrator under this Mach 1 must be made to the FAA Office section demonstrate that a speed in section do not affect any certificate of Environment and Energy for excess of Mach 1 does not cause a issued under chapter 447 of Title 49 of consideration by the Administrator. measurable sonic boom overpressure to the United States Code. Each application must include: reach the surface; and (3) The conditions and limitations Appendix B to Part 91—[Removed and (1) The name of the operator; Reserved] (2) The number and model(s) of the determined by the test(s) represent all aircraft to be operated; foreseeable operating conditions and are ■ 4. Remove and reserve appendix B to (3) The number of proposed flights; effective on all flights conducted under part 91. (4) The date range during which the an authorization. flight(s) would be conducted; (c) Environmental findings. (1) No Issued in Washington, DC, under the (5) The time of day the flight(s) would special flight authorization will be authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a)(5), and 44715, on January 4, 2021. be conducted. Proposed night granted if the Administrator finds that operations may require further such action is necessary to protect or Steve Dickson, justification for their necessity; enhance the environment. Administrator. (6) A description of the flight area (2) The Administrator is required to [FR Doc. 2021–00113 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] requested by the applicant, including consider the potential environmental BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:59 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM 15JAR1