Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules 34169 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket No. FAA–2021–0518/Airspace 

Docket No. 21–ASW–12.’’ The postcard 

will be date/time stamped and returned 

to the commenter. 

All communications received before 

the specified closing date for comments 

will be considered before taking action 

on the proposed rule. The proposal 

contained in this notice may be changed 

in light of the comments received. A 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerned with this rulemaking will be 

filed in the docket. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Recently published rulemaking 

documents can also be accessed through 

the FAA’s web page at https://

www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ 

airspace_amendments/. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received, and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office (see the 

ADDRESSES section for the address and 

phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except federal holidays. An informal 

docket may also be examined during 

normal business hours at the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Air Traffic 

Organization, Central Service Center, 

Operations Support Group, 10101 

Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 

76177. 

Availability and Summary of 

Documents for Incorporation by 

Reference 

This document proposes to amend 

FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated July 21, 2020, and effective 

September 15, 2020. FAA Order 

7400.11E is publicly available as listed 

in the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists 

Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, 

air traffic service routes, and reporting 

points. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to 14 CFR part 71 by amending the Class 

E airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface to within a 6.5- 

mile (decreased from a 6.8-mile) radius 

of Sundance Airport, Oklahoma City, 

OK. 

These actions are the result of an 

airspace review caused by the 

decommissioning of the Sundance LOC 

which provided guidance to instrument 

procedures at this airport. 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in paragraph 6005 of FAA 

Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, 

and effective September 15, 2020, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designations 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, is 

published yearly and effective on 

September 15. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current, is non-controversial and 

unlikely to result in adverse or negative 

comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1F, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated July 21, 2020, and 

effective September 15, 2020, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

ASW OK E5 Oklahoma City, OK 

[Amended] 

Will Rogers World Airport, OK 

(Lat. 35°23′35′′ N, long. 97°36′03′′ W) 

Tinker AFB, OK 

(Lat. 35°24′53′′ N, long. 97°23′12′′ W) 

University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, 

OK 

(Lat. 35°14′44′′ N, long. 97°28′20′′ W) 

David Jay Perry Airport, OK 

(Lat. 35°09′18′′ N, long. 97°28′13′′ W) 

Clarence E. Page Municipal Airport, OK 

(Lat. 35°29′17′′ N, long. 97°49′25′′ W) 

El Reno Regional Airport, OK 

(Lat. 35°28′22′′ N, long. 98°00′21′′ W) 

Wiley Post Airport, OK 

(Lat. 35°32′03′′ N, long. 97°38′49′′ W) 

Sundance Airport, OK 

(Lat. 35°36′07′′ N, long. 97°42′22′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within an 8.1-mile 

radius of Will Rogers World Airport, and 

within an 8.2-mile radius of Tinker AFB, and 

within a 6.7-mile radius of University of 

Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, and within 

2.0 miles each side of the 213° bearing from 

the airport extending from the 6.7-mile 

radius to 7.8 miles southwest of the airport, 

and within a 6.3-mile radius of David Jay 

Perry Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius 

of Clarence E. Page Municipal Airport, and 

within a 6.6-mile radius of El Reno Regional 

Airport, and within a 6.8-mile radius of 

Wiley Post Airport, and within a 6.5-mile 

radius of Sundance Airport. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 23, 

2021. 

Martin A. Skinner, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

ATO Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13735 Filed 6–28–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 922 

Plan for Periodic Review of 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean 

Service (NOS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce (DOC). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
34170 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

ACTION: Notice of plan for periodic 

review of regulations; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) requires that NOAA’s Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) 

periodically review existing regulations 

that have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, such as small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. This plan describes how 

ONMS will perform this review and 

describes the regulations proposed for 

review in fiscal year 2022. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 29, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, and search 

for docket NOAA–NOS–2021–0047, 

click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NOAA. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personally 

identifiable information (for example, 

name, address, etc.), confidential 

business information, or otherwise 

sensitive information submitted 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

will be publicly accessible. NOAA will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Meredith Walz, NOAA Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries, 1305 East 

West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910, meredith.walz@noaa.gov, or 

240–533–0686. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires that 

Federal agencies take into account how 

their regulations affect ‘‘small entities,’’ 

which the RFA defines to include small 

businesses, small governmental 

jurisdictions and small organizations. 5 

U.S.C. 601. For regulations proposed 

after January 1, 1981, the agency must 

either prepare a Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis or certify that the regulation, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Section 610 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 610, 

requires Federal agencies to review 

existing regulations which have or will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. It 

requires that ONMS publish a plan in 

the Federal Register explaining how it 

will review existing regulations that 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Regulations that have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities that became 

effective after January 1, 1981, must be 

reviewed within 10 years of the 

publication date of the final rule. 

Section 610(c) requires that ONMS 

publish in the Federal Register a list of 

rules it will review during the 

succeeding 12 months. The list must 

describe, explain the need for, and 

provide the legal basis for the rules, as 

well as invite public comment on the 

rules. 

In addition, section 605 of the RFA, 

5 U.S.C. 605, provides that if, when a 

rule is proposed or finalized, the head 

of an agency certifies to the Small 

Business Administration’s Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy that the rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, then initial and final regulatory 

flexibility analyses do not need to be 

prepared for the rule. The Small 

Business Administration’s guidance on 

implementing the requirements of RFA 

section 610 indicates that agencies may 

exercise their discretion to determine if 

previously changed conditions may 

mean that a certified rule now does have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

and, therefore, should be subject to a 

full section 610 review. If there is 

evidence that a previously certified rule 

is now having a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, then the Small Business 

Administration recommends that the 

agency should conduct a section 610 

review of the rule. 

Criteria for Review of Existing 

Regulations 

The purpose of a section 610 review 

is to determine whether existing rules 

should be left unchanged, or whether 

they should be revised or rescinded in 

order to minimize significant economic 

impacts on a substantial number of 

small entities, consistent with the 

objectives of other applicable statutes. 

RFA section 610(b) requires agencies to 

consider five factors when conducting 

this review: 

(1) Whether the rule is still needed; 

(2) What type of public complaints or 

comments were received concerning the 

rule; 

(3) How complex is the rule; 

(4) How much the rule overlaps, 

duplicates or conflicts with other 

Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, 

with state and local governmental rules; 

and 

(5) How long it has been since the rule 

has been evaluated or how much the 

technology, economic conditions, or 

other factors have changed in the area 

affected by the rule. 

For rules that were certified under 

RFA section 605, ONMS is not required 

to conduct a review under RFA section 

610. However, ONMS may exercise its 

discretion to prepare an assessment to 

determine whether changed conditions 

may mean that the existing rules now do 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

and should therefore be reviewed under 

RFA section 610. 

Plan for Periodic Review of Rules 

ONMS will conduct reviews in such 

a way as to ensure that all rules for 

which a final regulatory flexibility 

analysis was prepared are reviewed 

within 10 years of the year in which 

they were originally issued. During this 

same period, ONMS may exercise its 

discretion to also review rules certified 

under RFA section 605 as not having 

significant impacts. ONMS may 

evaluate whether changed conditions 

may mean that the existing rules now do 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

and therefore should be reviewed under 

RFA section 610. ONMS intends that it 

will conduct section 610 reviews on 

applicable regulations on an annual 

basis. ONMS will make RFA Section 

610 review reports available at the 

following website: http://

sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/ 

alldocs.html. 

ONMS Regulation Requiring Review for 

Fiscal Year 2022 

ONMS has determined that one 

rulemaking finalized in fiscal year 2012 

requires review under RFA section 610: 

‘‘Research Area Within Gray’s Reef 

National Marine Sanctuary’’. RIN 0648– 

AV88 (76 FR 63824; October 14, 2011). 

This final rule created an 8.27 squaremile research area within the southern 

portion of Gray’s Reef National Marine 

Sanctuary. NOAA created the research 

area pursuant to its authority under the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 

U.S.C. 1431 et seq., in order to provide 

a zone specifically designed for 

conducting controlled scientific studies 

in the absence of certain human 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules 34171 

1The petitioner also requests that CPSC 

promulgate a provision in a standard that requires 

retailers to monitor and limit individuals from 

continually purchasing multiple cans of duster from 

their stores within a designated (1 month) period. 

Under Section 7 of the CPSA, the Commission may 

issue only performance requirements and 

requirements for warnings or instructions. 

Therefore, the Commission lacks authority to 

require these additional provisions. 

activities that could affect the results. 

NOAA prohibited fishing, diving, and 

stopping a vessel in the research area. 

NOAA prepared a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis for this rule when it 

was finalized. 

ONMS invites comments on this rule, 

and will evaluate comments that would 

assist ONMS in conducting its RFA 

section 610 review. Unless we publish 

a document stating otherwise, ONMS 

will make the final report available at 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/ 

alldocs.html. 

John Armor, 

Director, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13495 Filed 6–28–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket No. CP–21–1] 

Petition Requesting Rulemaking on 

Duster Aerosol Products 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Request for comment on 

petition for rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC or Commission) has 

received a petition requesting that the 

Commission initiate rulemaking to 

adopt a safety standard for duster 

aerosol products. The Commission 

invites written comments concerning 

the petition. 

DATES: Submit comments by August 30, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CP–21–1, by 

any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

CPSC does not accept comments 

submitted by electronic mail (email), 

except through https://

www.regulations.gov and as described 

below. CPSC encourages you to submit 

electronic comments by using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, as 

described above. 

Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier Written 

Submissions: Submit comments by 

mail/hand delivery/courier to: Division 

of the Secretariat, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone: (301) 504–7479. 

Alternatively, as a temporary option 

during the COVID–19 pandemic, you 

may email such submissions to: cpscos@cpsc.gov. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number for this notice. CPSC may post 

all comments without change, including 

any personal identifiers, contact 

information, or other personal 

information provided, to: https://

www.regulations.gov. Do not submit 

electronically: Confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

that you do not want to be available to 

the public. If you wish to submit such 

information, please submit it according 

to the instructions for mail/hand 

delivery/courier written submissions. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: https:// 

www.regulations.gov, and insert the 

docket number, CP–21–1, into the 

‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alberta E. Mills, Division of the 

Secretariat, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301– 

504–7479; email: amills@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

2, 2021, Families United Against 

Inhalant Abuse (FUAIA) (petitioner), 

submitted a petition requesting the 

Commission initiate rulemaking to 

adopt a mandatory CPSC safety standard 

to address the hazards associated with 

‘‘duster’’ aerosol products used for 

cleaning electronics and other items and 

containing the chemical 1,1- 

Difluorethane, or any derivative thereof. 

The Commission’s procedure for 

petitioning for rulemaking is described 

at 16 CFR part 1051. 

The petitioner states that ‘‘duster’’ 

products are any hydrofluorocarbon 

propellant cleaner products intended for 

the purpose of cleaning electronic 

devices, photographic equipment, and 

any other items having areas where dust 

resides and is inaccessible by hand. The 

petitioner also states that such duster 

products contain hydrofluorocarbon 

propellant cleaner, such as 1,1- 

Difluoroethane, or a similar derivative. 

The petitioner notes that these duster 

products are sold under a variety of 

brand names and are widely available to 

consumers in various retail stores and 

online. 

The petitioner states that when 1,1- 

Difluoroethane used in duster aerosol 

products is inhaled from the can 

(commonly called huffing), intoxication 

occurs rapidly, yet is very short-lived (4 

to 5 minutes). According to the 

petitioner, inhalation of this chemical is 

acutely dangerous and causes 

immediate brain damage and possible 

Sudden Sniffing Death (SSD). The 

petitioner states that 22 percent of firsttime duster inhalers die, and the 

majority of all duster-inhalant deaths 

are attributed to SSD. 

After reviewing all of the data, the 

petitioner concludes that: (1) Duster 

inhalation in the United States is a 

‘‘chronic problem’’; (2) individuals of all 

ages, genders, ethnicities, and 

education, and socioeconomic levels are 

involved in the use of duster as an 

inhalant and are dying in large numbers 

throughout the United States; (3) there 

is an ‘‘unreasonable’’ risk of physical 

injury and death due to the inhalant use 

of duster products; and (4) current 

interventions (legislation, retail 

practices, manufacturer design) have 

been ineffective in resolving this 

problem. 

The petitioner requests that CPSC 

promulgate a mandatory safety standard 

that includes the following: 

• A performance standard. Require 

manufacturers to add an aversive 

(bitterant other than Denatonium 

Benzoate) to all duster aerosol cans at a 

level of 30–40 ppm. The duster can 

injection technology must be improved 

to ensure that the bitterant actually gets 

into the can and will also appear in the 

spray at the designated level. 

• Warning requirements.1 Place a 

‘‘much stronger’’ warning on the can. 

An example of this warning could be: 

‘‘DANGER: DEATH—This product can 

kill you if you breathe it.’’ 

The Commission seeks comments 

concerning this petition. 

The major factors the Commission 

considers in deciding whether to grant 

or deny a petition regarding a product 

include the following items: 

(1) Whether the product involved 

presents an unreasonable risk of injury. 

(2) Whether a rule is reasonably 

necessary to eliminate or reduce the risk 

of injury. 

(3) Whether failure of the Commission 

to initiate the rulemaking proceeding 

requested would unreasonably expose 

the petitioner or other consumers to the 

risk of injury which the petitioner 

alleges is presented by the product. 16 

CFR § 1051.9(a). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1