[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47885-47887]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19550]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0326; FRL-9999-32-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Montana; Revisions to Administrative Rules of Montana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Montana on February 23, 2017. The revisions are to the
Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) open burning and permitting
regulations to align the ARM with the current Montana Code Annotated
(MCA) procedures for appealing a permit and requesting a hearing. The
EPA is taking this action pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on October 11, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR- EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0326. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the
``For Further Information Contact'' section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado, 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our July
8, 2019 proposal (84 FR 32361). In that document we proposed to approve
a SIP revision that the State of Montana

submitted on February 23, 2017, containing amendments to open burning
and permitting regulations in the ARM at 17.8.610, Major Open Burning
Source Restrictions; 17.8.612, Conditional Air Quality Open Burning
Permits; 17.8.613, Christmas Tree Waste Open Burning Permits; 17.8.614,
Commercial Film Production Open Burning Permits; 17.8.615, Firefighter
Training; and 17.8.749, Conditions for Issuance or Denial of Permit.\1\
The amendments: (1) Add references to sections 75-2-211, Permits for
Construction, Installation, Alteration, or Use and 75-2-213, Energy
Development Project--Hearing and Procedures of the MCA pertaining to
the process for appealing air quality permits, including requesting a
hearing; (2) remove duplicative language in the ARM; and (3) and make
minor editorial changes. The Montana Board of Environmental Review
adopted the amendments on June 3, 2016 (effective July 9, 2016). We did
not receive any comments on the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The February 23, 2017, submittal also included revisions to
17.8.1210, General Requirements for Air Quality Operating Permit
Content. However, the state does not want us to act on 17.8.1210,
because it is not part of the Federal SIP. (Memorandum from State of
Montana to the EPA (June 26, 2019)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Final Action

    In this action, the EPA is approving SIP amendments to
Administrative Rules of Montana, shown in Table 1, submitted by the
State of Montana on February 23, 2017.

      Table 1--List of Montana Amendments That the EPA Is Approving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amended sections in the February 23, 2017 submittal for approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.8.610(3), 17.8.612(10) and (11), 17.8.613(8) and (9), 17.8.614(8) and
 (9), 17.8.615(6) and (7), 17.8.749(7).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
amendments described in section II. The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section of
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have
been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been
incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will
be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 12, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.

    September 4, 2019.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart BB--Montana

0
2. In Sec.  52.1370, the table in paragraph (c) is amended:
0
a. By removing the entry for ``17.610'';
0
b. By adding an entry for ``17.8.610'' in numerical order; and
0
c. By revising the entries for ``17.8.612,'' ``17.8.613,''
``17.8.614,'' ``17.8.615,'' and ``17.8.749''.
    The addition and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1370  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             State      EPA final rule
 State  citation        Rule title      effective date       date       Final rule citation        Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
17.8.610.........  Major Open Burning         7/9/2016       9/11/2019  [Insert Federal
                    Source                                               Register citation].
                    Restrictions.

                                                  * * * * * * *
17.8.612.........  Conditional Air            7/9/2016       9/11/2019  [Insert Federal
                    Quality Open                                         Register citation].
                    Burning Permits.
17.8.613.........  Christmas Tree             7/9/2016       9/11/2019  [Insert Federal
                    Waste Open Burning                                   Register citation].
                    Permits.
17.8.614.........  Commercial Film            7/9/2016       9/11/2019  [Insert Federal
                    Production Open                                      Register citation].
                    Burning Permits.
17.8.615.........  Firefighter                7/9/2016       9/11/2019  [Insert Federal
                    Training.                                            Register citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
17.8.749.........  Conditions for             7/9/2016       9/11/2019  [Insert Federal      (1), (3), (4), (5),
                    Issuance or Denial                                   Register citation].  (6), and (8)
                    of Permit.                                                                approved with
                                                                                state effective
                                                                                date of 12/27/02.
                                                                                (7) approved with
                                                                                state effective
                                                                                date of 10/17/03
                                                                                and revised with
                                                                                state effective
                                                                                date of 7/9/2016.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-19550 Filed 9-10-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50351-50353]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17785]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0581; FRL-9949-68-Region 7]

Approval of Missouri's Air Quality Implementation Plans; Regional
Haze State Implementation Plan Revision and 2013 Five-Year Progress
Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted to EPA by the State of Missouri on August 5, 2014,
documenting that the State's existing plan is making adequate progress
to achieve visibility goals by 2018. The Missouri SIP revision
addressed the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) to submit a report describing progress in achieving
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) to improve visibility in Federally
designated areas in nearby states that may be affected by emissions
from sources in Missouri. EPA is taking final action to approve
Missouri's determination that the existing Regional Haze (RH) SIP is
adequate to meet the visibility goals and requires no substantive
revision at this time.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0581. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas
66219. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. The
interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an
appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. Background
II. Summary of SIP Revision
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On September 29, 2015, (80 FR 58410), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Missouri. In the NPR, EPA
proposed approval of Missouri's progress report SIP, a report on
progress made in the first implementation period towards RPGs for Class
I areas that are affected by emissions from Missouri sources. This
progress report SIP and accompanying cover letter also included a
determination that Missouri's existing regional haze SIP requires no
substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze
visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018.
    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs
for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected
by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition,
the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the
same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of
the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. The first
progress report SIP is due five years after submittal of the initial
regional haze SIP. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
submitted its regional haze SIP on August 5, 2009, and a supplement on
January 30, 2012, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 26, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval of
Missouri's August 5, 2009, regional haze SIP to address the first
implementation period for regional haze (77 FR 38007). In a separate
action, published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA finalized a
limited disapproval of the Missouri regional haze SIP because of the
State's reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule to meet certain
regional haze requirements, which EPA replaced in August 2011 with
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8,
2011)). In the aforementioned June 7, 2012, action, EPA finalized a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Missouri to replace the
State's reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. Following these EPA
actions, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA (``EME Homer City''), 696 F. 3d 7 (D.C. Cir.
2012), vacating CSAPR and keeping CAIR in place pending the
promulgation of a valid replacement rule. On April 29, 2014, the
U.S. Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit opinion vacating CSAPR,
and remanded the case for further proceedings. EME Homer City, 572
U.S. 134 S. Ct. 1584. In the interim, CAIR remained in place. On
October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion to lift the
stay on CSAPR. Order of October 23, 2014, in EME Homer City, D.C.
Cir. No. 11-1302. EPA issued an interim final rule to clarify how
EPA will implement CSAPR consistent with the D.C. Circuit's order.
79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim final rulemaking).
Subsequent to the interim final rulemaking, EPA began implementation
of CSAPR on January 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 14, 2014, MDNR provided to the Federal Land Managers a
revision to Missouri's SIP reporting on progress made during the first
implementation period toward RPGs for Class I areas in the state and
Class I areas outside the state that are affected by Missouri sources.
Missouri has two Class I areas, Mingo National Wildlife Refuge (Mingo)
and Hercules Glades Wilderness Area (Hercules Glades). Missouri also
hosts an additional

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring site, located at El Dorado Springs.\2\ Notification was
published on MDNR's Air Pollution Control Program Web site on April 28,
2014. A public hearing was held on held at the St. Louis Regional
Office on Thursday, May 29, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The El Dorado Springs IMPROVE monitoring site is a Protocol
monitoring site that is maintained by MDNR to also measure
visibility impairment in Missouri, but it is not located in a
Federal Class I area. It was established to aid in determining
impacts to portions of the country where no Class I areas exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 5, 2014, MDNR submitted the five year progress report SIP
to EPA. This progress report SIP and accompanying cover letter also
included a determination that the state's existing regional haze SIP
requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional
haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. EPA
proposed approval of Missouri's progress report SIP on the basis that
it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On August 5, 2014, MDNR submitted a revision to Missouri's regional
haze SIP to address progress made toward RPGs of Class I areas in the
state and Class I areas outside the state that are affected by
emissions from Missouri's sources. This progress report SIP also
included a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing
regional haze SIP. Missouri has two Class I areas within its borders,
and maintains an additional IMPROVE monitoring site. MDNR utilized
particulate matter source apportionment (PSAT) techniques for
photochemical modeling conducted by the Central Regional Air Planning
Association (CENRAP) to identify two Class I areas in nearby Arkansas
potentially impacted by Missouri sources: Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area
(UBWA) and Caney Creek Wilderness Area (CCWA).
    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) require a progress report SIP to
address seven elements. In the NPR, EPA proposed to approve the SIP as
adequately addressing each element under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The seven
elements and EPA's proposed conclusions in the NPR are briefly
summarized below.
    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) require progress report SIPs to
include a description of the status of measures in the regional haze
implementation plan; a summary of the emissions reductions achieved; an
assessment of the visibility conditions for each Class I area in the
state; an analysis of the changes in emissions from sources and
activities within the state; an assessment of any significant changes
in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have
limited or impeded visibility improvement progress in Class I areas
impacted by the state's sources; an assessment of the sufficiency of
the regional haze implementation plan to enable states to meet
reasonable progress goals; and a review of the state's visibility
monitoring strategy. As explained in detail in the NPR, EPA proposed
Missouri's progress report SIP addressed each element and therefore
satisfied the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g).
    In addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to
submit, at the same time as the progress report SIP revision, a
determination of the adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and
to take one of four possible actions based on information in the
progress report. In its progress report SIP, Missouri determined that
its regional haze SIP is sufficient to meet its obligations related to
the reasonable progress goals for Class I areas affected by Missouri's
sources. The State accordingly provided EPA with a negative declaration
that further revision of the existing regional haze implementation plan
was not needed at this time. See 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1). As explained in
detail in the NPR, EPA proposed to determine that Missouri had
adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility data
trends at the Class I areas impacted by Missouri's sources and the
emissions trends of the largest emitters in Missouri of visibility-
impairing pollutants both indicate that the reasonable progress goals
for 2018 for these areas will be met or exceeded. Therefore, in our
NPR, EPA proposed to approve Missouri's progress report SIP as meeting
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Missouri's regional haze
five-year progress report and SIP revision, submitted August 5, 2014,
as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in 40
CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House
of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States.
EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 30, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 18, 2016.
Mark Hague,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq.

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry ``(70) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the
Attainment and Maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Regional Haze (2014 Five-Year Progress Report)'' in numerical order
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Missouri Nonregulatory SIP Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable           State
    Name of nonregulatory SIP          geographic or       submittal     EPA approval date       Explanation
            provision               nonattainment area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(70) State Implementation Plan     Statewide...........       8/5/14   8/1/16 [Insert        [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0
 (SIP) Revision for the                                                 Federal Register      581; FRL-9949-68-
 Attainment and Maintenance of                                          citation].            Region 7].
 National Ambient Air Quality
 Standards for Regional Haze
 (2014 Five-Year Progress Report).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-17785 Filed 7-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 240 (Friday, December 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59599-59600]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27100]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0729; FRL-9970-52]

Registration Review Proposed Interim Decisions for Several
Pesticides; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed
interim registration review decisions and opens a 60-day public comment
period on the proposed interim decisions for the following pesticides:
Cloransulam-methyl, cymoxanil, cyprodinil, diethylene glycol monomethyl
ether (DGME), dimethomorph, fomesafen, kresoxim-methyl, metalaxyl &
mefenoxam, and the mineral acids. Registration review is EPA's periodic
review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide
continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is,
that the pesticide can perform its intended function without
unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.
Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's
registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge,
including its effects on human health and the environment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket
identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest
provided in the table in Unit II, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information, contact: The Chemical Review
Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the table in Unit
II.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Dana Friedman, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest
identified in the table in Unit II.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's proposed interim registration review decisions for the
pesticides shown in the following table, and opens a 60-day public
comment period on the proposed interim decisions. For cloransulam-
methyl, this notice also opens a comment period on the draft human
health and ecological risk assessments.

                       Table--Registration Review Proposed Interim Decisions Being Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chemical review manager and
Registration review case name and No.                 Docket ID No.                     contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cloransulam-methyl, Case 7243........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0855                        Patricia Biggio,
                                                                                [email protected], 703-
                                                                                347-0547.
Cymoxanil, Case 7023.................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0148                        Moana Appleyard,
                                                                                [email protected], 703-
                                                                                308-8175.
Cyprodinil, Case 7025................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1008                        Cathryn Britton,
                                                                                [email protected], 703-
                                                                                308-0136.
Diethylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether     EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0694                        Stephen Savage,
 (DGME), Case 5010.                                                                 [email protected], 703-
                                                                                347-0345.
Dimethomorph, Case 7021..............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0045                        Linsey Walsh,
                                                                                [email protected], 703-
                                                                                347-8030.
Fomesafen, Case 7211.................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0239                        Leigh Rimmer,
                                                                                [email protected], 703-
                                                                                347-0553.
Kresoxim-methyl, Case 7026...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0861                        Bilin Basu,
                                                                                [email protected], 703-347-
                                                                                0455.
Metalaxyl and Mefenoxam, Case 0081...  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0863                        Leigh Rimmer,
                                                                                [email protected], 703-
                                                                                347-0553.
Mineral Acids, Case 4064.............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0766                        Rachel Ricciardi,
                                                                                [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
                                                                                Cathryn Britton,
                                                                                [email protected], 703-
                                                                                308-0136.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The registration review docket for a pesticide includes earlier
documents related to the registration review case. For example, the
review opened with a Preliminary Work Plan, for public comment. A Final
Work Plan was placed in the docket following public comment on the
Preliminary Work Plan.
    The documents in the dockets describe EPA's rationales for
conducting additional risk assessments for the registration review of
the pesticides included in the table in Unit II, as well as the
Agency's subsequent risk findings and consideration of possible risk
mitigation measures. These proposed interim registration review
decisions are supported by the rationales included in those documents.
    Following public comment, the Agency will issue interim or final
registration review decisions for the pesticides listed in the table in
Unit II.
    The registration review program is being conducted under
congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both
to make timely decisions and to involve the public. Section 3(g) of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C.
136a(g)) required EPA to establish by regulation procedures for
reviewing pesticide registrations, originally with a goal of reviewing
each pesticide's registration every 15 years to ensure that a pesticide
continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. The Agency's
final rule to implement this program was issued in August 2006 and
became effective in October 2006, and appears at 40 CFR part 155,
subpart C. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA)
was amended and extended in September 2007. FIFRA, as amended by PRIA
in 2007, requires EPA to complete registration review decisions by
October 1, 2022, for all pesticides registered as of October 1, 2007.
    The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for
a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed interim
registration review decisions. This comment period is intended to
provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating
any necessary amendments to the proposed interim decision. All comments
should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be
received by EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will
become part of the docket for the pesticides included in the table in
Unit II. Comments received after the close of the comment period will
be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and may provide a ``Response to Comments Memorandum'' in
the docket. The interim registration review decision will explain the
effect that any comments had on the interim decision and provide the
Agency's response to significant comments.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: November 27, 2017.
Charles Smith,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-27100 Filed 12-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25631-25632]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09337]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4900-087]

Forestport Hydro, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Application: Notice of Intent (NOI) to File License
Application and Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP).
    b. Project No.: 4900-087.
    c. Date Filed: February 28, 2022.
    d. Submitted by: Forestport Hydro, LLC (Forestport).
    e. Name of Project: Forestport Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Located at the confluence of the Black River and Alder
Creek, in the Town of Forestport in Oneida County, New York. The
project does not occupy any federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Mr. Justin Bristol, Asset
Development, Clear Energy Hydro, LLC, 18 S Wilcox St., Ste. 100, Castle
Rock, CO 80104. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Erin Stockschlaeder, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
[email protected].
    j. Forestport Hydro filed its request to use the TLP on February
28, 2022 and

provided public notice of its request on March 10 and 13, 2022.\1\ In a
letter dated April 26, 2022, the Director of the Division of Hydropower
Licensing approved Forestport Hydro's request to use the TLP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Forestport Hydro originally provided public notice of its
request on March 6 and 8, 2022, 6 and 8 days later than required
under section 5.3 of the Commission's regulations that stated
comments would be due by March 30, 2022 (30 days from the NOI filing
date). To allow for a full 30-day public comment period, Forestport
Hydro published errata notices on March 10 and 13, 2022 that stated
comments on the TLP request would be due by April 12, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating
consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Officer, as
required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the
implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Forestport Hydro as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and
consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
    m. Forestport Hydro filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed on the Commission's website
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field, to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY).
    o. The applicant states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 4900. Pursuant to 18 CFR
16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by February 28,
2025.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: April 26, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-09337 Filed 4-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7784-7785]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-D-1145]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Enrichment Strategies for Clinical
Trials To Support Approval of Human Drugs and Biological Products;
Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending the
comment period for the draft guidance for industry entitled
``Enrichment Strategies for Clinical Trials to Support Approval of
Human Drugs and Biological Products'' that appeared in the Federal
Register of December 17, 2012 (77 FR 74670). In the document, FDA
announced the availability of this draft guidance and explained that
the comment period would close on February 15, 2013. The Agency is
taking this action to allow interested persons additional time to
submit comments.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by March 18, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number

found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Temple, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 4212, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0003,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and
Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD
20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
Robert L. Becker, Center for Device and Radiological Health, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 5674,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0003,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of December 17, 2012 (77 FR 74670), FDA
announced the availability of this draft guidance and explained that
the comment period would close on February 15, 2013. The Agency is
extending the comment period to March 18, 2013, to allow more time for
public comments.
    This document provides guidance to industry on enrichment
strategies that can be used in clinical trials intended to support
effectiveness and safety claims in new drug applications and biologics
license applications. Similar approaches could be used in clinical
trials in earlier phases of drug development. This draft guidance
defines and discusses three enrichment strategies: Decreasing
heterogeneity, predictive enrichment, and prognostic enrichment. The
guidance also discusses general clinical trial design considerations,
provides examples of potential clinical trial designs, and discusses
regulatory considerations when using enrichment strategies.

II. Submission of Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) . It is only necessary
to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: January 29, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-02293 Filed 2-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13515-13519]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05291]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0812; Amendment No. 25-138]
RIN 2120-AK36

Requirements for Chemical Oxygen Generators Installed on
Transport Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the type certification requirements for
chemical oxygen generators installed on transport category airplanes so
the generators are secure and not subject to misuse. This rule
increases the level of security for future transport category airplane
designs but does not directly affect the existing fleet of those
airplanes.

DATES: This action becomes effective May 12, 2014.

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 technical questions concerning
this action, contact Jeff Gardlin, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch,
ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Douglas
Anderson, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Regional
Counsel, ANM-7, Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue regulations 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 final rule is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum
standards required in the interest of safety for the design and
performance of aircraft; regulations and minimum standards in the
interest of safety for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft;
and regulations for other practices, methods, and procedures the
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority because it revises the
safety standards for design and operation of transport category
airplanes.

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document

AD Airworthiness Directive
ARAC Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
COG Chemical Oxygen Generator
LOARC Lavatory Oxygen Aviation Rulemaking Committee
SFAR Special Federal Aviation Regulation

I. Overview of Final Rule

    This final rule adopts new standards for chemical oxygen generators
(COG) installed in transport category airplanes. These new standards,
based on the recommendations of the Lavatory Oxygen Aviation Rulemaking
Committee (LOARC), pertain to future applications for type
certificates, address potential security vulnerabilities with COG
installations, and provide performance-based options for acceptable
methods of compliance.

II. Background

    The FAA became aware of security vulnerabilities with certain types
of oxygen systems installed inside the lavatories of most transport
category airplanes. To address the underlying security issues, the FAA
chartered an aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) to make
recommendations regarding new standards for oxygen system
installations, as well as how to implement those standards.
Specifically, the LOARC was tasked to:
     Establish criteria for in-service, new production and new
type design airplanes, preferably in the form of performance standards,
for safe and secure installation of lavatory oxygen systems;
     Determine whether the same criteria should apply to the
existing fleet and to new production and type designs;
     Establish what type of safety assessment approach should
be used, for example, in accordance with Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE)

International Document ARP5577 \1\ or Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) 25.1309, as well as define content and procedures
of the safety assessment;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) 5577, Aircraft
Lightning Direct Effects Certification, dated September 30, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Determine whether tamper resistance, active tamper
evidence, or different system design characteristics are equivalent
options;
     Develop guidance as necessary to satisfy the recommended
criteria for each system design characteristic as appropriate; and
     Consider the advantages and disadvantages of different
implementation options and recommend a schedule(s) for implementation.
    The LOARC identified five key subjects to focus on to develop its
recommendations and fulfill its charter. Those subjects were:
     Design considerations--identifying and characterizing the
design constraints and key factors affecting an installation.
     Security standards--identifying the necessary components
of a secure installation, in terms of both new designs and for
retrofit.
     System performance--identifying the factors that affect
system performance in general and how modifications to enhance security
might affect system performance.
     Implementation considerations--identifying the major
factors to implement the new requirements into the fleet as
expeditiously as practicable, as well as assessing how long certain
actions will take.
     Other affected areas--characterizing the parameters that
resulted in the determination of a security vulnerability for lavatory
COG installations and establishing criteria for evaluating other
installations against those characteristics.
    The ARC submitted its recommendations to the FAA. Those
recommendations are the basis for these new standards. On January 9,
2013, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Notice
No. 13-01, entitled Requirements for Chemical Oxygen Generators
Installed on Transport Category Airplanes in the Federal Register (78
FR 1765). The comment period for the NPRM closed on March 11, 2013.
Additional background and historical information is contained in the
NPRM. (See the docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov.)

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

    The FAA received comments from four commenters regarding the NPRM
for this final rule. Those commenters were the Association of Flight
Attendants, The Boeing Company (hereafter referred to as ``Boeing''),
Bombardier, and an individual commenter.

Support for the NPRM

    The Association of Flight Attendants and Bombardier concurred with
the proposal without further comment.

Requests To Revise Applicability

    Boeing commented that the proposed rule should be limited to
lavatory installations and indicated that this would be consistent with
the LOARC's recommendation. We disagree. The LOARC generalized its
recommendations to apply to any COG installation. The effect of these
new regulations on any given COG installation will vary. For most
interior arrangements, lavatories are the only installation where
design changes will be necessary. We did not change this final rule
based on this comment.
    Boeing proposed that we modify the applicability of the proposed
rule to correspond with Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-04-09,
Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011), such that all-cargo
airplanes and airplanes operating under Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) parts other than part 121 operations would not be affected. We
disagree. While the final rule is intended to address the security of
COGs on primarily passenger-carrying airplanes operating under part
121, all types of operations will benefit to some degree. Once
installations are defined for an airplane type, the airplane could be
operated under any operating regulation and would not require changes.
This approach also accommodates future changes in operating
requirements by making the COG standards a basic design requirement.
Also, Sec.  25.1450 contains a provision that excludes compliance with
the new standards for airplanes approved using Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR) 109. We did not change this final rule based on this
comment.
    An individual commented that the in-service fleet should be
modified for any COG installation and not just lavatories. We disagree.
The proposed rule did not address in-service airplanes, so adding
retrofit requirements would be beyond the scope of the proposal.
However, the FAA has taken action to revise COG installations that have
a known unsafe condition by issuing AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630
(76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011) and AD 2012-11-09, Amendment 39-17072 (77
FR 38000, June 26, 2012). If we identify additional unsafe conditions
on in-service airplanes, we will issue additional ADs. We did not
change this final rule based on this comment.
    The same individual also proposed that the requirements apply to
newly-produced airplanes, in addition to new type certificates. We
disagree. As discussed above, the FAA has already taken action on
installations identified as being potentially unsafe. The referenced
ADs apply to newly produced airplanes, as well as existing airplanes.
This final rule raises the level of safety for future type
certificates, but it is not meant to affect current airplanes in
production. We did not change this final rule based on this comment.

Request To Revise Economic Analysis

    Boeing commented that if the proposed rule applies to all COG
installations, the economic analysis was not accurate, since it assumes
there will be little cost impact. We disagree. As previously noted, all
COG installations are affected by this final rule, but the vast
majority of installations will not require any design changes because
they are located where it would be immediately obvious if anyone
attempted to access them. In those cases, the installation complies
with the rule because of its location and would not require any
physical changes to the generator or method of installation. In
addition, because this rule applies to new applications for type
certification, any design changes to existing approaches that might be
needed can readily be accommodated during the design process.
Therefore, the economic assessment is valid. We did not change this
final rule based on this comment.
    Boeing also commented that if the requirements of this rule were
imposed as a result of Sec.  21.101, the cost ramifications would be
more significant and that this was not accounted for in the economic
evaluation. We disagree. It is true that these requirements could be
imposed on significant product-level design changes. However, as noted
in the ``Benefits'' discussion of the Type Certification Procedures for
Changed Products (65 FR 36244, June 7, 2000) final rule, compliance is
required with all later regulations where such compliance will
materially contribute to the level of safety.
    The provisions of Sec.  21.101 do not require compliance with later
requirements under specified

circumstances. In particular, where the costs involved would not be
commensurate with the safety benefit achieved. Therefore, the
incremental costs for changed products have already been justified by
the benefits and are not attributable to this final rule. Accordingly,
no change was made to this final rule as a result of this comment.

Comments on Design Considerations

    An individual commented on the detailed technical merits any such
system should have, as well as the processes necessary to ensure such
systems can be maintained and produced. We agree that most of the
comments are worthwhile design considerations, but they are beyond the
scope of this rulemaking effort, which defines a minimum performance
standard for COG installations. The commenter also addressed the
economics of product development and marketing, which is also beyond
the scope of the notice. We did not change this final rule based on the
individual's comments.

Request To Maintain Paragraph Numbering

    Boeing suggested that the current paragraph numbering be maintained
in the CFR, such that Sec.  25.795(d) is retained as ``exceptions.''
Boeing suggested this would assist future applicants administratively,
since the amendment level would not affect which paragraph contained a
requirement. We partially agree. While we understand the reason for the
comment, an applicant must always specify the certification basis when
applying for a design change, so the paragraph numbering should not be
an issue. Furthermore, for consistency with existing regulations, a
paragraph covering exceptions should come after the substantive
requirements of the section. We did not change this final rule based on
this comment.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 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. 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, the 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 the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows:
    This final rule adopts new standards for future type certificate
applications pertaining to COGs installed on transport category
airplanes. The new standards are intended to eliminate potential
security vulnerabilities. Consequently, the primary benefit of this
rule is that air carriers may continue to provide supplemental oxygen
to individuals in lavatories during emergencies while ensuring that
individuals in lavatories cannot tamper with the supplemental oxygen
system.
    The rule will affect future certifications, but as the newest
certificated airplanes are in compliance with this final rule, these
costs are expected to be minimal. The Boeing Model 787 and the Airbus
A350 established an acceptable design, or received type certification
between 3 and 5 years ago (hence predating this rule). The FAA expects
that these systems can be incorporated into future type certificated
airplanes at a minimal cost.
    Secondly, the ``newer'' oxygen systems (such as those on the Boeing
Model 787 and the Airbus A350) are cost efficient in comparison to the
more traditional COGs.\2\ The ``newer'' systems weigh less and deliver
oxygen more effectively than the traditional COGs. The lesser weight of
the materials used to construct the newer systems, combined with a
reduction in the amount of oxygen required per passenger, translates
into fuel cost savings over an airplane's lifespan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20050518005123/en/Boeing-Selects-Aerospaces-Pulse-Oxygen-System-Outfit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The design standards for secure oxygen systems apply to future
transport category airplane type certificates only. Airplanes currently
in production, or already in the existing fleet, are excluded from this
rule. Thus, there are no costs to the existing fleet or airplanes in
production.
    For these reasons this final rule is expected to have a minimal
impact with positive net benefits, and a regulatory evaluation was not
prepared. The FAA has therefore determined that this final rule is not
a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

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 that 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.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) small-entity size standard
for aircraft manufacturers is 1,500 employees or less. No U.S.
manufacturers of transport category airplanes are small entities; thus,
this final rule will not affect small entities, and a regulatory
flexibility analysis was not prepared.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking will 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. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it
would improve a safety objective and therefore is not considered an
unnecessary obstacle to international 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.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This final 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 the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this final rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    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. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these regulations.
    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. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E 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. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The 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

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency 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.

VI. 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 the 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
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 the 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 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

The Amendments

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

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704.

0
2. Amend Sec.  25.795 by redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as (e)
and (f) respectively, and by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  25.795  Security considerations.

* * * * *
    (d) Each chemical oxygen generator or its installation must be
designed to be secure from deliberate manipulation by one of the
following:
    (1) By providing effective resistance to tampering,
    (2) By providing an effective combination of resistance to
tampering and active tamper-evident features,
    (3) By installation in a location or manner whereby any attempt to
access the generator would be immediately obvious, or
    (4) By a combination of approaches specified in paragraphs (d)(1),
(d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section that the Administrator finds provides
a secure installation.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  25.1450 by adding a new paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec.  25.1450  Chemical oxygen generators.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Except as provided in SFAR 109, each chemical oxygen generator
installation must meet the requirements of Sec.  25.795(d).
* * * * *

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44703 in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2014.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-05291 Filed 3-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P