3876 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

the human condition — ensuring clean 

air, clean water, and a robust economy 

— nuclear energy should be a part of 

America’s diverse energy mix. The 

failure to innovate within the nuclear 

industry and produce newer more cost 

effective technologies and allow current 

nuclear power plants to produce income 

streams other than those from electricity 

generation; have prevented the nuclear 

industry from competing against other 

technologies such as natural gas. 

Nuclear energy is simply more 

reliable than all other sources of energy 

except geothermal. It has the ability to 

operate at full capacity 90 percent of the 

time. By contrast, solar energy can only 

sustain maximum output less than onethird of the time and wind generation 

just about half of the time because the 

sun isn’t always shining and the wind 

isn’t always blowing. Another source of 

energy must always be ready to back up 

unreliable renewables, which is often 

coal and natural gas. 

Nuclear power has even proved its 

reliability in the face of devastating 

conditions. A two-reactor nuclear power 

plant located near Houston, known as 

the South Texas Project, took a direct hit 

from the Category 4 Hurricane Harvey. 

While Texas’ wind farms quickly cut off 

generation due to high winds, the 

nuclear power plant continued 

providing power at capacity for 

struggling communities during the 

disaster. 

In other words, nuclear provided 

electricity when Texans needed it most. 

While states have their own 

development programs for other energy 

technologies (coal, oil, gas, wind, and 

solar); the federal government has a near 

monopoly in the development of new 

nuclear technologies. The federal 

government has failed to recognize 

substantively the interest of the states to 

develop new nuclear technologies for 

peaceful uses. 

The federal government should 

remove barriers to the research and 

development of nuclear technologies so 

that states can provide scientific 

diversity and aid in accelerating the 

development of new nuclear 

technologies. This will help provide 

Americans with a program of maximum 

development and an energy future that 

is not only clean, affordable, and 

reliable, but also powers their lives and 

their potential for flourishing. 

Grounds for Proposed Action 

The United States has fallen behind or 

is falling behind the rest of the world in 

building nuclear reactors and 

developing new nuclear technologies. 

The United States has not come close to 

the rate of building and planning of 

nuclear power plants under the Atomic 

Energy Commission (AEC) which was 

formed in 1946 and dissolved in 1974. 

In 1974 the Energy Research and 

Development Administration (ERDA) 

and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) legally split the duties of the 

AEC. The ERDA was to take on the 

research and development activities of 

the AEC and the NRC was to take on the 

safety and regulatory aspects of the 

defunct AEC. In 1977, Congress saw fit 

to dissolve the ERDA and consolidate 

the Federal Energy Administration, the 

ERDA, the Federal Power Commission, 

and programs of various other agencies 

into the Department of Energy (DOE). 

What was lost in the dissolution of 

the AEC were a number of key issues 

that remain unresolved to this day. The 

1954 Atomic Energy Act (AEA) 

amended the 1946 Atomic Energy Act 

and is still the core piece of legislation 

that drives the regulation of the nuclear 

industry. Included within the language 

of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act: 

• Required the AEC to ‘‘recognize the 

interests of the States in the peaceful 

uses of atomic energy’’ U.S. Code 42 

Section 2021. 

• Required the AEC to ‘‘promote an 

orderly regulatory pattern between the 

Commission and State governments 

with respect to nuclear development’’ 

U.S. Code 42 Section 2021. 

• Required the AEC to create ‘‘a 

program of conducting, assisting, and 

fostering research and development in 

order to encourage maximum scientific 

and industrial progress’’ U.S. Code 42 

Section 2013. 

• Required the AEC to ‘‘create a 

program of administration which will be 

consistent with the foregoing policies 

and programs, with international 

arrangements, and with agreements for 

cooperation’’ U.S. Code 42 Section 

2013. 

Many of these legal requirements, as 

laid out by Congress in 1954 are not 

being met since the AEC was dissolved. 

Statement in Support of Proposed 

Action 

While the NRC has developed rules 

that allow states to regulate source 

material and byproducts, it has failed to 

recognize the interests of states to 

develop new nuclear technologies and 

to encourage maximum scientific and 

industrial progress. The NRC however, 

has correctly identified that its mission 

is only concerned with safety and 

regulation; not development. Providing 

a program that encourages maximum 

scientific and industrial progress most 

correctly falls under the umbrella of the 

DOE. We believe a proper interpretation 

of the law is that the authority of the 

DOE can be extended to states in 

collaborative research and development 

agreements per the 1954 AEA mandate 

to recognize the states interest in 

developing nuclear technologies for 

peaceful uses and the provision for 

providing a program of maximum 

development. We do not believe DOE 

authority can extend to commercial 

activity unless the NRC has previously 

authorized such activity such as in the 

production of medical isotopes from 

research reactors -or- the DOE 

developed reactor is a demonstration 

reactor that aids in determining real 

world feasibility. 

Proposed Action 

I, Ken Kay, hereby petitions the 

United States Department of Energy, 

under its authority, to promulgate rules 

and establish programs that will allow 

states and their agents to collaboratively 

develop new nuclear technologies with 

the United States Department of Energy, 

and under the authority of the United 

States Department of Energy, including, 

but not limited to, the development of 

small nuclear reactors that are designed 

to produce ten megawatts or less of 

thermal energy, thus providing for a 

program of maximum development that 

recognizes the interests of states. 

I, Ken Kay, hereby petitions the 

USDOE to promulgate rules and 

programs that will allow states to 

develop collaborative nuclear and nonnuclear laboratories with the United 

States Department of Energy on 

currently licensed or formerly licensed 

nuclear facility grounds, within their 

respective states, and allow for the 

construction of collaborative nuclear 

experimentation containment facility 

testing platforms. 

Ken Kay 

lllllllllllllllllll

Ken Kay 

lllllllllllllllllll

October 23rd 2019. 

lllllllllllllllllll

[FR Doc. 2020–28202 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 

ADMINISTRATION 

12 CFR Part 701 

RIN 3133–AF20 

Overdraft Policy 

AGENCY: National Credit Union 

Administration (NCUA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3877 

1Federally insured, state-chartered credit unions 

(FISCU) are not subject to the overdraft policy 

requirements in 12 CFR 701.21(c)(3). 

2 65 FR 15224 (Mar. 22, 2000). 

3 12 U.S.C. 1757(17). 

4 12 U.S.C. 1757(6). 

5Nations Bank of N. Carolina v. Variable Annuity 

Life Ins. Co., 513 U.S. 251 (1995). 

6See Overdraft Practices, Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency, Interpretive Letter 

#1082 (May 17, 2007), available at https://

www.occ.gov/topics/charters-and-licensing/ 

interpretations-and-actions/2007/int1082.pdf. 

7 12 CFR part 1005. 

8 12 U.S.C. 1751 et seq. 

9 12 U.S.C. 1766(a). 

SUMMARY: The NCUA Board (Board) is 

issuing a proposed rule to amend one of 

the requirements that a federal credit 

union (FCU) must adopt as a part of 

their written overdraft policy. 

Specifically, the proposed rule would 

modify the requirement that an FCU’s 

written overdraft policy establish a time 

limit, not to exceed 45 calendar days, 

for a member to either deposit funds or 

obtain an approved loan from the FCU 

to cover each overdraft. The proposed 

rule would remove the 45-day limit and 

replace it with a requirement that the 

written policy must establish a specific 

time limit that is both reasonable and 

applicable to all members, for a member 

either to deposit funds or obtain an 

approved loan from the credit union to 

cover each overdraft. Consistent with 

U.S. generally accepted accounting 

principles (GAAP), overdraft balances 

should generally be charged off when 

considered uncollectible. The Board 

believes that this change would improve 

a requirement that is not only overly 

prescriptive, but could be especially 

detrimental as FCUs take steps to 

provide their members the flexibility 

needed to cope with the impacts of 

COVID–19. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments, identified by RIN 3133– 

AF20, by any of the following methods 

(Please send comments by one method 

only): 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (703) 518–6319. Include 

‘‘[Your Name]—Comments on Overdraft 

Policy’’ in the transmittal. 

• Mail: Address to Melane ConyersAusbrooks, Secretary of the Board, 

National Credit Union Administration, 

1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 

22314–3428. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as 

mail address. 

Public Inspection: 

You may view all public comments 

on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov as 

submitted, except for those we cannot 

post for technical reasons. The NCUA 

will not edit or remove any identifying 

or contact information from the public 

comments submitted. Due to social 

distancing measures in effect, the usual 

opportunity to inspect paper copies of 

comments in the NCUA’s law library is 

not currently available. After social 

distancing measures are relaxed, visitors 

may make an appointment to review 

paper copies by calling (703) 518–6540 

or emailing OGCMail@ncua.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: 

Policy and Analysis: Alison Clark, Chief 

Accountant, Office of Examination and 

Insurance, at (703) 518–6611; Legal: 

Gira Bose and Thomas Zells, Staff 

Attorneys, Office of General Counsel, at 

(703) 518–6540; or by mail at: National 

Credit Union Administration, 1775 

Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Legal Authority 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

IV. Regulatory Procedures 

I. Background 

The COVID–19 pandemic has created 

uncertainty for federally insured credit 

unions (FICUs) and their members. The 

Board has been working with federal 

and state regulatory agencies, in 

addition to FICUs, to assist FICUs in 

managing their operations and to 

facilitate continued assistance to credit 

union members and communities 

impacted by the coronavirus. As part of 

these ongoing efforts, the Board is 

proposing to modify the maximum time 

an FCU overdraft policy may allow for 

a member to cure an overdraft. The 

Board believes that this change would 

help ensure that FCUs have the 

additional flexibility necessary to 

provide relief to their members in a 

manner consistent with the NCUA’s 

responsibility to maintain the safety and 

soundness of the credit union system.1

The NCUA first permitted FCUs to 

advance money to a member to cover 

his or her account deficit (overdraft) 

without having a credit application on 

file in 2000.2 The Federal Credit Union 

Act (FCU Act) does not specifically 

address an FCU’s authority to pay or 

honor a debit from a share account that 

will result in an overdrawn account. 

However, the NCUA’s longstanding 

position has been that an overdraft, as 

a financial accommodation to a member, 

constitutes a loan or line of credit to a 

member. The Board also believes that 

the authority to cover overdrafts is 

incidental 3 to an FCU’s authority to 

accept payment on shares.4 In 

particular, under the incidental powers 

test established by the courts 5 and in 

the NCUA’s regulations in 12 CFR part 

721, covering overdrafts from such 

accounts: (1) Is useful in carrying out 

FCU business because it facilitates 

ongoing maintenance of accounts that 

are temporarily overdrawn; (2) is the 

functional equivalent and indeed 

directly associated with other deposit 

account activity; and (3) involves risks 

similar to those FCUs assume in 

accepting payment on shares generally.6

When providing FCUs with this 

authority in 2000, the NCUA adopted a 

regulatory requirement that, in order for 

an FCU to advance money to a member 

to cover an account deficit without 

having a credit application from the 

borrower on file, the FCU must have a 

written overdraft policy that meets 

certain requirements. One of these 

requirements is that the FCU’s written 

policy must establish a time limit not to 

exceed 45 calendar days for a member 

either to deposit funds or obtain an 

approved loan from the FCU to cover 

each overdraft. As described more fully 

in section III, the Board believes that 

this policy is overly prescriptive and 

potentially harmful to both FCUs and 

their members. The Board is especially 

concerned that the requirement has and 

will continue to prevent FCUs from 

taking appropriate steps to provide their 

members the flexibility needed to cope 

with the impact of COVID–19. As such, 

the Board proposes removing the 

prescriptive 45-day limit and instead 

requiring that an FCU’s written policy 

must establish a specific time limit that 

is both reasonable and applicable to all 

members for a member to cure their 

overdraft by either depositing funds or 

obtaining an approved loan. Consistent 

with U.S. GAAP, overdraft balances 

should generally be charged off when 

considered uncollectible. The Board is 

also proposing to add a reference to 

Regulation E,7 which implements the 

Electronic Fund Transfer Act and 

governs certain overdraft services. 

II. Legal Authority 

The Board is issuing this proposed 

rule pursuant to its authority under the 

FCU Act.8 The FCU Act grants the 

Board a broad mandate to issue 

regulations governing both FCUs and, 

more generally, all FICUs. For example, 

section 120 of the FCU Act is a general 

grant of regulatory authority and 

authorizes the Board to prescribe rules 

and regulations for the administration of 

the Act.9 Section 209 of the FCU Act is 

a plenary grant of regulatory authority to 

issue rules and regulations necessary or 

appropriate to carry out its role as share 

3878 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

10 12 U.S.C. 1789. 

11An example of a provision of the FCU Act that 

provides the Board with specific rulemaking 

authority is section 207 (12 U.S.C. 1787), which is 

a specific grant of authority over share insurance 

coverage, conservatorships, and liquidations. 

12 In February 2005, the NCUA, along with the 

Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency, published guidance on overdraft 

protection programs in response to concerns about 

aspects of the growing marketing, disclosure, and 

implementation of overdraft services. 70 FR 9127 

(February 24, 2005) (Joint Guidance) (‘‘[O]verdraft 

balances should generally be charged off when 

considered uncollectible, but no later than 60 days 

from the date first overdrawn.’’), available at 

https://www.ncua.gov/files/letters-credit-unions/ 

LCU2005-03Encl.pdf. 

13Overdraft balances should be charged off 

against the allowance for loan and lease losses or 

allowance for credit losses, if applicable. Any 

payments received after the account is charged off, 

up to the amount charged off against the allowance 

should be reported as a recovery. 

14 12 CFR part 1005. 

15See NCUA Interpretive Ruling and Policy 

Statement (IRPS) 87–2, as amended by IRPS 03–2 

and IRPS 15–1. 80 FR 57512 (Sept. 24, 2015), 

available at https://www.ncua.gov/files/ 

publications/irps/IRPS1987-2.pdf. 

insurer for all FICUs.10 Other provisions 

of the Act confer specific rulemaking 

authority to address prescribed issues or 

circumstances.11 Accordingly, the FCU 

Act grants the Board broad rulemaking 

authority to ensure that the credit union 

industry and the National Credit Union 

Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) remain 

safe and sound. 

III. The Proposed Rule 

Section 701.21(c)(3) of the NCUA’s 

regulations provides that an FCU can 

advance money to a member to cover 

his or her account deficit without 

having a credit application on file if the 

credit union had a written overdraft 

policy. Specifically, § 701.21(c)(3) 

requires that an FCU’s written overdraft 

policy must: (1) Set a cap on the total 

dollar amount of all overdrafts the credit 

union will honor consistent with the 

credit union’s ability to absorb losses; 

(2) establish a time limit not to exceed 

45 calendar days for a member either to 

deposit funds or obtain an approved 

loan from the credit union to cover each 

overdraft; (3) limit the dollar amount of 

overdrafts the credit union will honor 

per member; and (4) establish the fee 

and interest rate, if any, the credit union 

will charge members for honoring 

overdrafts. 

As previously noted, the Board is 

concerned that the requirement that an 

FCU’s overdraft policy establish a time 

limit not to exceed 45 calendar days for 

a member to cure their overdraft is 

unnecessarily prescriptive during 

normal times, but has been and will 

continue to be especially detrimental as 

FCUs and their members face challenges 

imposed by COVID–19. The Board 

believes it is imperative that FCUs have 

the flexibility to work with their 

members to take positive and proactive 

actions that can manage or mitigate 

adverse impacts on members while 

maintaining safe-and-sound operations. 

As such, the Board proposes amending 

§ 701.21(c)(3) to remove the prescriptive 

45-day limit for curing an overdraft and 

replacing it with a requirement that an 

FCU’s written overdraft policy must 

establish a specific time limit that is 

both reasonable and applicable to all 

members for a member to either deposit 

funds or obtain an approved loan from 

the FCU to cover each overdraft. 

Consistent with U. S. GAAP, overdraft 

balances should generally be charged off 

when considered uncollectible. 

This change would also remedy a 

discrepancy between the current 45-day 

limit imposed on FCUs for curing an 

overdraft and NCUA-adopted 

interagency guidance on overdraft 

protection programs that suggests a 

maximum of 60 days before an overdraft 

is charged-off.12 The Board emphasizes 

that the recommended maximum of 60 

days for charging off an overdraft in the 

interagency guidance is a suggestion 

derived from general safety and 

soundness considerations and U.S. 

GAAP for generally charging off 

overdraft balances when they are 

considered uncollectible.13 The Board 

expects that FCUs will exercise their 

good, professional judgment when 

working with members and determining 

when overdraft balances are deemed 

uncollectible. This professional 

judgment is especially important as 

FCUs help their members deal with the 

impacts of COVID–19. 

The Board is also proposing to amend 

§ 701.21(c)(3) to add a cross-reference to 

Regulation E. Regulation E sets forth 

other requirements applicable to certain 

overdraft services and was amended in 

2009, after the adoption of 

§ 701.21(c)(3).14 This addition would 

not impose any new or additional 

requirements on FCUs, nor would this 

rule supersede, or relieve FCUs from 

complying with, any provisions of 

Regulation E. 

The Board requests comment on all 

aspects of this proposed rule. Because of 

the targeted nature of the proposed 

amendments to this existing regulation, 

the Board believes that a 30-day 

comment period provides adequate 

opportunity for public participation.15

In addition to offering your comments 

on any aspect of this proposed rule, 

please provide your input on the 

following questions: 

• 1. What specific difficulties or 

adverse outcomes you have encountered 

as a result of the 45-day time limit in 12 

CFR 701.21 during COVID–19? 

• 2. Has your credit union made any 

changes to its overdraft program to 

mitigate the impact of the pandemic on 

members, such as reducing or 

eliminating overdraft or insufficient 

funds fees? Please share any and all 

overdraft relief you are currently 

providing to your members. 

• 3. With regard to overdraft 

programs in general, what additional 

relief do commenters feel would be 

appropriate for the NCUA and/or credit 

unions to extend to members utilizing 

overdraft products during COVID–19? 

Are there any other potential changes to 

the overdraft provisions in 12 CFR 

701.21 that could be beneficial for credit 

union members? 

IV. Regulatory Procedures 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) applies to rulemakings in which 

an agency by rule creates a new 

paperwork burden on regulated entities 

or modifies an existing burden (44 

U.S.C. 3507(d)). For purposes of the 

PRA, a paperwork burden may take the 

form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a 

third-party disclosure requirement, 

referred to as an information collection. 

The NCUA may not conduct or sponsor, 

and the respondent is not required to 

respond to, an information collection 

unless it displays a valid OMB control 

number. 

The proposed rule would modify the 

requirements of an FCU’s written 

overdraft policy by removing the 45-day 

overdraft limit requirement and 

replacing it with a requirement that the 

policy establish a specific time limit 

that is, reasonable, applicable to all 

members, and consistent with U.S. 

GAAP. The information collection 

requirement of this part to retain and 

maintain a written overdraft policy is 

currently covered by OMB control 

number 3133–0092. The rule would not 

result in a change in burden, and there 

are no new information collection 

requirements associated with the rule. 

B. Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132 encourages 

independent regulatory agencies to 

consider the impact of their actions on 

state and local interests. The NCUA, an 

independent regulatory agency as 

defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily 

complies with the executive order to 

adhere to fundamental federalism 

principles. 

This proposed rule would not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3879 

16 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

17 5 U.S.C. 603, 604. 

18NCUA IRPS 15–1. 80 FR 57512 (Sept. 24, 2015). 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The NCUA has 

therefore determined that this proposed 

rule does not constitute a policy that has 

federalism implications for purposes of 

the executive order. 

C. Assessment of Federal Regulations 

and Policies on Families 

The NCUA has determined that this 

proposed rule would not affect family 

well-being within the meaning of § 654 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999, 

Public Law 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 

(1998). 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires that when an agency 

issues a proposed rule or a final rule 

pursuant to the APA 16 or another law, 

the agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that meets the 

requirements of the RFA and publish 

such analysis in the Federal Register.17

Specifically, the RFA requires agencies 

to describe the impact of a rulemaking 

on small entities by providing a 

regulatory impact analysis. For purposes 

of the RFA, the Board considers credit 

unions with assets less than $100 

million to be small entities.18 The 

proposed rule would relieve some of the 

restrictiveness of a requirement 

applicable to all FCUs to maintain 

requirements in policies relating to 

member overdrafts. The proposed rule 

would not require any FCUs to change 

their current policies or impose new 

burdens. Therefore, the Board certifies 

that this proposed rule would not have 

a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 701 

Credit, Credit unions, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

By the NCUA Board on December 17, 2020. 

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, 

Secretary of the Board. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Board proposes to amend 

part 701 of chapter VII of title 12 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations to read as 

follows: 

PART 701—ORGANIZATION AND 

OPERATION OF FEDERAL CREDIT 

UNIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 701 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 

1757, 1758, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 

1782, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, 1788, 1789. 

Section 701.6 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 

3717. Section 701.31 is also authorized by 15 

U.S.C. 1601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 3601– 

3610. Section 701.35 is also authorized by 42 

U.S.C. 4311–4312. 

■ 2. Amend § 701.21 by revising 

paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 701.21 Loans to Members and lines of 

credit to members. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) Credit applications and overdrafts. 

Consistent with policies established by 

the board of directors, the credit 

committee or loan officer shall ensure 

that a credit application is kept on file 

for each borrower supporting the 

decision to make a loan or establish a 

line of credit. A credit union may 

advance money to a member to cover an 

account deficit without having a credit 

application from the borrower on file if 

the credit union has a written overdraft 

policy. The policy must: Set a cap on 

the total dollar amount of all overdrafts 

the credit union will honor consistent 

with the credit union’s ability to absorb 

losses; establish a specific time limit 

that is reasonable and universally 

applicable for a member either to 

deposit funds or obtain an approved 

loan from the credit union to cover each 

overdraft; limit the dollar amount of 

overdrafts the credit union will honor 

per member; and establish the fee and 

interest rate, if any, the credit union will 

charge members for honoring overdrafts. 

Consistent with U.S. GAAP, overdraft 

balances should generally be charged off 

when considered uncollectible. In 

addition, overdraft services covered by 

Regulation E, 12 CFR part 1005, are 

subject to applicable requirements set 

forth in that regulation. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2020–28280 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2020–1169; Product 

Identifier MCAI–2020–01373–T] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault 

Aviation Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2020–07–16, which applies to certain 

Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X 

airplanes. AD 2020–07–16 requires 

revising the existing maintenance or 

inspection program, as applicable, to 

incorporate new or more restrictive 

airworthiness limitations. Since the 

FAA issued AD 2020–07–16, the FAA 

has determined that new or more 

restrictive airworthiness limitations are 

necessary. This proposed AD would 

require revising the existing 

maintenance or inspection program, as 

applicable, to incorporate new or more 

restrictive airworthiness limitations, as 

specified in a European Union Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is 

proposed for incorporation by reference. 

The FAA is proposing this AD to 

address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: The FAA must receive comments 

on this proposed AD by March 1, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For material that will be incorporated 

by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, 

Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 

Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 

8999 000; email ADs@easa.europa.eu; 

internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may 

find this IBR material on the EASA 

website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. 

You may view this IBR material at the