[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3782-3792]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00113]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No.: FAA-2019-0451; Amdt. No. 91-362]
RIN 2120-AL30

Special Flight Authorizations for Supersonic Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In consideration of the continuing development of a new
generation of supersonic aircraft, FAA is modernizing the procedure for
requesting a special flight authorization to operate in excess of Mach
1 over land in the United States. The renewed interest in development
of supersonic airplanes caused FAA to review its application procedures
that allow for flight tests of these aircraft. This final rule modifies
the criteria for applying for these authorizations and moves the
material from an appendix to a regulation to make it easier to find and
understand. Outside the context of special flight authorizations under
this final rule, the FAA continues generally to prohibit civil
supersonic flight over land in the United States.

DATES: Effective February 16, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How
To Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this action,
contact: Sandy Liu, Office of Environment and Energy, AEE-100, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title
49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44715 Controlling aircraft
noise and sonic boom. Under that section, FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to measure and abate aircraft noise. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority since it provides for
certain operations of new supersonic aircraft in approved areas where
the environmental impact of the operations has been assessed.

I. Overview of Final Rule

    This rulemaking amends the administrative requirements for a
special flight authorization originally published as appendix B to part
91, Authorizations to exceed Mach 1 (Sec.  91.817), of title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This rulemaking is intended to
streamline the application procedure for these special flight
authorizations by clarifying the information that is needed for
submission and specifying the program office within FAA that processes
the applications. This rule sets forth the application criteria in a
more user-friendly format. FAA is adopting the rule largely as it was
proposed, with some minor changes to the regulatory text, as discussed
in Section IV and the accompanying preamble discussion.

II. Background

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Flight
Authorizations for Supersonic Aircraft (84 FR 30961, June 28, 2019),
FAA proposed to modernize the procedures for requesting special flight
authorizations that are needed to accomplish testing and development of
new supersonic aircraft. The NPRM provided a brief history of FAA's
regulation of civil supersonic aircraft beginning in the 1970s with the
introduction of the Concorde, including the history of the application
procedure for special flight authorizations that is the subject of this
rulemaking.
    FAA is clarifying the application procedure for requesting a
special flight authorization to fly faster than Mach 1 following
increased interest by industry to develop such aircraft. The revisions
adopted here do not change the general prohibition against overland
supersonic flight in the United States that has been in place since
1973 (14 CFR 91.817). This rule replaces the procedure described in
part 91, appendix B, with regulatory text that clearly describes the

application process and criteria. The new regulation provides clarity,
includes noise testing as another reason for which an authorization may
be issued, and requires one additional piece of information to be
provided in an application, which is discussed below. This rule does
not introduce any new FAA policy or change the intent of the original
application process.
    Recognizing the renewed interest of the aviation industry in
developing supersonic aircraft, Congress instructed FAA in Section 181
of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254, Oct. 5, 2018)
to assume a leadership role in the development of international
policies, regulations, and standards that facilitate the safe and
efficient operation of such aircraft. Section 181 further directed FAA
to undertake reforms of its regulations regarding civil supersonic
aircraft.
    FAA's first step in response to Section 181 was to propose changes
to the special flight authorization application process. The second
step was FAA's publication of an NPRM that proposes landing and takeoff
noise limits under 14 CFR part 36 for the first group of supersonic
aircraft expected to be presented for certification (85 FR 20431, Apr.
13, 2020). The relationship between the two rulemakings is minimal. An
aircraft developer would eventually use the final rule adopted here to
test aircraft under development at supersonic speed. Eventually, a
developer might further use the authorization procedure adopted here
for flight tests to demonstrate compliance with certain supersonic
noise criteria when those criteria are eventually adopted. The part 36
NPRM, by contrast, included only subsonic standards for new supersonic
aircraft and addressed the noise limits for landing and takeoff.
Because landing and takeoff do not occur at supersonic speeds, a
special flight authorization under this final rule would be unnecessary
to test for landing and takeoff noise levels of supersonic aircraft,
just as subsonic aircraft do not require such special permission to
accomplish part 36 testing.
    Neither this final rule nor the part 36 noise limit NPRM alters the
general prohibition on supersonic flight over land in the United States
found in Sec.  91.817.

Summary of the NPRM

    This modernization of the authorization process for certain civil
supersonic flights is intended to simplify and clarify the process for
applicants interested in obtaining an authorization to perform
supersonic aircraft development testing.
    In the proposed rule, FAA identified three areas intended to
improve provisions that comprised appendix B. The first designated the
proposed office in FAA to which applicants are to send applications and
direct questions. The second proposed to gather the scattered
application requirements into a list, and present them according to
modern regulatory formatting standards. As part of this effort, FAA
proposed also to correct the regulatory text for consistency throughout
the new section. Third, FAA proposed the addition of a new reason for
flight testing to accommodate future noise certification actions.
    The NPRM invited interested persons to participate in the
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. It also
invited comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposal.

III. Discussion of Public Comments

    FAA received a total of 206 comments on the NPRM: 43 comments
generally supported the NPRM, 45 generally opposed the NPRM, and 118
are considered outside the scope of the rule. The majority of comments
from the public focused on the current routing of aircraft under the
NextGen program, or expressed general annoyance regarding aircraft
noise, and did not include any comments specific to the proposal
updating the application procedure.

A. General Environmental Concerns Regarding Civil Supersonic Flight

    Approximately 77 commenters included some combination of general
concerns about the possible environmental effects of supersonic
airplanes--whether they were about the noise anticipated from new
supersonic airplanes, the effect of supersonic operations on the
atmosphere, or both. Some commenters generally cited the Concorde model
airplanes as an example. Those opposing the rule, including two
municipalities, stated their opposition to the addition of supersonic
airplanes, citing detrimental environmental effects, but did not
comment on the changes proposed for the application procedure.
    In response, FAA emphasizes that the proposed rule would not have
allowed supersonic flights to occur on a regular basis in the United
States. The regulation that generally prohibits civil airplanes from
operating at speeds in excess of Mach 1 over land in the United States
(14 CFR 91.817) has been in effect since 1973, and no change to that
regulation was proposed.
    Rather, the proposed rule focused on the administrative application
process for special flight authorizations to exceed Mach 1 for certain
reasons, and for flight in limited areas that would be determined in
advance. The rule does not in and of itself authorize the operation of
any specific airplane over any particular area; rather, any flights
authorized under the rule could only occur upon receiving FAA
authorization after completion of the application process and
considerable regulatory prerequisites, including analyses of the
environmental impacts on the area over which an applicant proposes to
operate, as required by law. Neither these regulatory prerequisites nor
the assessments of environmental impacts were the subject of FAA's
proposed changes. Comments that suggested changes to the required
assessments were beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    The special flight authorizations that are the subject of this
rulemaking have been available since the FAA adopted the supersonic
prohibition in 1973. This rulemaking only presents an update of the
administrative application process, without affecting FAA's underlying
duty to assess the environmental impact of any flight it authorizes,
whether under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the
requirements imposed by the regulation itself.

B. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    Paragraph (b) of appendix B to part 91 directed applicants
generally to submit ``all information requested by the Administrator''
necessary for the Administrator to make a determination under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).\1\ In the proposed rule, FAA
tried to provide applicants with better clarity by adding the text in
proposed Sec.  91.818(c)(2)(i)-(iii) to suggest the form that such
information might take to support FAA's NEPA determination.
Specifically, the proposed language gave as examples an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed flight area, an EIS previously
prepared for the proposed flight area, or another statement or finding
of environmental impact for the proposed flight test area, such as an
Environmental Assessment (EA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final rule, FAA revises Sec.  91.818(c)(2) to remove these
suggestions, because they proved to be a source of confusion among

commenters, as discussed below. The proposed language providing more
detail about what an applicant could submit was not intended to imply
that FAA would forego independently evaluating the information or
closely examining the environmental impacts on a proposed test area in
determining whether to grant a particular special flight authorization.
The language was also not intended to imply shifting the burden of
complying with NEPA to the applicant rather than FAA.
    NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental
impacts of their actions in their decision-making processes.
Specifically, an agency must determine whether the action it is
considering (in this case, whether to issue a special flight
authorization allowing one or more supersonic flights) constitutes a
``major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment'' (i.e., whether a proposed action would have significant
environmental impact). FAA makes this determination in accordance with
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations,\2\ which provide
the procedural requirements for Federal agency compliance with NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CEQ regulations include, at 40 CFR 1506.5, the option for agencies
to seek necessary information from applicants to support the agency's
required environmental review of proposed Federal actions under
NEPA.\3\ That analysis may require varying amounts and types of data to
make the determination whether approval of the underlying request would
result in significant environmental impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The CEQ regulations were updated in July 2020, while this
final rule was in process. See 85 FR 43304 (July 16, 2020). The
revised CEQ regulations became effective on September 14, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to complete that analysis in a timely fashion, FAA
benefits from applicants' providing as much of the information as they
can, in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.5.\4\ That information may be
incorporated into an EA or EIS that is developed subject to FAA
supervision, or it may provide the basis for FAA to apply a categorical
exclusion of the action from further NEPA review.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The regulation states that ``an agency may require an
applicant to submit environmental information for possible use by
the agency in preparing an environmental document.'' The regulation
does not allow the agency to use such information without
considerable additional analysis and verification.
    \5\ FAA's NEPA procedures, as set forth in FAA Order 1050.1F,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures (July, 2015), do not
currently have a categorical exclusion that would be applicable to
applications for special flight authorizations. Accordingly, current
FAA policy would not allow application of a categorical exclusion.
However, as discussed further below, FAA might be able to establish
an applicable categorical exclusion, but only after following
appropriate procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nothing in the special flight authorization regulation, however,
either requires or permits applicants for special flight authorizations
to determine what level of NEPA review is required or whether issuance
of a special flight authorization would have significant environmental
impacts. Those determinations are FAA's alone.
    Further, FAA's finding under NEPA regarding the significance of
environmental effects is not dispositive of the application under
consideration. The NEPA analysis informs FAA's decision on whether to
grant a special flight authorization for supersonic flight over a
certain area, and the NEPA analysis must be completed before a decision
to grant a special flight authorization. However, the NEPA
determination (regarding significance of the environmental effects of
granting the authorization) is distinct from the Administrator's
findings on the application as a whole. The circumstances behind each
application will be unique. Under Sec.  91.818(c)(1) of the final rule,
the application is denied if the Administrator finds that such action
is necessary to protect or enhance the environment.
    Because both the NEPA determination referenced in Sec.
91.818(c)(2) and the substantive finding that can be made under Sec.
91.818(c)(1) are environmental in nature, the final rule is revised to
guard against the risk of the two being conflated. Specifically, Sec.
91.818(c)(2) as adopted focuses more expressly on supporting the NEPA
significance determination, which better distinguishes the purpose of
paragraph (c)(2) from the purpose of an Administrator finding made
under paragraph (c)(1) of that section.
    Boom Technology (Boom) submitted a comment regarding streamlining
the NEPA process in the context of special flight authorizations. Boom
initially presents two factual conclusions. Boom's first conclusion is
that FAA would be unlikely to identify any significant sonic boom noise
impacts for individual supersonic flight test programs under the FAA's
threshold of significance for noise impacts in its NEPA procedures (FAA
Order 1050.1). Boom's second conclusion is that the FAA
programmatically could examine all supersonic test flight campaigns
covering all applicants in a single year without the impacts triggering
the FAA's threshold of significance for noise. Boom supports these
conclusions with metrics from previous flights of the SpaceX Falcon
Heavy landings and operations of the Concorde. Based on its conclusion
that impacts of special flight authorizations would never reach FAA's
threshold of significance for noise impacts, either individually or
cumulatively on an annual basis, Boom proposes a series of qualifying
criteria that, if met, should lead FAA to presume no significant
impacts exist.
    FAA finds that this proposal fails for two reasons. First, as Boom
acknowledged, FAA may use supplemental metrics when evaluating noise,
and gives special consideration to certain types of noise-sensitive
areas where the standard significance threshold may not adequately
capture environmental effects. Although FAA uses all available methods
to increase efficiency in its environmental review process, and in
appropriate individual circumstances could make a finding of no
significant impact for some or even most special flight authorizations,
it cannot prejudge the outcome of individual applications submitted
under this regulation, or their effects if considered cumulatively on
an annual basis.
    Second, Boom's proposal to create criteria that, if satisfied,
create a presumption that no significant effects will occur appears to
be consistent with establishing a categorical exclusion under 40 CFR
1501.4. Categorical exclusions are categories of actions that in
ordinary circumstances do not have significant individual or cumulative
impacts on the quality of the human environment. However, although Boom
suggested that the Administrator could use this rulemaking to establish
that the collective level of noise generated by all foreseeable test
activities is not environmentally significant if conducted pursuant to
these particular conditions, categorical exclusions must be identified
in agency NEPA procedures and are subject to the requirements for
public review and review by CEQ as specified in 40 CFR 1507.3.
Moreover, the anecdotal evidence offered by Boom related to flights of
other aircraft that were not subject to Sec.  91.817 would not be
sufficient to establish a categorical exclusion under NEPA with respect
to supersonic flights requested in a special flight authorization. The
establishment of ``parameters'' relating to the NEPA review of
supersonic flight tests would require an analysis of part 91 operations
in order to justify a categorical exclusion, and the supporting
documentation would need to go through the public process required for
all changes to FAA's NEPA procedures

as set forth in Order 1050.1F. Although at some point in the future FAA
might undertake the necessary analysis and public review process to
establish such a categorical exclusion, absent a change to Order
1050.1F, FAA currently must individually consider the potential
environmental impacts of requested special flight authorizations.
    Boom also commented on an aspect of the proposed standard for
special flight authorization operations outside the test area--in
particular, that the operation does not cause a measurable sonic boom
overpressure outside the test area. While that topic is discussed
below, Boom's characterization of it in the context of NEPA is relevant
here. Boom indicated that the standard (unchanged from appendix B)
``goes far beyond what is required under the National Environmental
Policy Act, as allowance of measurable overpressure is not necessarily
a major Federal action `significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment' as interpreted under agency guidance under Order
1050.1F . . .'' Boom inaccurately combined the scope of the regulation
governing the consideration and approval of special flight
authorizations itself with the process tool of NEPA and FAA Order
1050.1F, which describes FAA's NEPA policy and procedures. Further,
Boom does not accurately reflect the definition of a major Federal
action as defined by the CEQ regulations and FAA, relying on concepts
actually related to significance of effects of a Federal action. The
overpressure measurement standard is a specific factor set forth in the
regulation that considers the effect of the proposed flights and is
relevant for substantive approval purposes under the regulation. While
this information may also be considered in NEPA analysis, it does not
dictate that analysis, nor does it affect the process that FAA follows
to reach a finding regarding significance of impacts under NEPA.
    The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) made several arguments
with regard to NEPA requirements in its comment. In part, the CBD read
the proposed rule to ``suggest that preparation of an EA will fulfill
FAA's duties'' under NEPA. The CBD also commented that the list of
examples in proposed Sec.  91.818(c)(2) suggesting the form of
information an applicant could provide ``oversimplifies the NEPA review
process'' for FAA. As stated at the beginning of this discussion, FAA
agrees that the submission of information by an applicant (whether to
support an EIS, EA, categorical exclusion, or other materials) does not
itself satisfy NEPA requirements, which remains FAA's duty. Further,
FAA did not intend for the applicant's submission, whatever form it may
take, to represent the completion of the NEPA process. That process
involves, where appropriate, public outreach, FAA's objective
evaluation of any information prepared by the applicant, as well as the
exercise of independent judgment as to whether the NEPA process can be
concluded with a finding of no significant impact, or whether it
requires preparation of an environmental impact statement.
    The CBD concluded that, ``Because Special Flight Authorizations for
Supersonic Aircraft are major federal actions, an application for such
authorization would trigger the need to prepare an EIS.'' This
conclusion is based on CBD's reading of the 1970 preamble that
accompanied the adoption of the supersonic prohibition. FAA disagrees
that the 1970 rule presumed that all supersonic flights were likely to
create significant environmental impacts under NEPA and therefore
require FAA to produce an EIS. While an application for a special
flight authorization is a major Federal action subject to NEPA review,
the specific facts associated with such an application determine what
level of NEPA review is required. CBD presupposes a universal outcome
regarding the proper level of NEPA review, disregarding the fact-
specific nature of this determination.
    The proposed addition of the form of information to be submitted by
applicants caused some commenters to misunderstand the FAA's intent,
and is an indication that the proposed regulatory changes were not
helpful. Accordingly, FAA has removed proposed Sec.  91.818(c)(2)(i)
through (iii) from the final rule. This final rule revises the language
in Sec.  91.818(c)(2) to modernize it consistent with the recently
revised CEQ regulations and the NEPA practice as it has developed since
appendix B was first promulgated. The revised language clarifies that
the information needed to support any particular application will be
considered by FAA in its determination of whether the environmental
impacts of the special flight authorization are significant. The
provision of this information and the subsequent development of the
appropriate level of environmental documentation will be carried out in
accordance with the CEQ regulations and FAA procedures in the most
recent version of FAA Order 1050.1.

C. Application Approval Process

    In proposed paragraph (a) of Sec.  91.818, the FAA sought to locate
into a more-user friendly format the application requirements
previously scattered throughout appendix B to part 91. Specifically,
proposed Sec.  91.818(a)(6) would require a ``description of the flight
area requested by the applicant, including any environment analysis
required under paragraph (c) of this section.'' This requirement was
unchanged from appendix B.
    GE Aviation and Boom suggested that FAA adopt an expedited
application approval process under certain circumstances. As a means to
this expedited approval, both commenters suggested that a pre-approved
set of parameters could form the basis for these approvals. GE Aviation
suggested automatic approval when an applicant can show ``that there
have been no meaningful changes in the expected environmental
impacts.'' Noting what it considered a recognized lack of significant
environmental impact (discussed above), Boom stated that a predefined
set of parameters would provide certainty and reduce costs for
manufacturers as well as reduce the burden on the FAA.
    FAA is not adopting the suggested expedited application approval
process. First, the FAA does not find that pre-approved circumstances
can be determined, because there are several factors FAA considers for
each application for supersonic testing, including performance of the
particular aircraft. Second, the time-sensitive nature of environmental
considerations can make prior determinations unreliable without
reassessment at the time of each application, and could cause the FAA
to fail in its environmental responsibilities. Under FAA policy,
environmental assessments or EISs are not presumed valid indefinitely;
after three years, a written reevaluation must be prepared. (See FAA
Order 1050.1F.) However, FAA would accept previous environmental
analyses of a proposed flight area as long as the material remains
current and relevant, or has been updated by an applicant to meet those
requirements. Third, FAA intends with this rulemaking to consider all
applications uniformly. While the actual number of applications for
authorization has been limited, FAA experience is that incomplete
information submitted by an applicant has caused delays in the
authorization approval process.
    While FAA is not changing the requirement in Sec.  98.818(a)(6),
FAA has revised it slightly from the proposed

rule to clarify that the requirement calls for information that
supports analyses rather than the analyses themselves.

D. Test Area Selections

    The term ``designated test area'' in appendix B created confusion
for prospective applicants that interpreted the phrase to mean that
designated test areas already exist, when they in fact do not. Rather,
the term was used to refer to the proposed test area described
(designated) in an application. FAA proposed eliminating this phrase
and replacing it with Sec.  91.818(a)(6) requiring an applicant to
describe its requested test area in its application. Description of the
proposed test area is one consideration in determining the
acceptability of the application overall.
    Several commenters stated that the final rule should provide more
flexibility for test area selections to allow more than one operator to
use a test area, and to support the development of test areas outside
of military operation areas (MOAs). GE Aviation, Aerospace Industries
Association (AIA), General Aviation Manufacturer's Association (GAMA),
Supersonic Flight Alliance (SSFA), AeroTEC, and Boom suggested that FAA
allow multiple manufacturers to use the same flight test area, as
opposed to limiting areas to a single flight test campaign. Generally,
the commenters stated that doing so would provide safer and more
effective testing, and cost-saving benefits to industry and FAA.
Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed) suggested establishing dedicated
supersonic flight test areas. Additionally, Boom, SSFA, and AeroTEC
expressed the general need for supersonic test areas outside of MOAs,
citing concerns such as crowded airspace within MOAs and lack of
available MOAs for civil flight testing. The Town of Milton,
Massachusetts, stated that test sites should not be determined by
industry applicants and urged FAA to limit test sites to MOAs.
    To support current industry development efforts, FAA provides
supersonic flight test applicants with the broadest opportunity to
request an appropriate flight test area, consistent with the applicable
regulations and environmental impacts. FAA emphasizes that the
regulation does not limit a flight test area to use by one applicant.
As stated in the NPRM, nothing about the application process should be
read to impede more than one prospective supersonic operator from
seeking to use the same area or sharing the costs of the environmental
studies that may be required (85 FR 30961, at 30964). FAA does expect,
however, that each operator intending to share the use of, or the costs
associated with requesting, a test area will need to submit its own
application with all of the information required for the processing of
the application. In the case of a test area that has been previously
approved under another application, the next applicant will need to
submit information that includes a description of the (same) requested
test area and the required environmental information.
    The final rule does not include suggestions from commenters for the
FAA to establish ``dedicated'' test areas or a ``civilian supersonic
corridor'' without proposed users or without a specific application.
The regulation requires an applicant to show the probable impact of the
applicant's requested operations over a proposed test area. There can
be no proper determination of any environmental impact on a test area
without a proposal from an operator that includes the timing, duration,
and expected noise impacts of the operator's planned flights. A change
in this fundamental nature of the process would require additional
rulemaking and analysis.
    Moreover, the final rule, as is the case under the existing
regulation, does not limit proposed test areas to MOAs. Several
commenters disagreed with what they perceived to be FAA's assumption
that applicants will only test within existing MOAs. The commenters
note that MOAs may not be suitable for civil supersonic testing and
that applicants may develop their own supersonic test areas. The
commenters' concern might reflect a misunderstanding stemming from the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) statement that was published as part of
the NPRM (see 84 FR 30965-66). FAA is required to estimate the
information collection burden involved in complying with a regulation.
FAA's only historical data for special flight authorization came from
applications proposing to use MOAs as test areas. FAA was thus unable
to estimate any reliable information collection impact on future
applicants for anything other than using a MOA that has underlying
environmental data already available. But the use of MOAs as part of
the required PRA statements supporting this rulemaking was not an
indication that the rule prevents an applicant from choosing other
areas. The choice of test area remains with each applicant after
assessing its financial considerations and business needs.
    Finally, nothing in the regulation prevents a group of operators
from sharing the costs of establishing a test area. As a matter of
implementation, there must be a ``first'' applicant that submits all of
the required information for FAA to make the first determination about
an area based on the proposed flights. Subsequent applicants could use
the same information, and include any differences that apply to the
subsequent applicant, such as duration of the authorization, number of
flights, or probable impact. The need for each operator individually to
apply for and receive an authorization remains unchanged from the
current requirements. No changes are being made to the requirement to
describe the test areas based on these comments.

E. Conducting Noise Testing During Supersonic Flight

    FAA proposed the measurement of noise characteristics in Sec.
91.818(a)(8)(v) as an additional reason to conduct a supersonic flight.
The new provision allows for the FAA to issue a special flight
authorization for flights in excess of Mach 1 when measuring the noise
characteristics of an aircraft for compliance with noise certification
requirements, including conducting a noise test during supersonic
flight. Appendix B addressed only flights necessary to comply with
airworthiness certification testing, not noise tests. This change is
forward-looking, as there are no standards for assessing noise at
supersonic speed at this time. This limited expansion will facilitate
noise certification testing for future supersonic aircraft when such
noise standards are adopted. On April 13, 2020, FAA issued an NPRM
proposing noise certification standards for a certain class of new
supersonic airplanes under part 36 (85 FR 20431), but those proposed
standards are only for subsonic landing and takeoff. No special flight
authorization would be needed to conduct the tests for subsonic noise
compliance (landing and takeoff), as that noise is proposed to be
measured in the same manner as subsonic aircraft.
    GE Aviation commented that the rule should address the full set of
circumstances for requesting a special flight authorization, including
requirements for testing airworthiness and operational capabilities.
FAA notes that the proposed change allows an additional reason to
request testing. The rule has always required applicants to specify the
reason particular tests need to be conducted from the list provided in
the regulation. FAA has not proposed to remove any of the general
reasons from appendix B that an operator may have to test an airplane,
including airworthiness testing.

    Accordingly, the provision is adopted as proposed.

F. Overocean Testing

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

G. Operation Outside a Test Area

    FAA proposed a new Sec.  91.818(b) to maintain the provisions in
section 2(b) of appendix B that allow an applicant to request
supersonic non-test flights outside of a test area. The prerequisites
for this supersonic operation are considerable and are discussed below.

    1. Foreseeable Operating Conditions Outside of a Test Area
    Proposed Sec.  91.818(b)(3) would maintain the requirement of
appendix B section 2(b) that a supersonic non-test flight applicant
show--as part of a prior test conducted inside a test area--that
``[t]he conditions and limitations determined by that test present all
foreseeable operating conditions and are effective on all flights
conducted under an authorization.''
    Aerion, GE Aviation, AIA, and GAMA stated that this requirement is
unreasonable because it is not possible to predict all conditions under
which an aircraft may operate. Aerion noted that the appendix B
requirement originated before reliable sonic boom prediction
technologies existed. All four commenters suggested replacing Sec.
91.818(b)(3) with a standard based on currently available sonic boom
prediction and control technology.
    In general, the phrases ``conditions and limitations'' and
``operating conditions,'' as they are commonly applied to any flight
authorization, do not require operators or FAA to predict every
conceivable operating condition that may occur. FAA clarifies that
``all foreseeable operating conditions'' refers to the reasonable
expected conditions under which the aircraft would be operated, and is
not meant to require a prediction of every possible condition.
2. Measurable Sonic Boom Overpressure Outside of a Test Area
    The application for operation outside a test area also includes a
requirement that allows for such flights when it conservatively can be
shown that ``no measurable sonic boom overpressure'' will reach the
surface. FAA proposed to retain this provision as Sec.  91.818(b)(2).
FAA stresses that the requirement to show ``no measureable sonic boom
overpressure'' applies only to flights outside of a test area, and not
as an application for operations in a requested test area under
proposed Sec.  91.818(a)(8)(iv).
    Several commenters, including prospective supersonic airframe and
engine manufacturers, stated that the provision should be eliminated
because it is overly restrictive and outdated. Aerion stated that the
provision ``was originally adopted in the 1970s out of an abundance of
caution based on the relatively undeveloped state of sonic boom
technology at that time.'' Aerion added that sonic boom prediction and
control technology has advanced to the point where it is possible to
make accurate predictions of the location and intensity of sonic booms.
Aerion and GE Aviation noted that the provision does not recognize the
possibility for a sonic boom to be produced that is barely noticeable
on the ground, but can still be detected by scientific measurement,
such as a small pressure disturbance. SSFA and AeroTEC referenced
NASA's supersonic flight tests that show overpressure wave remnants at
ground level that do not have the sharp-edged characteristic of a sonic
boom. Boom indicated that the standard (unchanged from appendix B)
``goes far beyond what is required under the National Environmental
Policy Act, as allowance of measurable overpressure is not necessarily
a major Federal action `significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment' as interpreted under agency guidance under Order
1050.1F.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The inclusion of NEPA language and FAA Order 1050.1F in
Boom's comment on measurable sonic boom overpressure were addressed
above in the NEPA comment disposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters also supported the elimination of the provision.
Both AIA and GAMA read the phrase ``no measurable sonic boom'' to be an
absolute prohibition on supersonic operations, finding it overly
restrictive and something ``that an applicant would be unable to
guarantee during a test flight.'' The Town of Milton, Massachusetts,
stated that FAA should remove Sec.  91.818(b) in its entirety because
no aircraft can satisfy the ``no overpressure'' provision, adding that
it should be replaced by a new regulation only after supersonic testing
demonstrates no measurable sonic boom overpressure.
    New Frontier Aerospace is the only commenter that supported
retaining the provision, stating that it foresees the need to apply for
the Sec.  91.818(b) operating allowance in order to conduct extensive
testing of an aircraft, and that the removal of this provision could
have a serious impact on its aircraft that is still in development.
    In the NPRM, FAA stated that it is not seeking to propose
alternatives to this provision as a means to approve routine civil
supersonic flight, but simply seeks comment on whether the provision as
written retains any current value. However, several commenters
submitted alternatives. New Frontier Aerospace suggested that in place
of ``no measureable sonic boom'' it would be beneficial to provide a
specific numeric limitation for overpressure or noise levels. Aerion
stated that the provision should be replaced with a standard based on
currently available sonic boom prediction control technology. Other
commenters (GE Aviation, AIA, and GAMA) suggested a more appropriate
standard than ``no measurable sonic boom overpressure'' would be to
ensure that no significant impacts on the environment or communities
result from granting an authorization.
    The scope of the provision, both as it appears in the appendix and
in the proposed rule, appears to be a continued source of confusion for
some commenters. The section in the appendix that was proposed as Sec.
91.818(b) sets the ``no measurable sonic boom overpressure'' criterion
only for civil supersonic flights that would take place outside a test
area. Several commenters seemed to presume inaccurately that this
standard would be applied to all applications for special flight
authorizations, even those that would be within a test area. The
requirement to show conservatively that no measurable sonic boom
overpressure reaches the surface does not apply to test flights that
are authorized to be conducted in an approved test area. An operator
with an authorization to flight test at supersonic speeds for one of
the permissible purposes set forth in Sec.  91.818(a)(8) may
potentially (subject to the conditions and limitations of its
authorization) operate a flight that results in sonic boom
overpressures reaching the surface inside the test area, as expected.
Accordingly, FAA disagrees that the standard is overly restrictive. It
restricts sonic boom overpressures from reaching the surface when
flights are conducted outside of test areas, consistent with the
overall intent of the regulations to prohibit routine or non-test
supersonic flights over land. FAA emphasizes, though, that in
accordance with Sec.  91.818(a)(7) no sonic boom overpressures are
allowed to reach the surface outside of the test area. Moreover, as
required by Sec.  91.818(a)(6) and (c), the operator must provide FAA
with the information necessary for the agency to assess the
environmental impacts resulting from such flights.
    Further, commenters' recommendations either to replace the ``no
measurable sonic boom overpressure'' standard with a specific perceived
decibel level or to remove it entirely go beyond the scope of what FAA
proposed and the intent of this rulemaking, which is to modernize the
administrative process for applying for the special flight
authorization. The noise levels recommended by some commenters are
relative to existing noise levels applicable to subsonic aircraft and
would not be appropriate for measuring noise levels of aircraft flying
at supersonic speeds. There are no accepted means of measuring
supersonic noise, nor are there any

noise limits that have been deemed acceptable as a community standard,
whether expressed in decibels or as sonic overpressure. Establishing
supersonic noise levels for operations outside a test area would need
to be accomplished in a future rulemaking and supported by appropriate
data.
    None of the commenters suggested anything more than a future
expectation that non-test flights might need to occur. FAA fully
expects that, at some point, flights outside a test area would need to
occur. But FAA does not have a reasonable expectation of what might be
needed, since there have been no application for flights within a test
area designated by an applicant and approved by FAA (where prior
measurements would have to occur), nor applications that describe a
test area that may need to be exceeded. After more testing occurs, and
development has progressed to require such flights, more modern
standards for measuring supersonic noise events and their impacts may
have developed as well. At that time, the industry and FAA will be
better positioned to suggest supportable changes to the rule on flights
outside a test area. For these reasons, the suggestions that compare
computer simulations of unrealized aircraft to the noise of the current
subsonic fleet are not considered a sufficient basis to change the
standard for flights outside a test area at this time, and no such
changes were proposed.
    Eliminating the ``no measurable sonic boom overpressure''
regulatory text is also not appropriate in this rulemaking. The
provision was adopted in the 1970s as a kind of relief valve to the
prohibition in Sec.  91.817, based on the principle that a supersonic
flight with no measureable overpressure (shown during previous flights
in a valid test area) should not summarily be prohibited. In that
sense, the circumstances have not changed, and there is no current data
to support either eliminating the rule or determining a level of
acceptable measurable sonic boom overpressure other than zero, which
would be necessary before flights outside a test area could be
considered. FAA will continue to review advances in technology that
affect noise values produced by supersonic airplanes and the evaluation
of those noise events. Accordingly, as the provision represents a
safeguard from unknown sonic boom effects that may be unrelated to
aircraft testing, no change to the rule is supported by the comments,
and Sec.  91.818(b) is adopted as proposed.

H. Necessary To Protect or Enhance the Environment

    FAA proposed Sec.  91.818(c)(1) to provide that an authorization
will not be granted ``if the Administrator finds that such action is
necessary to protect or enhance the environment.'' This provision
maintains the requirement stated in section 1(d) of appendix B.
Commenters (GE Aviation, GAMA, and AIA) generally opposed this
provision and read it to suggest that the Administrator would be
required or able to deny an authorization because approving such
flights would not lead to an enhancement of the environment. GE
Aviation suggested that Sec.  91.818(c)(1) instead state that an
application would not be denied if an applicant demonstrates that the
flights would not have a significant impact on the environment.
    FAA notes that this language has been in the regulation since its
adoption in the 1970s. Under this provision, the Administrator may
consider adverse environmental impacts that would come from granting
any particular flight authorization. The provision does not create a
presumption that any particular application and grant would have to
demonstrate a positive impact on the environment, as suggested by
commenters. Commenters provided no indication that the authorizations
that have been approved thus far have included or required any such
demonstration of environmental enhancement. Therefore, the provision is
adopted as proposed.

I. Using Software for Predictive Analysis

    Commenters provided general suggestions that the rule should
specifically allow applicants to use software programs for predictive
analyses in applications for special flight authorizations. In
response, FAA notes that nothing in the existing or proposed rule
prohibits an applicant from using such prediction and control
technologies to supplement its application for a special flight
authorization. Further, FAA supports applicants using existing software
tools to predict the location and intensity of sonic boom ground
impacts as supporting data in their test flight authorization
applications, as they are available and apply to an applicant's
specific circumstances. No change in the rule is made based on these
comments.

J. NAS Concerns

    AOPA expressed concerns with the safe integration of supersonic
aircraft into the National Airspace System (NAS), particularly with
``see and avoid.'' AOPA also commented that FAA should carefully review
any applications for overland flight below 18,000 feet altitude, and
conduct a safety risk assessment of how supersonic airplane design may
impact speed restrictions below 10,000 feet and the effectiveness of
sense and avoid systems.
    Most of AOPA's considerations center around anticipation of
eventual routine operation of supersonic aircraft in the same airspace
as smaller, slower airplanes. This rule does not grant authorizations
to exceed Mach 1 in airspace where the flights would negatively impact
the safety of the NAS or persons on the ground without notice. This
rule is limited to the application for an authorization to exceed Mach
1 during test flights over a specific area to be determined in each
application. The impact on routine aviation operations would be a
factor in analyzing the proposed flight area. Many of the
considerations expressed by AOPA speak to characteristics of individual
airplane designs that would not be available for evaluation before the
aircraft actually fly or are presented for certification. No change to
the proposed regulation was suggested in this comment.

K. Miscellaneous Comments

    The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation suggested that
FAA lift the supersonic ban based on speed and replace it with a set of
noise standards to provide clarity for manufacturers that are
developing supersonic airplanes. FAA notes that the NPRM specifically
mentioned that the proposed revisions did not affect the general
prohibition on supersonic flight. As also noted, FAA took the first
step in developing noise standards for new supersonic airplanes in its
April 2020 NPRM proposing changes to 14 CFR part 36. The comment is
considered beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

IV. Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In the final rule, FAA made the following changes from the proposed
rule:
    1. Section 91.818(a)(6) was revised to say ``environmental
information'' rather than ``environmental analysis'' to avoid confusion
about the nature of the material being submitted.
    2. In Sec.  91.818(c)(2), the subordinate paragraphs describing the
types of information that might be submitted by an applicant were
removed to prevent confusion over what information and what format
would be acceptable. Other language in the paragraph was added to

clarify FAA's responsibilities under NEPA, as noted above in the
disposition of comments.

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. In addition, DOT rulemaking procedures in subpart B of 49 CFR
part 5 instruct DOT agencies to issue a regulation upon a reasoned
determination that benefits exceed costs. Second, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze
the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting
standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act
requires agencies to consider international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies
to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other
effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes FAA's analysis of the
economic impacts of this final rule.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on
State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized
below.

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule amends the administrative requirements for a special
flight authorization originally published in appendix B to 14 CFR part
91, Authorizations to exceed Mach 1 (Sec.  91.817). This rule supports
innovation in the development of new civil supersonic aircraft by
streamlining existing regulations. This rule streamlines the
application procedure for special flight authorizations by clarifying
the information needed for submission, and specifying the program
office within FAA that processes the applications. This rule sets forth
the application criteria in a more user-friendly format. FAA is
adopting this rule largely as it was proposed, with some minor changes
to the regulatory text, as discussed in Section IV and the accompanying
preamble discussion.
    As noted above, FAA provides a new reason for part 91 special
flight authorizations--to measure the noise characteristics of an
aircraft for compliance with noise certification requirements,
including conducting noise testing during supersonic flight. This
provision is beneficial as it anticipates the addition of future part
36 noise certification requirements for supersonic aircraft. Including
the provision now will ensure the availability of testing as an option
and that it is not overlooked when the part 36 standards are
established.
    Since there are no substantive changes to the requirements for
these special flight authorizations, this rule would not have
additional costs. The rule provides increased clarity for applicants
and may reduce the number of follow-up requests for additional
information between FAA and applicants.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure such proposals are given
serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    As noted in the Regulatory Evaluation section, this final rule will
not have additional costs. Therefore, this final rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of firms.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of FAA certifies
that this rulemaking would not result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and has
determined that it will have a legitimate domestic objective, in that
it will provide increased clarity and information to applicants as to
the requirements for special flight authorizations to test supersonic
aircraft. This rule will not operate in a manner as to affect foreign
trade directly and, therefore, will have little or no effect on foreign
trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such

a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' FAA
currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of
$100 million.
    This rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    This final rule contains the following amendments to the existing
information collection requirements for OMB Control Number 2120-0005.
As discussed in the NPRM, the original estimated annual number of
responses (applications) was high, 20 annually, and the annual time
burden (hours per response) was low, 14 hours. The changes to both the
number of annual responses and the hours per request is not a result of
any of the changes described in this rulemaking, but reflects a change
in the understanding of both the number of applicants expected, and the
requirements for environmental information between the original
collection request and now. With limited PRA comment responses, FAA
submits the following changes due to agency discretion/experience of
this information collection to OMB for its review and approval.
    Summary: Authorization to exceed Mach 1 over land.
    Use: To authorize supersonic airplane test flights at approved
sites.
    Respondents (including number of): Three producers of civil
supersonic airplanes.
    Frequency: Three applications in a three-year period.
    Annual Burden Estimate: One application annually.
    FAA estimates fully burdened labor cost to be about $200 per hour,
making the annual cost $200 x 40 = $8,000. This estimate is based on
the assumption that an applicant will not need to develop a new
environmental document for the Administrator's NEPA determination. FAA
assumes that applicants would qualify to use airspace in U.S. military
test ranges where supersonic flights already occur and a NEPA document
already exists.
    Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information
collection requirement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this preamble by March 16, 2021. Comments also
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA,
New Executive Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC
20503.

F. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. FAA has determined
that this rulemaking action updating the application process for
special flight authorizations qualifies for the categorical exclusion
identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria
of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). FAA has determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. FAA has analyzed
this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive
Order 13609, and has determined that this action will not have an
effect on international regulatory cooperation.

D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
Details on the streamlining effects of this rule can be found in the
rule's regulatory evaluation.

VII. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by
using the internet--
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's web page at
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received into any of FAA's dockets by the name of
the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or

advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document,
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble.
To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Noise control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113,
40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715,
44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122,
47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C.
44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International
Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).

Sec.  91.817  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  91.817(a) and (b)(2), remove the words ``under appendix B
of this part'' and add in their place the words ``in accordance with
Sec.  91.818''.

0
3. Add Sec.  91.818 to read as follows:

Sec.  91.818  Special flight authorization to exceed Mach 1.

    For all civil aircraft, any operation that exceeds Mach 1 may be
conducted only in accordance with a special flight authorization issued
to an operator in accordance with the requirements of this section.
    (a) Application. Application for a special flight authorization to
exceed Mach 1 must be made to the FAA Office of Environment and Energy
for consideration by the Administrator. Each application must include:
    (1) The name of the operator;
    (2) The number and model(s) of the aircraft to be operated;
    (3) The number of proposed flights;
    (4) The date range during which the flight(s) would be conducted;
    (5) The time of day the flight(s) would be conducted. Proposed
night operations may require further justification for their necessity;
    (6) A description of the flight area requested by the applicant,
including any environmental information required to be submitted
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section;
    (7) All conditions and limitations on the flight(s) that will
ensure that no measurable sonic boom overpressure will reach the
surface outside of the proposed flight area; and
    (8) The reason(s) that operation at a speed greater than Mach 1 is
necessary. A special flight authorization to exceed Mach 1 may be
granted only for operations that are intended to:
    (i) Show compliance with airworthiness requirements;
    (ii) Determine the sonic boom characteristics of an aircraft;
    (iii) Establish a means of reducing or eliminating the effects of
sonic boom, including flight profiles and special features of an
aircraft;
    (iv) Demonstrate the conditions and limitations under which speeds
in excess of Mach 1 will not cause a measurable sonic boom overpressure
to reach the surface; or
    (v) Measure the noise characteristics of an aircraft to demonstrate
compliance with noise requirements imposed under this chapter, or to
determine the limits for operation in accordance with Sec.  91.817(b).
    (9) For any purpose listed in paragraph (a)(8) of this section,
each applicant must indicate why its intended operation cannot be
safely or properly accomplished over the ocean at a distance ensuring
that no sonic boom overpressure reaches any land surface in the United
States.
    (b) Operation outside a test area. An applicant may apply for an
authorization to conduct flights outside a test area under certain
conditions and limitations upon a conservative showing that:
    (1) Flight(s) within a test area have been conducted in accordance
with an authorization issued for the purpose specified in paragraph
(a)(8)(iv) of this section;
    (2) The results of the flight test(s) required by paragraph (b)(1)
of this section demonstrate that a speed in excess of Mach 1 does not
cause a measurable sonic boom overpressure to reach the surface; and
    (3) The conditions and limitations determined by the test(s)
represent all foreseeable operating conditions and are effective on all
flights conducted under an authorization.
    (c) Environmental findings. (1) No special flight authorization
will be granted if the Administrator finds that such action is
necessary to protect or enhance the environment.
    (2) The Administrator is required to consider the potential
environmental impacts resulting from the issuance of an authorization
for a particular flight area pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C 4321 et seq.), all applicable
regulations implementing NEPA, and related Executive orders and
guidance. Accordingly, each applicant must provide information that
sufficiently describes the potential environmental impact of any flight
in excess of Mach 1, including the effect of a sonic boom reaching the
surface in the proposed flight area, to enable the FAA to determine
whether such impacts are significant within the meaning of NEPA.
    (d) Issuance. An authorization to operate a civil aircraft in
excess of Mach 1 may be issued only after an applicant has submitted
the information described in this section and the Administrator has
taken the required action regarding the environmental findings
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (e) Duration. (1) An authorization to exceed Mach 1 will be granted
for the time the Administrator determines necessary to conduct the
flights for the described purposes.
    (2) An authorization to exceed Mach 1 is effective until it expires
or is surrendered.
    (3) An authorization to exceed Mach 1 may be terminated, suspended,
or amended by the Administrator at any time the Administrator finds
that such action is necessary to protect the environment.
    (4) The holder of an authorization to exceed Mach 1 may request
reconsideration of a termination, amendment, or suspension issued under
paragraph (e)(3) of this section within 30 days of notice of the
action. Failure to request reconsideration and provide information why
the Administrator's action is not appropriate will result in permanent
termination of the authorization.
    (5) Findings made by and actions taken by the Administrator under
this section do not affect any certificate issued under chapter 447 of
Title 49 of the United States Code.

Appendix B to Part 91--[Removed and Reserved]

0
4. Remove and reserve appendix B to part 91.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
106(f), 44701(a)(5), and 44715, on January 4, 2021.
Steve Dickson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-00113 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64489-64490]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25534]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-53-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Negotiated Rate--Integrys to be effective 11/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20131017-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-54-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Negotiated Rate--Castleton LPS RO to be effective 10/
17/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20131017-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-55-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Negotiated Rate--NJR LPS RO to be effective 10/17/
2013.
    Filed Date: 10/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20131017-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-56-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Negotiated Rate--NJR to be effective 10/17/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20131017-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-57-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Negotiated Rate--Renaissance LPS RO to be effective
10/17/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20131017-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-58-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 10/17/13 Negotiated Rates--JP Morgan Ventures Energy
Corp (HUB) 6025-89 to be effective 11/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20131017-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-59-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 10/17/13 Negotiated Rates--Rainbow Energy Marketing
Corp. (HUB) 7400-89 to be effective 11/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20131017-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-60-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 10/17/13 Negotiated Rates--Tenaska Gas Storage, LLC
(HUB) 1175-89 to be effective 11/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20131017-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-61-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 10/17/13 Negotiated Rates--United Energy Trading, LLC
(HUB) 5095-89 to be effective 11/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20131017-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-62-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Eastern Shore Storage Tracker Filing to be effective
10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/18/13.
    Accession Number: 20131018-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-63-000.
    Applicants: Centra Pipelines Minnesota Inc.
    Description: Revised Index of Shippers Oct 2013 to be effective 12/
1/2013.

    Filed Date: 10/18/13.
    Accession Number: 20131018-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 21, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-25534 Filed 10-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56429-56430]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23442]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C.
552b:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

DATE AND TIME: September 15, 2011, 10 a.m.

PLACE: Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda.

    * Note --Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without
further notice.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For a recorded message listing items struck
from or added to the meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link,
or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

                                         973rd--Meeting; Regular Meeting
                                          [September 15, 2011, 10 a.m.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Item No.                           Docket No.                                    Company
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Administrative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1....................  AD02-1-000                                     Agency Business Matters.
A-2....................  AD02-7-000                                     Customer Matters, Reliability, Security
                                                                         and Market Operations.
A-3....................  OMITTED                                        ........................................
A-4....................  AD11-9-000                                     Report on Outages and Curtailments
                                                                         During the Southwest Cold Weather Event
                                                                         of February 1-5, 2011.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Electric
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1....................  RM11-11-000                                    Version 4 Critical Infrastructure
                                                                         Protection Reliability Standards.
E-2....................  OMITTED                                        ........................................
E-3....................  RM08-13-004                                    Transmission Relay Loadability
                                                                         Reliability Standard.
E-4....................  RM10-6-000                                     Interpretation of Transmission Planning
                                                                         Reliability Standard.
E-5....................  RM10-29-000                                    Electric Reliability Organization
                                                                         Interpretation of Transmission
                                                                         Operations Reliability Standard.
E-6....................  RM11-16-000                                    Transmission Relay Loadability
                                                                         Reliability Standard.
E-7....................  RD11-7-000                                     North American Electric Reliability
                                                                         Corporation.
E-8....................  ER11-3970-000                                  Midwest Independent Transmission System
                                                                         Operator, Inc.
E-9....................  TS11-5-000                                     Bangor Hydro Electric Company.
E-10...................  ER11-3967-000                                  Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
E-11...................  ER11-3064-001                                  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Trans-
                                                                         Allegheny Interstate Line Company.
E-12...................  ER11-3972-000                                  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
E-13...................  ER11-3953-000                                  ISO New England Inc. and New England
                                                                         Power Pool.

E-14...................  ER11-2224-004, ER11-2224-005, ER11-2224-009    New York Independent System Operator,
                                                                         Inc.
E-15...................  ER11-3949-000, ER11-3949-001, ER11-3951-000    New York Independent System Operator,
                                                                         Inc.
E-16...................  ER11-3973-000                                  California Independent System Operator
                                                                         Corporation.
E-17...................  EL11-12-002                                    Idaho Wind Partners 1, LLC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Gas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1....................  RM11-4-000                                     Storage Reporting Requirements of
                                                                         Interstate and Intrastate Natural Gas
                                                                         Companies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Hydro
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1....................  P-2698-050, P-2686-062                         Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
H-2....................  P-13681-002                                    Grand Coulee Project Hydroelectric
                                                                         Authority.
H-3....................  DI10-9-001                                     Woodland Pulp LLC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1....................  CP11-30-000                                    Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
                         CP11-41-000                                    Dominion Transmission, Inc.
C-2....................  CP10-510-000                                   El Paso Natural Gas Company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    September 8, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
    A free webcast of this event is available through http://www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this
event can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of
Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain
a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via
television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have
any questions, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or contact
Danelle Springer or David Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

[FR Doc. 2011-23442 Filed 9-9-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 186 (Monday, September 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 66008]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23162]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1239-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Passport to DART Conversion
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 9/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20160920-5009.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1240-000.
    Applicants: Mojave Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Passport to DART Conversion
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 9/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20160920-5010.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1241-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing DTI--September 20, 2016 Service
Agreement Termination Notice.
    Filed Date: 9/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20160920-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/16.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 20, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23162 Filed 9-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P