[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41838-41845]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15048]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0302; FRL-9948-15-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Missouri; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve portions of a November 20, 2015, State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from Missouri concerning
allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emission
allowances. Under CSAPR, large electricity generating units in Missouri
are subject to Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) requiring the units
to participate in CSAPR's Federal trading program for annual emissions
of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and one of CSAPR's two Federal
trading programs for annual emissions of sulfur

dioxide (SO2). This action approves Missouri's adoption into
its SIP of state regulations establishing state-determined allocations
to replace EPA's default allocations to Missouri units of CSAPR
allowances for annual NOX emissions and annual
SO2 emissions for 2017 and later years. EPA is approving the
SIP revision because it meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and EPA's regulations for approval of an abbreviated SIP revision
replacing EPA's default allocations of CSAPR emission allowances with
state-determined allocations. Approval of this SIP revision does not
alter any provision of CSAPR's Federal trading programs for annual
NOX emissions and annual SO2 emissions as applied
to Missouri units other than the allowance allocation provisions, and
the FIPs requiring the units to participate in those trading programs
(as modified by the SIP revision) remain in place. The approval is
being issued as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule
because EPA views it as uncontroversial and does not anticipate adverse
comment. EPA is not acting at this time on the portion of Missouri's
SIP submittal concerning allocations of CSAPR allowances for ozone-
season NOX emissions.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective August 12, 2016,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 28,
2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2016-0302, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry Gonzalez, Air Planning and
Development Branch, Air and Waste Management Division, EPA Region 7,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa KS 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7041; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions
III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions
IV. Missouri's SIP Submittal and EPA's Analysis
    A. Missouri's SIP Submittal
    B. EPA's Analysis of Missouri's Submittal
    1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP Submittal
    2. Methodology Covering All Allowances Potentially Requiring
Allocation
    3. Assurance That Total Allocations Will Not Exceed the State
Budget
    4. Timely Submission of State-Determined Allocations to EPA
    5. No Changes to Allocations Already Submitted to EPA or
Recorded
    6. No Other Substantive Changes to Federal Trading Program
Provisions
V. EPA's Action on Missouri's Submittal
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the portions of a
November 20, 2015, SIP submittal from Missouri concerning allocations
of allowances used in the CSAPR \1\ Federal trading programs for annual
emissions of NOX and SO2. Large electricity
generating units in Missouri are subject to CSAPR FIPs that require the
units to participate in the Federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading
Program and the Federal CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading
Program.\2\ Each of CSAPR's Federal trading programs includes default
provisions governing the allocation among participating units of
emission allowances used for compliance under that program. CSAPR also
provides a process for the submission and approval of SIP revisions to
replace EPA's default allocations with state-determined allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011), (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and
52.39 and subparts AAAAA through DDDDD of 40 CFR part 97).
    \2\ EPA has proposed to replace the terms ``Transport Rule'' and
``TR'' in the text of the Code of Federal Regulations with the
updated terms ``Cross-State Air Pollution Rule'' and ``CSAPR.'' 80
FR 75706, 75759 (December 3, 2015). Except where otherwise noted,
EPA uses the updated terms here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIP revision approved in this action incorporates into
Missouri's SIP state regulations establishing state-determined
allowance allocations to replace EPA's default allocations to Missouri
units of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and CSAPR
SO2
    Group 1 allowances issued for the control periods in 2017 and later
years. EPA is approving the SIP revision because it meets the
requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations for approval of an
abbreviated SIP revision replacing EPA's default allocations of CSAPR
emission allowances with state-determined allocations. Approval of this
SIP revision does not alter any provisions of the CSAPR NOX
Annual Trading Program or the CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading
Program as applied to Missouri units other than the allowance
allocation provisions, and the FIPs requiring the units to participate
in those programs (as modified by this SIP revision) remain in place.
    Large electricity generating units in Missouri are also subject to
an additional CSAPR FIP requiring them to participate in the Federal
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. While Missouri's SIP
submittal also seeks to replace the default allocations of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances to Missouri units, EPA is not
acting on that portion of the SIP submittal at this time. Approval of
this SIP revision concerning other CSAPR trading programs has no effect
on the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program as applied to
Missouri units, and the FIP requiring the units to participate in that
program remains in place.
    Section II of this document summarizes relevant aspects of the
CSAPR Federal trading programs and FIPs as well as the range of
opportunities states have to submit SIP revisions to modify or replace
the FIP requirements while continuing to rely on CSAPR's trading
programs to address the states' obligations to mitigate interstate air
pollution. Section III describes the specific conditions for approval
of such SIP revisions. Section IV contains EPA's analysis of Missouri's
SIP submittal, and Section V sets forth EPA's action on the submittal.
    We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed
rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate
no adverse comment. However, in the

Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a
separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to approve the
SIP revision if adverse comments are received on this direct final
rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions

    EPA issued CSAPR in July 2011 to address the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning interstate transport of air
pollution. As amended, CSAPR requires twenty-eight Eastern states to
limit their statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX
in order to mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting
other states' ability to attain or maintain three National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS): The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The emissions limitations are defined in terms
of maximum statewide ``budgets'' for emissions of annual
SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season
NOX by each covered state's large electricity generating
units. The budgets are implemented in two phases of generally
increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets applying to emissions
in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in 2017
and later years. As a mechanism for achieving compliance with the
emissions limitations, CSAPR established four Federal emissions trading
programs: A program for annual NOX emissions, a program for
ozone-season NOX emissions, and two geographically separate
programs for annual SO2 emissions. CSAPR also established up
to three FIPs applicable to the large electricity generating units in
each covered state. Each CSAPR FIP requires a state's units to
participate in one of the four CSAPR trading programs.
    CSAPR includes provisions under which states may submit and EPA
will approve SIP revisions to modify or replace the CSAPR FIP
requirements while allowing states to continue to meet their transport-
related obligations using either CSAPR's Federal emissions trading
programs or state emissions trading programs integrated with the
Federal programs.\3\ Through such a SIP revision, a state may replace
EPA's default provisions for allocating emission allowances among the
state's units, employing any state-selected methodology to allocate or
auction the allowances, subject to timing conditions and limits on
overall allowance quantities. In the case of CSAPR's Federal trading
program for ozone-season NOX emissions (or an integrated
state trading program), a state may also expand trading program
applicability to include certain smaller electricity generating units.
However, no emissions budget increases or other substantive changes to
the trading program provisions are allowed. If a state wants to replace
CSAPR FIP requirements with SIP requirements under which the state's
units participate in a state trading program that is integrated with
and identical to the Federal trading program even as to the allocation
and applicability provisions, the state may submit a SIP revision for
that purpose as well. A state whose units are subject to multiple CSAPR
FIPs and Federal trading programs may submit SIP revisions to modify or
replace the requirements under either some or all of those FIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 40 CFR 52.38, 52.39. States also retain the ability to
submit SIP revisions to meet their transport-related obligations
using mechanisms other than the CSAPR Federal trading programs or
integrated state trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States can submit two basic forms of CSAPR-related SIP revisions
effective for emissions control periods in 2017 or later years.\4\
Specific conditions for approval of each form of SIP revision are set
forth in the CSAPR regulations, as described in Section III below.
Under the first alternative--an ``abbreviated'' SIP revision--a state
may submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces the default
allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions of a CSAPR Federal
trading program for the state.\5\ Approval of an abbreviated SIP
revision leaves the corresponding CSAPR FIP and all other provisions of
the relevant Federal trading program in place for the state's units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CSAPR also provides for a third, more streamlined form of
SIP revision that is effective only for control periods in 2016 and
is not relevant here. See Sec.  52.38(a)(3), (b)(3); Sec.  52.39(d),
(g).
    \5\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4), (b)(4); Sec.  52.39(e), (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the second alternative--a ``full'' SIP revision--a state may
submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces a CSAPR Federal
trading program for the state with a state trading program integrated
with the Federal trading program, so long as the state trading program
is substantively identical to the Federal trading program or does not
substantively differ from the Federal trading program except as
discussed above with regard to the allowance allocation and/or
applicability provisions.\6\ For purposes of a full SIP revision, a
state may either adopt state rules with complete trading program
language, incorporate the Federal trading program language into its
state rules by reference (with appropriate conforming changes), or
employ a combination of these approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Sec.  52.38(a)(5), (b)(5); Sec.  52.39(f), (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSAPR regulations identify several important consequences and
limitations associated with approval of a full SIP revision. First,
upon EPA's approval of a full SIP revision as correcting the deficiency
in the state's SIP that was the basis for a particular CSAPR FIP, the
obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR Federal trading
program is automatically eliminated for units subject to the state's
jurisdiction without the need for a separate EPA withdrawal action, so
long as EPA's approval of the SIP is full and unconditional.\7\ Second,
approval of a full SIP revision does not terminate the obligation to
participate in the corresponding CSAPR Federal trading program for any
units located in any Indian country within the borders of the state,
and if and when a unit is located in Indian country within a state's
borders, EPA may modify the SIP approval to exclude from the SIP, and
include in the surviving CSAPR FIP instead, certain trading program
provisions that apply jointly to units in the state and to units in
Indian country within the state's borders.\8\ Finally, if at the time a
full SIP revision is approved EPA has already started recording
allocations of allowances for a given control period to a state's
units, the Federal trading program provisions authorizing EPA to
complete the process of allocating and recording allowances for that
control period to those units will continue to apply, unless EPA's
approval of the SIP revision provides otherwise.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Sec.  52.38(a)(6), (b)(6); Sec.  52.39(j).
    \8\ Sec.  52.38(a)(5)(iv) and (v), (a)(6), (b)(5)(v) and (vi),
(b)(6); Sec.  52.39(f)(4) and (5), (i)(4) and (5), (j).
    \9\ Sec.  52.38(a)(7), (b)(7); Sec.  52.39(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain CSAPR Phase 2 emissions budgets have been remanded to EPA
for reconsideration.\10\ However, the CSAPR trading programs remain in
effect and all CSAPR emissions budgets likewise remain in effect
pending EPA final action to address the remands. None of

the CSAPR emissions budgets applicable to Missouri units has been
remanded.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138
(D.C. Cir. 2015).
    \11\ Litigation concerning EPA's supplemental rule establishing
the requirement for Missouri units to participate in the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program is currently being held
in abeyance. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. EPA, No. 12-1023
(D.C. Cir. filed January 13, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2015, EPA proposed to update CSAPR to address Eastern states'
interstate air pollution mitigation obligations with regard to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Among other things, the proposed rule would amend the
Phase 2 emissions budget applicable to Missouri units under the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program and would make technical
corrections and nomenclature changes throughout the CSAPR regulations,
including the CSAPR FIPs at 40 CFR part 52 and the CSAPR Federal
trading program regulations for annual NOX, ozone-season
NOX, and SO2 emissions at 40 CFR part 97.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 80 FR 75706, 75710, 75757 (December 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions

    Each CSAPR-related abbreviated or full SIP revision must meet the
following general submittal conditions:
     Timeliness and completeness of SIP submittal. If a state
wants to replace the default allowance allocation or applicability
provisions of a CSAPR Federal trading program, the complete SIP
revision must be submitted to EPA by December 1 of the year before the
deadlines described below for submitting allocation or auction amounts
to EPA for the first control period for which the state wants to
replace the default allocation and/or applicability provisions.\13\
(The SIP submission deadline is inoperative in the case of a SIP
revision that seeks only to replace a CSAPR FIP and Federal trading
program with a SIP and a substantively identical state trading program
integrated with the Federal trading program.) The SIP submittal
completeness criteria in section 2.1 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51
also apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(ii), (a)(5)(vi), (b)(4)(iii),
(b)(5)(vii); Sec.  52.39(e)(2), (f)(6), (h)(2), (i)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the general submittal conditions, a CSAPR-related
abbreviated or full SIP seeking to address the allocation or auction of
emission allowances must meet the following further conditions:
     Methodology covering all allowances potentially requiring
allocation. For each Federal trading program addressed by a SIP
revision, the SIP revision's allowance allocation or auction
methodology must replace both the Federal program's default allocations
to existing units \14\ at 40 CFR 97.411(a), 97.511(a), 97.611(a), or
97.711(a), as applicable, and the Federal trading program's provisions
for allocating allowances from the new unit set-aside (NUSA) for the
state at 40 CFR 97.411(b)(1) and 97.412(a), 97.511(b)(1) and 97.512(a),
97.611(b)(1) and 97.612(a), or 97.711(b)(1) and 97.712(a), as
applicable.\15\ In the case of a state with Indian country within its
borders, while the SIP revision may neither alter nor assume the
Federal program's provisions for administering the Indian country NUSA
for the state, the SIP revision must include procedures addressing any
the disposition of otherwise unallocated allowances from an Indian
country NUSA that may be made available for allocation by the state
after EPA has carried out the Indian country NUSA allocation
procedures.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In the context of the approval conditions for CSAPR-related
SIP revisions, an ``existing unit'' is a unit for which EPA has
determined default allowance allocations (which could be allocations
of zero allowances) in the rulemakings establishing and amending
CSAPR. A spreadsheet showing EPA's default allocations to existing
units is posted at www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/techinfo.html.
    \15\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(i), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(ii);
Sec.  52.39(e)(1), (f)(1), (h)(1), (i)(1).
    \16\ See Sec. Sec.  97.412(b)(10)(ii), 97.512(b)(10)(ii),
97.612(b)(10)(ii), 97.712(b)(10)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Assurance that total allocations will not exceed the state
budget. For each Federal trading program addressed by a SIP revision,
the total amount of allowances auctioned or allocated for each control
period under the SIP revision (prior to the addition by EPA of any
unallocated allowances from any Indian country NUSA for the state) may
not exceed the state's emissions budget for the control period less the
sum of the amount of any Indian country NUSA for the state for the
control period and any allowances already allocated to the state's
units for the control period and recorded by EPA.\17\ Under its SIP
revision, a state is free to not allocate allowances to some or all
potentially affected units, to allocate or auction allowances to
entities other than potentially affected units, or to allocate or
auction fewer than the maximum permissible quantity of allowances and
retire the remainder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4)(i)(A), (a)(5)(i)(A), (b)(4)(ii)(A),
(b)(5)(ii)(A); Sec.  52.39(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), (h)(1)(i),
(i)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Timely submission of state-determined allocations to EPA.
The SIP revision must require the state to submit to EPA the amounts of
any allowances allocated or auctioned to each unit for each control
period (other than allowances initially set aside in the state's
allocation or auction process and later allocated or auctioned to such
units from the set-aside amount) by the following deadlines.\18\ Note
that the submission deadlines differ for amounts allocated or auctioned
to units considered existing units for CSAPR purposes and amounts
allocated or auctioned to other units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and (C), (a)(5)(i)(B) and (C),
(b)(4)(ii)(B) and (C), (b)(5)(ii)(B) and (C); Sec.  52.39(e)(1)(ii)
and (iii), (f)(1)(ii) and (iii), (h)(1)(ii) and (iii), (i)(1)(ii)
and (iii).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Deadline for submission
         Units           Year of the control    to EPA of allocations or
                                period              auction results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing..............  2017 and 2018........  June 1, 2016.
                        2019 and 2020........  June 1, 2017.
                        2021 and 2022........  June 1, 2018.
                        2023 and later years.  June 1 of the fourth year
                                                before the year of the
                                                control period.
Other.................  All years............  July 1 of the year of the
                                                control period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No changes to allocations already submitted to EPA or
recorded. The SIP revision must not provide for any change to the
amounts of allowances allocated or auctioned to any unit after those
amounts are submitted to EPA or any change to any allowance allocation
determined and recorded by EPA under the Federal trading program
regulations.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4)(i)(D), (a)(5)(i)(D), (b)(4)(ii)(D),
(b)(5)(ii)(D); Sec.  52.39(e)(1)(iv), (f)(1)(iv), (h)(1)(iv),
(i)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No other substantive changes to Federal trading program
provisions. The SIP revision may not substantively change any other
trading program provisions, except in the case of a SIP revision that
also expands program

applicability as described below.\20\ Any new definitions adopted in
the SIP revision (in addition to the Federal trading program's
definitions) may apply only for purposes of the SIP revision's
allocation or auction provisions.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(4), (b)(5); Sec.  52.39(e),
(f), (h), (i).
    \21\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(ii), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(iii);
Sec.  52.39(e)(1), (f)(2), (h)(1), (i)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the general submittal conditions, a CSAPR-related
abbreviated or full SIP revision seeking to expand applicability under
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program (or an integrated
state trading program) must meet the following further conditions:
     Only electricity generating units with nameplate capacity
of at least 15 MWe. The SIP revision may expand applicability only to
additional fossil fuel-fired boilers or combustion turbines serving
generators producing electricity for sale, and only by lowering the
generator nameplate capacity threshold used to determine whether a
particular boiler or combustion turbine serving a particular generator
is a potentially affected unit. The nameplate capacity threshold
adopted in the SIP revision may not be less than 15 MWe.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Sec.  52.38(b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No other substantive changes to Federal trading program
provisions. The SIP revision may not substantively change any other
trading program provisions, except in the case of a SIP revision that
also addresses the allocation or auction of emission allowances as
described above.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Sec.  52.38(b)(4), (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the general submittal conditions and the other
applicable conditions described above, a CSAPR-related full SIP
revision must meet the following further conditions:
     Complete, substantively identical trading program
provisions. The SIP revision must adopt complete state trading program
regulations substantively identical to the Federal trading program
regulations at 40 CFR 97.402 through 97.435, 97.502 through 97.535,
97.602 through 97.635, or 97.702 through 97.735, as applicable, except
as described above in the case of a SIP revision that seeks to replace
the default allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions.
     Only non-substantive substitutions for the term ``State.''
The SIP revision may substitute the name of the state for the term
``State'' as used in the Federal trading program regulations, but only
to the extent that EPA determines that the substitutions do not
substantively change the trading program regulations.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Sec.  52.38(a)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv); Sec.  52.39(f)(3),
(i)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Exclusion of provisions addressing units in Indian
country. The SIP revision may not include references to or impose
requirements on any unit in any Indian country within the state's
borders and must not include the Federal trading program provisions
governing allocation of allowances from any Indian country NUSA for the
state.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Sec.  52.38(a)(5)(iv), (b)(5)(v); Sec.  52.39(f)(4),
(i)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Missouri's SIP Submittal and EPA's Analysis

A. Missouri's SIP Submittal

    In the CSAPR rulemaking, EPA determined that air pollution
transported from Missouri unlawfully affected other states' ability to
attain or maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\26\ In a supplemental rulemaking, EPA
determined that air pollution transported from Missouri also unlawfully
affected other states' ability to attain and maintain the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.\27\ Missouri units meeting the CSAPR applicability criteria are
consequently subject to CSAPR FIPs that require participation in the
CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program, the CSAPR SO2
Group 1 Trading Program, and the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Trading Program.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 76 FR 48208, 48213 (August 8, 2011).
    \27\ 76 FR 80760, 80763 (December 27, 2011).
    \28\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(2), (b)(2); Sec.  52.39(b); Sec.  52.1326;
Sec.  52.1327.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 20, 2015, Missouri submitted to EPA an abbreviated SIP
revision that, if all portions were approved, would replace the default
allowance allocation provisions of all three CSAPR trading programs for
the state's EGUs for the control periods in 2017 and later years with
provisions establishing state-determined allocations for those control
periods but that would leave the corresponding CSAPR FIPs and all other
provisions of the trading programs in place. The SIP submittal
generally consists of three duly adopted state rules, 10 CSR 10-6.372
(Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Annual NOX Trading Allowance
Allocations), 10 CSR 10-6.374 (Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Ozone
Season NOX Trading Allowance Allocations), and 10 CSR 10-
6.376 (Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Annual SO2 Trading
Allowances Allocations). The three state rules are substantively
identical except that each addresses a different CSAPR Federal trading
program and allocates a different total quantity of allowances. Each
rule contains a table establishing specific amounts of allowances to be
allocated for each control period in 2017 and later years to specified
Missouri electricity generating units under the applicable CSAPR
trading program. Each rule also establishes a NUSA for the applicable
program for each control period and sets forth a procedure for
allocating allowances from the NUSA to qualifying Missouri units.
    The SIP revision was submitted to EPA by a letter from the Director
of the Missouri Air Pollution Control Program. The letter and its
enclosures describe steps taken by Missouri to provide public notice
prior to adoption of the state rules.
    In this rule, EPA is taking action on the portions of Missouri's
SIP submittal relating to the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading
Program and the CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program. EPA is
not taking action at this time on the portion of the SIP submittal
relating to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. As
noted in section II above, EPA has proposed to update CSAPR to address
Eastern states' interstate air pollution mitigation obligations with
regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The proposal would reduce the ozone-
season NOX emissions budgets for control periods in 2017 and
later years for a number of states, including Missouri. Action on the
portion of Missouri's SIP submittal addressing allocations of ozone-
season NOX allowances would be premature while the proposed
update is pending because there is a foreseeable potential conflict
between the total amount of allowances that would be allocated to
Missouri units under Missouri's state-determined allocation provisions,
which are based on Missouri's current budget, and the total amount of
allowances that could permissibly be allocated to the units under a
final updated budget.
    EPA has previously approved a separate Missouri SIP revision
replacing the default allowance allocation provisions of the CSAPR
NOX Annual Trading Program and the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Trading Program for Missouri existing units for the
control period in 2016.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 80 FR 51131 (August 24, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Analysis of Missouri's Submittal

    As described in section IV.A above, at this time EPA is taking
action on the portions of Missouri's SIP submittal relating to the
CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the CSAPR
SO2 Group 1 Trading Program but not the portion of the SIP
submittal relating to

the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. The analysis
discussed in this section addresses only the portions of Missouri's SIP
submittal on which EPA is taking action at this time. For simplicity,
throughout this section EPA refers to the portions of the submittal on
which EPA is taking action as ``the submittal'' or ``the SIP revision''
without repeating the qualification that at this time EPA is analyzing
and acting on only portions of the SIP submittal.
1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP Submittal
    Missouri's SIP revision seeks to establish state-determined
allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and CSAPR
SO2 Group 1 allowances for the control periods in 2017 and
later years. Under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and 52.39(e)(1)(ii), the
deadline for submission of state-determined allocations for the 2017
and 2018 control periods is June 1, 2016, which under Sec. Sec.
52.38(a)(4)(ii) and 52.39(e)(2) makes December 1, 2015, the deadline
for submission to EPA of a complete SIP revision establishing state-
determined allocations for those control periods. Missouri submitted
its SIP revision to EPA by a letter dated and delivered electronically
on November 20, 2015, and EPA has determined that the submittal
complies with the applicable minimum completeness criteria in section
2.1 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51. Because Missouri's SIP revision
was timely submitted and meets the applicable completeness criteria, it
meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(ii) and 52.39(e)(2) for
timely submission of a complete SIP revision.
2. Methodology Covering All Allowances Potentially Requiring Allocation
    Paragraphs 10 CSR 10-6.372(3) and 10 CSR 10-6.376(3) of the
Missouri rules provide that the allowance allocation methodology
adopted by Missouri in the SIP revision replaces the provisions of 40
CFR 97.411(a) and 97.611(a), respectively, thereby addressing all
allowances that under the default allocation provisions for the Federal
trading programs would be allocated to units considered existing units
for CSAPR purposes (prior to allocation of any allowances set aside
during the initial allocation process). The same Missouri rule
paragraphs also provide that the state's allocation methodology
replaces the provisions of 40 CFR 97.411(b)(1) and 97.412(a) and the
provisions of 40 CFR 97.611(b)(1) and 97.612(a), respectively, thereby
addressing allocation of allowances in the NUSAs established for
Missouri under the Federal trading programs. The CSAPR Federal trading
program regulations do not establish any Indian country NUSAs for
Missouri. The allocations provisions in the Missouri rules therefore
enable Missouri's SIP revision to meet the condition under 40 CFR
52.38(a)(4)(i) and 52.39(e)(1) that the state's allocation or auction
methodology must cover all allowances potentially requiring allocation
by the state.
3. Assurance That Total Allocations Will Not Exceed the State Budget
    Paragraphs 10 CSR 10-6.372(3)(A)1. and 10 CSR 10-6.376(3)(A)1. of
the Missouri rules provide for allowance allocations under each trading
program to be made to specified units (including all Missouri units
considered existing units for CSAPR purposes) in fixed amounts as set
forth in tables referred to as ``Table 1'' in the state rules. The
totals of the allowances allocated for each control period according to
the two tables (45,818 CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and
160,959 CSAPR SO2 Group 1 allowances) are less than
Missouri's state budgets for the control periods in 2017 and later
years under the respective trading programs (48,743 CSAPR
NOX Annual allowances and 165,941 CSAPR SO2 Group
1 allowances).\30\ Paragraphs 10 CSR 10-6.372(3)(B)3.B. and 10 CSR 10-
6.376(3)(B)3.B. of the Missouri rules establish NUSAs for each trading
program, allocating to each NUSA for each control period an amount of
allowances equal to the state budget for the trading program minus the
total amount of allowances allocated according to the table for that
trading program. As noted above, the CSAPR Federal trading program
regulations do not establish Indian country NUSAs for Missouri. The
only allowances available for allocation to Missouri units are
therefore allowances allocated under the Missouri rules, and the only
such allowances, which necessarily sum to the state budgets, are the
allowances allocated according to the tables and the allowances
allocated from the NUSAs. EPA has not yet allocated or recorded CSAPR
allowances for the control periods in 2017 or later years. The
allocation methodology in Missouri's SIP revision therefore meets the
condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(A) and 52.39(e)(1)(i) that, for
each trading program, the total amount of allowances allocated under
the SIP revision (before the addition of any otherwise unallocated
allowances from an Indian country NUSA) may not exceed the state's
budget for the control period less the amount of the Indian country
NUSA for the state and any allowances already allocated and recorded by
EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 40 CFR 97.410(a)(11)(iv), 97.610(a)(7)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Timely Submission of State-Determined Allocations to EPA
    The allocation tables in the Missouri rules establish the primary
allowance allocations for all Missouri units that are considered
existing units for CSAPR purposes. Paragraphs 10 CSR 10-6.372(3)(A)1.A.
through D. and 10 CSR 10-6.376(3)(A)1.A. through D. of the Missouri
rules provide for the state-determined allocations established
according to the tables to be submitted to EPA by the following
deadlines: Allocations for the control periods in 2017 and 2018, by
June 1, 2016; allocations for the control periods in 2019 and 2020, by
June 1, 2017; allocations for the control periods in 2021 and 2022, by
June 1, 2018; and allocations for later control periods, by June 1 of
the fourth year before the year of the control period. These submission
deadlines match the deadlines under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and
52.39(e)(1)(ii) described in Section III above for allocations to
existing units. Paragraphs 10 CSR 10-6.372(3)(B)1. and 10-6.376(3)(B)1.
of the Missouri rules provide for the state-determined allowance
allocations to other units from the NUSAs for each control period to be
submitted to EPA by July 1 of the year of the control period. These
submission deadlines match the submission deadlines under 40 CFR
52.38(a)(4)(i)(C) and 52.39(e)(1)(iii) described in section III above
for allocations to other units. Missouri's SIP revision therefore meets
the conditions under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and (C) and
52.39(e)(1)(ii) and (iii) requiring that the SIP revision provide for
submission of state-determined allowance allocations to EPA by the
deadlines specified in those provisions.
5. No Changes to Allocations Already Submitted to EPA or Recorded
    The Missouri rules include no provisions allowing alteration of
allocations after the allocation amounts have been provided to EPA and
no provisions allowing alteration of any allocations made and recorded
by EPA under the Federal trading program regulations, thereby meeting
the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(D) and 52.39(e)(1)(iv).
6. No Other Substantive Changes to Federal Trading Program Provisions
    Besides the provisions addressing allowance allocations discussed
above, the Missouri rules contain certain

definitions. Paragraphs 10 CSR 10-6.372(2)(A) and 10 CSR 10-6.376(2)(A)
incorporate by reference the Federal trading program definitions in 40
CFR 97.402 and 97.403 and the definitions in 40 CFR 97.602 and 97.603,
respectively. Paragraphs 10 CSR 6.372(2)(B) and 10 CSR 10-6.376(2)(B)
define a single term which is not defined in the Federal trading
program regulations (``notification''), and paragraphs 10 CSR
6.372(2)(C) and 10 CSR 10-6.376(2)(C) refer to another Missouri rule
for definitions of otherwise undefined terms. These definition
provisions do not make substantive changes to the Federal trading
program provisions.\31\ EPA therefore determines that Missouri's SIP
revision meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4) and 52.39(e) of
making no substantive changes to the Federal trading program
regulations beyond the provisions addressing allowance allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ EPA has proposed to make certain technical corrections to
the CSAPR FIP and Federal trading program regulations in order to
more accurately reflect EPA's intent as described in the CSAPR
rulemaking and has also proposed to replace ``TR'' with ``CSAPR''
throughout the regulations (for example, ``TR NOX Annual
unit'' would become ``CSAPR NOX Annual unit''). See 80 FR
75706, 75758. Because the proposed technical corrections merely
clarify and do not change EPA's interpretations, where the proposed
corrections would apply to a provision incorporated by reference in
the Missouri rules, EPA would interpret the Missouri rules as
reflecting the corrections. Further, EPA anticipates that if the
proposed nomenclature updates are finalized, the final CSAPR Federal
regulations would explicitly provide that terms that include
``CSAPR'' encompass otherwise identical terms in approved SIP
revisions that include ``TR''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. EPA's Action on Missouri's Submittal

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the portions of
Missouri's November 20, 2015, SIP submittal concerning allocations to
Missouri units of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and CSAPR
SO2 Group 1 allowances for the control periods in 2017 and
later years. The approved revision adopts into the SIP the rules
codified in Missouri's regulations at 10 CSR 10-6.372 (Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Annual NOX Trading Allowance Allocations) and
10 CSR 10-6.376 (Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Annual SO2
Trading Allowances Allocations). Following this approval, allocations
of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances to Missouri units for the
control periods in 2017 and later years will be made according to the
provisions of Missouri's SIP instead of CSAPR's default allocation
provisions at 40 CFR 97.411(a), 97.411(b)(1), and 97.412(a), and
allocations of CSAPR SO2 Group 1 allowances to Missouri
units for the control periods in 2017 and later years will be made
according to the provisions of Missouri's SIP instead of CSAPR's
default allocation provisions at 40 CFR 97.611(a), 97.611(b)(1), and
97.612(a). Approval of this SIP revision does not alter any provision
of the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program or the CSAPR
SO2 Group 1 Trading Program as applied to Missouri units
other than the allowance allocation provisions, and the FIPs requiring
the units to participate in those programs (as modified by this SIP
revision) remain in place. EPA is approving the indicated portions of
the SIP submittal because they meet the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations for approval of an abbreviated SIP revision replacing
EPA's default allocations of CSAPR emission allowances with state-
determined allocations, as discussed in section IV above.
    Large electricity generating units in Missouri are also subject to
an additional CSAPR FIP requiring them to participate in the Federal
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. While Missouri's SIP
submittal also seeks to replace the default allocations of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances to Missouri units, EPA is not
acting on that portion of the SIP submittal at this time. Approval of
this SIP revision concerning other CSAPR trading programs has no effect
on the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program as applied to
Missouri units, and the FIP requiring the units to participate in that
program remains in place.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Missouri
Regulations described in the direct final amendments to 40 CFR part 52
set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and at the appropriate EPA office (see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

VII. 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 this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; 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 August 29, 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, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: June 16, 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:
0
a. Revise the section heading.
0
b. In the table in paragraph (c), under Chapter 6, add entries ``10-
6.372'' and ``10-6.376'' in numerical order.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c)* * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           State
    Missouri citation                Title            effective date    EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-6.372.................  Cross-State Air Pollution        12/30/15  6/28/16 [Insert
                            Rule Annual NOX Trading                    Federal Register
                            Allowance Allocations.                     citation].
10-6.376.................  Cross-State Air Pollution        12/30/15  6/28/16 [Insert
                            Rule Annual SO2 Trading                    Federal Register
                            Allowance Allocations.                     citation].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-15048 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13931-13934]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05428]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0141; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-024-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 727-100 series airplanes. This
proposed AD is intended to complete certain mandated programs intended
to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the
engineering data that support the established structural maintenance
program. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would require
repetitive inspections for cracking in stringers or frames until
modification, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to
detect and correct cracking in stringers or frames originating at or
near stringer-to-frame attachment fastener holes, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane, and decompression of the
cabin.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0141; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:
(562) 627-5239; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0141;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-024-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    As described in FAA Advisory Circular 120-104 (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/120-104.pdf), several programs
have been developed to support initiatives that will ensure the
continued airworthiness of aging airplane structure. The last element
of those initiatives is the requirement to establish a limit of
validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural
maintenance program under 14 CFR 26.21. This proposed AD is the result
of an assessment of the previously established programs by Boeing
during the process of establishing the LOV for The Boeing Company Model
727 airplanes. The actions specified in this proposed AD are necessary
to complete certain programs to ensure the continued airworthiness of
aging airplane structure and to support an airplane reaching its LOV.
    Fatigue tests conducted by the manufacturer show that repeated
pressurization cycles result in fatigue cracks at some of the stringer-
to-frame connections along the crown of the fuselage. Undetected
cracking at the stringer-to-frame connections along the crown of the
fuselage, and the lack of stringer-to-body frame tie clips in the crown
area of the fuselage, could result in damage to wire bundles and
control cables for the flight control system, reduced structural
integrity of the airplane, and decompression of the cabin.

Related Rulemaking

    On January 16, 1990, we issued AD 90-06-09, Amendment 39-6488 (55
FR 8370, March 7, 1990), which applied to certain Boeing Model 727
series airplanes. AD 90-06-09 required structural modifications
specified in Section 3 of Boeing Document D6-54860, ``Aging Airplane
Service Bulletin Structural Modification and Inspection Program--Model
727,'' Revision C, dated December 11, 1989. AD 90-06-09 was prompted by
a report by the Model 727 Structures Working Group. The actions
required by AD 90-06-09 were intended to prevent structural failure of
the airplane. One of the requirements of AD 90-06-09 was to do the
modification in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53-0041,
Revision 4 dated July 27, 1973, prior to the accumulation of 60,000
flights or 4 years whichever occurs later.
    On March 23, 1994, we issued AD 94-07-08, Amendment 39-8866 (59 FR
14545, March 29, 1994), which applied to certain Boeing Model 727
series airplanes. AD 94-07-08 required structural inspections specified
in section 4 and appendices A.4 and B.4 of Boeing Document Number D6-
54860, ``Aging Airplane Service Bulletin Structural Modification and
Inspection Program--Model 727,'' Revision G, dated March 5, 1993, and
corrective actions if necessary. The corrective actions included doing
small repairs and modifications. AD 94-07-08 was prompted by reports of
incidents involving fatigue cracking and corrosion. The actions
required by AD 94-07-08 included only post-modification visual
inspections per Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53-0041, Revision 5, dated
January 25, 1990.
    This proposed rule requires repetitive inspections on those
airplanes that have not yet accomplished the modification that is
required by AD 90-06-09.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53-0041, Revision 6, dated
September 5, 1991. For information on the procedures and compliance
times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for Docket No. FAA-2014-0141.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 2 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and repetitive          60 work-hours x $85              $0  $5,100 per           $10,200 per
 inspections.                       per hour = $5,100                    inspection.          inspection.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary modifications
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these modifications:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                         Labor cost                Parts cost           Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification.......................  600 work-hours x $85 per     Up to $11,481.........  Up to $62,481 per
                                      hour = $51,000 per                                   modification.
                                      inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0141; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-024-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 28, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 727-100 series
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Service Bulletin 727-53-0041, Revision 6, dated September 5, 1991,
unless previously modified in accordance with the service
information specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this
AD.
    (1) Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53-0041, Revision 4, dated July
27, 1973.
    (2) Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53-0041, Revision 5, dated
January 25, 1990.
    (3) Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53-0041, Revision 6, dated
September 5, 1991.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: Boeing Service Bulletin 727-
53-0041, Revision 4, dated July 27, 1973 is specified in Boeing
Document D6-54860 ``Aging Airplane Service Bulletin Structural
Modification Program--Model 727,'' Revision C, dated December 11,
1989 as mandated by AD 90-06-09, Amendment 39-6488 (55 FR 8370,
March 7, 1990).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD is intended to complete certain mandated programs
intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity
(LOV) of the engineering data that support the established
structural maintenance program. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracking in stringers or frames originating at or near
stringer-to-frame attachment fastener holes, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane, and decompression of
the cabin.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspections

    Before the accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or within
3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, do a high frequency eddy current inspection and a
general visual inspection for cracking in stringers and frames
originating at or near stringer-to-frame attachment fastener holes,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 727-53-0041, Revision 6, dated September 5, 1991. Repeat
the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight
cycles until the modification specified by paragraph (h) of this AD
is accomplished. If any crack is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair
or modify the affected stringer-to-frame attachment locations, in
accordance with Part V, ``Repair Data'' of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53-0041, Revision 6,
dated September 5, 1991.

(h) Modification

    Modifying the affected stringer-to-frame attachment locations,
in accordance with Part IV, ``Preventive Modification Data,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53-0041,
Revision 6, dated September 5, 1991, terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO) to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Chandra Ramdoss,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 5, 2014.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-05428 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


	SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST

	(in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51 - App. V)

SIP Submitted by: 	Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)

Date Submitted: 	February 8, 2007

Subject: 		Redesignation of the Altoona ozone nonattainment area to attainment and approval of the area(s maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory.

Completeness Review

Completed by: 	Amy Caprio

Date Completed: 	March 20, 2007

Administrative Materials

	ACCEPTABLE

	EPA REQUIREMENT

	STATE SUBMITTAL

(X)

1. A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof.

1.Letters submitted February 8, 2007 on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from Kathleen A. McGinty, Secretary, PADEP to Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

X

2. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order, consent agreement in final form.  That evidence shall include the date of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/issuance date.

2.  N/A (Not a regulatory change the submittal is request for redesignation, a maintenance plan, and 2002 base-year inventory approval that is effective January 2007).

X

3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan.

3.  PA has SIP authority to adopt this maintenance plan under section 5 of the Air Pollution Control Law.

 X

4. A copy of actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, where applicable.  The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/document signed, stamped, dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State.  The effective date of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself.

4.  N/A See number 2 above.

X

5. Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.

5.  N/A

X

6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice.

6.  PADEP provided proof that the notice of public hearing was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on Saturday December 23, 2006

X

7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

7. Notice of public hearing was given to the public in the Pennsylvania Bulletin (36 Pa.B 7926) on December 23, 2006 and in a newspaper of general circulation (The Altoona Mirror) on December 22, 2006.

X

8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto.

8.  The state submittal includes a compilation of public comments and responses thereto.  In this instance there were no public comments received at PADEP’s public hearing.

X

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan.

1.  The introduction of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan discuss what pollutant this action is addressing.

X

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area(s).

2.  Blair County (Altoona Nonattainment Area).

X

3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions from the affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision.

3.  Detailed information on the point, area and mobile source emissions estimates used in the request of redesignation to attainment, the ozone maintenance plan, and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Altoona Area.  Information is provided on growth factors used to project emission inventories as well as methods used to determine the growth factors.

X

4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented.

4.  The state has developed a current and projected (2002, 2004, 2009, and 2018) emissions inventory showing attainment of the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).  This inventory took into account multiple factors such as; growth rates, implementation of programs throughout the area, and the level of emissions sufficient to achieve the NAAQS.

X

5. Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used,  ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used, justification for use of offsite data (where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis.

5.  All data and evidence is present for this action.

X

6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology.

6.  N/A

X

7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission levels.

7.  Evidence is shown that PADEP will do periodic emissions inventory updates and analysis.  Pennsylvania will evaluate Vehicle Miles Traveled data and emissions reported from stationary sources to track attainment and maintenance.

X

8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice.

8.  Contingency measures will be implemented if the Altoona Area violates or exceeds the NOx and VOC regional emissions budget.  These measures are meant to bring the area back to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.

X

9. Special economic and technological justifications required by any applicable EPA policies.

9.  N/A

X

10. A Section 107 request must be accompanied by a maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance to the relevant NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation.

10.  Maintenance Plan was submitted to EPA Region III on February 8, 2007.  This plan demonstrates maintenance for 2004-2018.

X


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 50 (Friday, March 13, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14565-14567]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04988]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 573

[Docket No. FDA-2018-F-3347]

Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals;
Chromium Propionate

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or the Agency) is
amending the regulations for food additives permitted in feed and
drinking water of animals to provide for the safe use of chromium
propionate as a source of supplemental chromium in horse feed. This
action is in response to a food additive petition filed by Kemin
Industries, Inc.

DATES: This rule is effective March 13, 2020. See section V of this
document for further information on the filing of objections. Submit
either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing on
the final rule by April 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit objections and requests for a hearing as
follows. Please note that late, untimely filed objections will not be
considered. Electronic objections must be submitted on or before April
13, 2020. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will
accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of April 13,
2020. Objections received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/
paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or
the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic objections in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting objections. Objections submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your objection will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your
objection does not include any confidential information that you or a
third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information,
your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business
information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you
include your name, contact information, or other information that
identifies you in the body of your objection, that information will be
posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit an objection with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the objection as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper objections submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your objection, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-F-3347 for ``Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking
Water of Animals; Chromium Propionate.'' Received objections, those
filed in a

timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except
for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit an objection with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your objections only as a written/paper submission.
You should submit two copies in total. One copy will include the
information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note
that states ``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The
Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential
information, in its consideration of objections. The second copy, which
will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out,
will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management
Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made
publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet
and not in the body of your objections and you must identify this
information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR
10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about
FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September
18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper objections received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chelsea Cerrito, Center for Veterinary
Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl. (HFV-224),
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In a document published in the Federal Register of October 2, 2018
(83 FR 49508), FDA announced that we had filed a food additive petition
(animal use) (FAP 2306) submitted by Kemin Industries, Inc., 1900 Scott
Ave., Des Moines, IA 50317. The petition proposed that the regulations
for food additives permitted in feed and drinking water of animals be
amended to provide for the safe use of chromium propionate as a source
of supplemental chromium in horse feed.

II. Conclusion

    FDA concludes that the data establish the safety and utility of
chromium propionate as a source of supplemental chromium in horse feed
and that the food additive regulations should be amended as set forth
in this document.

III. Public Disclosure

    In accordance with Sec.  571.1(h) (21 CFR 571.1(h)), the petition
and documents we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to
approve the petition will be made available for public disclosure (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). As provided in Sec.  571.1(h), we
will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for
public disclosure.

IV. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    The Agency has carefully considered the potential environmental
impact of this action and has concluded that the action will not have a
significant impact on the human environment and that an environmental
impact statement is not required. FDA's finding of no significant
impact and the evidence supporting that finding, contained in an
environmental assessment, may be seen in the Dockets Management Staff
(see ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

V. Objections and Hearing Requests

    Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may
file with the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) either
electronic or written objections. Each objection shall be separately
numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with particularity
the provision of the regulation to which objection is made and the
grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on which a hearing
is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to request a hearing
for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to
a hearing on that objection. Each numbered objection for which a
hearing is requested shall include a detailed description and analysis
of the specific factual information intended to be presented in support
of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. Failure to
include such a description and analysis for any particular objection
shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on the objection.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 573

    Animal feeds, Food additives.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
573 is amended as follows:

PART 573--FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED IN FEED AND DRINKING WATER OF
ANIMALS

0
1. The authority citation for part 573 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348.

0
2. In Sec.  573.304, revise paragraphs (b), (c), (d)(3), and (e)(2)(ii)
to read as follows:

Sec.  573.304  Chromium propionate.

* * * * *
    (b) The additive is added to feed as follows:
    (1) In complete feed for broiler chickens at a level not to exceed
0.2 milligrams (mg) of chromium from chromium propionate per kilogram
feed.
    (2) In feed for horses at a level not to exceed an intake of 4 mg
of chromium from chromium propionate per horse per day.
    (c) The additive meets the following specifications:
    (1) Total chromium content, 8 to 10 percent.
    (2) Hexavalent chromium content, less than 2 parts per million
(ppm).
    (3) Arsenic, less than 1 ppm.
    (4) Cadmium, less than 1 ppm.
    (5) Lead, less than 0.5 ppm.
    (6) Mercury, less than 0.5 ppm.
    (7) Viscosity, not more than 2,000 centipoise.
    (d) * * *
    (3) Chromium from all sources of supplemental chromium cannot
exceed:
    (i) A level of 0.2 ppm in complete feed for broiler chickens.
    (ii) An intake of 4 mg per horse per day.
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Adequate directions for use and cautions for use including
these statements: ``Caution: Follow label directions'' and consistent
with the directions for use, the following:
    (A) For feed for broiler chickens, ``Chromium from all sources of
supplemental chromium cannot exceed 0.2 parts per million of the
complete feed for broiler chickens.''
    (B) For feed for horses, ``Chromium from all sources of
supplemental

chromium cannot exceed 4 milligrams per horse per day.''

    Dated: March 6, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-04988 Filed 3-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P