[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 182 (Friday, September 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58251-58255]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17882]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 182 / Friday, September 18, 2020 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 21

[Docket No. FAA-2019-1038]

Type Certification of Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of policy.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration announces its policy for
the type certification of certain unmanned aircraft systems as a
special class of aircraft.

DATES: This policy is effective September 18, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Guion, Programs and Procedures
Section, AIR-694, Small Airplane Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 901 Locust St., Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012 (Pub. L. 112-95). Section 332 of Public Law 112-95 (codified at 49
U.S.C. 44802) directed the FAA to develop a comprehensive plan to
safely accelerate the integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)
into the National Airspace System (NAS). As part of that plan, the FAA
issued the Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft
Systems final rule (81 FR 42064, June 28, 2016), which added 14 CFR
part 107 to the FAA's regulations in Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR).
    Part 107 sets forth rules for the operation of small UAS \1\ that
do not require FAA airworthiness certification. Under part 107,
operations may not occur over persons,\2\ at night, generally above an
altitude of 400 feet above ground level, or beyond visual line-of-
sight, without a waiver issued by the FAA. UAS weighing 55 pounds or
more and small UAS operating outside the limitations imposed by part
107 must receive airworthiness certification, a waiver, or an exemption
as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 14 CFR 107.3.
    \2\ But see the FAA's proposed amendment to part 107 to allow
operations of small UAS over people in certain conditions (84 FR
3856, February 13, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA establishes airworthiness criteria and issues type
certificates to ensure the safe operation of aircraft in accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 44701(a) and 44704. Section 44704 requires the
Administrator to find an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or
appliance is properly designed and manufactured, performs properly, and
meets the regulations and minimum standards prescribed under section
44701(a) before issuing a type certificate for it.
    14 CFR part 21 contains the FAA's procedural requirements for
airworthiness and type certification. When the FAA promulgated part 21
as part of its recodification to combine and streamline the Civil Air
Regulations, it originally required applicants for a type certificate
to show that the product met existing airworthiness standards (29 FR
14562, October 24, 1964). Existing airworthiness standards for aircraft
and other products, issued as a separate part of the FAA's regulations,
are: Normal category airplanes under 14 CFR part 23, transport category
airplanes under 14 CFR part 25, normal category rotorcraft under 14 CFR
part 27, transport category rotorcraft under 14 CFR part 29, manned
free balloons under 14 CFR part 31, aircraft engines under 14 CFR part
33, and propellers under 14 CFR part 35.
    The FAA subsequently amended part 21 to add procedural requirements
for the issuance of type certificates for special classes of aircraft
(52 FR 8040, March 13, 1987). In the final rule (amendment 21-60), the
FAA explained that it intended the special class category to include,
in part, those aircraft that would be eligible for a standard
airworthiness certificate but for which certification standards do not
exist due to their unique, novel, or unusual design features. The FAA
further stated that the ``decision to type certificate an aircraft in
either the special class aircraft category or under . . . the FAR is
entirely dependent upon the aircraft's unique, novel, and/or unusual
design features.'' (52 FR 8041).
    Specifically, the final rule (amendment 21-60) revised Sec.
21.17(b) to include the certification procedure for special classes of
aircraft. For special classes of aircraft, for which airworthiness
standards have not been issued, the applicable airworthiness
requirements will be the portions of those existing standards contained
in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, and 35 found by the FAA to be
appropriate for the aircraft and applicable to a specific type design,
or such airworthiness criteria as the FAA may find provide an
equivalent level of safety to those parts.
    An ``unmanned aircraft'' is an aircraft operated without the
possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the
aircraft. See 49 U.S.C. 44801(11); 14 CFR 1.1. Unmanned aircraft
include all classes of airplanes, rotorcraft, and powered-lift
aircraft. Many UAS elements, while essential for safe operation, are
part of the UAS system but are not permanent features of the unmanned
aircraft. For example, instead of traditional landing gear with wheels
and brakes, many UAS have a launch and recovery system. Additionally,
because the pilot is not situated within the aircraft, unique
configurations and applications of airframes, powerplants, fuels, and
materials are possible and can result in flight characteristics
different from those of conventional aircraft. These features specific
to UAS are the very unique, novel, and/or unusual features the special
class category was designed to accommodate.
    A notice of policy and request for comments regarding the type
certification of certain UAS was published in the Federal Register on
February 3, 2020 (85 FR 5905). The public comment period for the notice
closed on March 4, 2020. The notice proposed that some UAS with no
occupants onboard may be type certificated as a special class of
aircraft under Sec.  21.17(b). The notice also proposed that for
airplane and rotorcraft

designs, when appropriate, the FAA may still issue type certificates
under Sec.  21.17(a).

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA received 66 comments. The majority of the commenters were
individual UAS operators. The remaining commenters included UAS
manufacturers, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (CNO), the People's
Republic of China (PRC), and organizations such as the Aerospace
Industries Association (AIA), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA), Airlines for America (A4A), the Air Line Pilots
Association (ALPA), the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International (AUVSI), the Commercial Drone Alliance (CDA), the
National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), SAE International
(SAE), and the Small UAV Coalition. The following summarizes the
comments received and the FAA's response.
    AIA, AOPA, A4A, Amazon Prime Air, the Choctaw Nation, the
Commercial Drone Alliance, SAE, and twelve other commenters expressed
support for the policy.

A. Certification Process

    An anonymous commenter requested the FAA publish a timeline for the
certification process. FAA Order 8110.4C, Type Certification, dated
March 28, 2007,\3\ contains procedures and policy for the type
certification of products. This order describes the FAA and applicant
responsibilities in establishing a project schedule. The certification
timeline for each project will vary significantly depending on the
project details, scope, and complexity. Due to these many variables,
the FAA is unable to publish a timeline specific to the type
certification of UAS that would be widely applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ You can find this order at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An individual requested that the FAA establish a less restrictive
process for UAS type certification for first responders and emergency
management operators for State agencies and subdivisions. The commenter
suggested that because the primary job of emergency responders is
public safety, the type certification process was burdensome and
unwarranted. Certain FAA civil certification and safety oversight
regulations do not apply to public aircraft. Aircraft that do not meet
the qualifications for public aircraft status are civil aircraft.\4\
UAS operated by government agencies, law enforcement, and State public
safety entities may qualify as public aircraft, as defined by statute
under 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(41) and 40125.\5\ This policy for type
certification of certain UAS only applies to civil aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(16).
    \5\ Title 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(41) provides the definition of
``public aircraft'' and Sec.  40125 provides the qualifications for
public aircraft status. Additional information on public aircraft is
provided in Advisory Circular (AC) 00-1.1B, Public Aircraft
Operations--Manned and Unmanned. This AC is available at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_00-1.1B.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aero Systems West requested the FAA provide an accelerated process
for small UAS with parachute safety systems installed. The commenter
stated that controlling descent rate is the most important contributor
to decreasing the probability of human injury during a UAS flight
mishap. The FAA disagrees that a different process is appropriate for
designs that incorporate a parachute system. While a parachute recovery
system may mitigate some risks for a UAS, it is, by itself, unlikely to
provide comprehensive mitigation of all potential risks such that an
accelerated type certification process would be suitable.
    Another individual questioned how the public could provide
meaningful comments on the particularized airworthiness criteria for
each applicant when the applicant's proprietary operational and design
data are normally withheld by the FAA. Under the process for
certification as a special class of aircraft, the FAA will publish a
notice for public comment on the particularized airworthiness criteria
for each applicant. The commenter is correct that the FAA cannot
disclose proprietary or confidential design data from manufacturers in
these notices because such disclosure is prohibited by the Trade
Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905 (1979). Instead, the FAA will provide a
general description of the product, similar to what will be shown on
the type certificate data sheet (TCDS). This is the same process the
FAA has followed for the certification of special class aircraft such
as gliders, airships, and very light airplanes.
    The CNO and the CDA requested that the FAA clarify the effect of
this policy on other rules. This request was specific to a statement in
the proposed policy that the policy would apply only to the procedures
for the type certification of UAS and is not intended to establish or
impact other FAA rules (operations, pilot certification, or
maintenance) regarding UAS. These commenters agreed that a type
certificate will not provide a UAS operator with operational authority,
but stated the FAA should clarify that the operating limitations in the
TCDS will address, and therefore impact, issues such as operations,
pilot certification, or maintenance. The FAA agrees that type
certification of individual UAS may include operating limitations that
impact operations, pilot certification, or maintenance. The purpose of
the statement in the proposal was to advise the public that the FAA
does not intend for this policy to overrule FAA regulations regarding
UAS, particularly other FAA rules outside of part 21.

B. Applicability of This Policy

    An individual and AOPA requested that the FAA exempt model aircraft
from this policy, and fifteen individual commenters objected to the
policy contending that it would have a negative impact on hobbyists.
The CNO and the CDA stated the policy should apply to all UAS
regardless of weight. Several commenters requested that the FAA clarify
the types of advanced operations, in addition to package delivery,
affected by the policy and which UAS may require type certification.
    This policy addresses the process the FAA will use to establish
airworthiness standards for type certification of some UAS with no
occupants onboard, when a UAS manufacturer requests type certification.
Whether a UAS requires a type certificate depends upon the weight of
the UAS, the purpose of the operations, and the particular operating
rules under which the UAS is expected to operate.\6\ This policy does
not apply to UAS that are operated under the exception for limited
recreational operations, as they are not required to meet airworthiness
requirements or apply for type certification.\7\ Small UAS operating
under part 107 do not require a type certificate.\8\ UAS weighing 55
pounds or more and small UAS operating under the requirements of 14 CFR
parts 91 or 135 require either a type certificate, a waiver, an
exemption, or a special airworthiness certificate, as appropriate.
Package delivery, for example, and other complex operations such as
agricultural, inspection, monitoring, infrastructure surveillance,
pseudo-satellites, or those involving carriage of other property for
compensation or hire may be affected by this policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Additional information about the rules for each type of UAS
user can be found at https://www.faa.gov/uas/.
    \7\ See 49 U.S.C. 44809.
    \8\ See 14 CFR 21.1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter requested the policy not apply to UAS carrying
occupants, as

any occupant-carrying UAS should be certificated under the same process
as manned aircraft. The FAA agrees. This policy addresses type
certification of some UAS with no occupants onboard.
    AIA requested that the scope of the policy also include optionally
piloted aircraft. The commenter stated that optionally piloted aircraft
are becoming increasingly possible as technology continues to mature.
The FAA disagrees. An optionally piloted aircraft (OPA) is a manned
aircraft that can be flown or controlled by the onboard pilot in
command or by another individual from a location not onboard the
aircraft.\9\ Although the method of controlling the aircraft is
optional, in either case the pilot in command always remains onboard
the aircraft. Thus, OPA are beyond the scope of this policy because
they are not unmanned aircraft as defined by 49 U.S.C. 44801(11) and 14
CFR 1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Appendix F of FAA Order 8130.34D, Airworthiness
Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Optionally Piloted
Aircraft, dated September 8, 2017. You can find this order at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Requests for Changes to the Policy

    The CNO and the CDA requested that the type certification policy be
streamlined, flexible, and account for changing technologies. The
commenters stated that the type certification process should take
months instead of years and should accommodate innovation. The FAA
responds that this policy provides a flexible type certification
process that allows particularized airworthiness criteria for each
product design. Under this policy, as technologies change and
applicants propose innovative and unique type designs, so too may the
airworthiness criteria evolve. The FAA further notes that the pace of
any certification program is driven by many factors, including the
complexity of the project and the applicant's development and testing
timelines.
    Joby Aviation requested the FAA prioritize using existing
airworthiness standards under the process in Sec.  21.17(a) when a
product closely matches the characteristics of the airplane or
rotorcraft class and where special conditions (under Sec.  21.16) can
be reasonably used to address differences. The commenter stated the
approach of using the flexibility of the special class process in Sec.
21.17(b) makes sense for certain UAS or products where it is not
reasonable to apply existing airworthiness standards. The purpose of
this policy is to use the flexibility provided in the Sec.  21.17(b)
certification process to address the unique configurations and
innovative applications of airframes, powerplants, fuels, and materials
found in most UAS designs. For unmanned airplane and unmanned
rotorcraft designs where the airworthiness standards in part 23 or 27,
respectively, are appropriate for the certification basis, the FAA may
still issue type certificates under the processes in Sec. Sec.  21.16
and 21.17(a). The certification path for each individual UAS project
will be based on applicability, relevance, appropriateness, and
suitability.
    Joby Aviation also requested that the FAA certificate passenger-
carrying UAS under the existing, proven standards in part 23 or part
27, as appropriate to the individual aircraft design, under the process
in Sec.  21.17(a). Kilroy Aviation suggested a multi-tiered
certification approach for UAS, with a tier for passenger-carrying UAS.
These comments are beyond the scope of this policy, which does not
apply to UAS that carry occupants.
    Another commenter requested that the FAA define the certification
types, methods, and timeline more thoroughly before issuing this
policy. This commenter stated that the widely varying types and uses of
UAS make one blanket type of certification ineffective, or even
meaningless. The FAA notes that this policy is only a procedural policy
for establishing the airworthiness standards for the type certification
of some UAS. The notice of proposed policy requesting comments for the
type certification of unmanned aircraft systems, which published in the
Federal Register on February 3, 2020 (85 FR 5905), explained the
legislative and regulatory history, background, and the FAA's reasons
for type certificating certain UAS as a special class of aircraft under
Sec.  21.17(b). The purpose of this policy is to provide a flexible
process until generally applicable UAS airworthiness standards are
identified and established. Under the process for certification as a
special class of aircraft, the FAA will publish a notice seeking public
comment on the particularized airworthiness criteria for each
applicant. The particularized airworthiness criteria will not become
final until the FAA considers any public comments and publishes the
airworthiness criteria as the certification basis for the applicant's
design.
    The PRC requested that the FAA's policy use the three UAS
categories (open, specific, and certified) proposed by the Joint
Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS) and issued by
the European Union.\10\ This commenter also requested that the FAA
timely inform international aviation partners of its UAS type
certification standards. The FAA notes that this policy is only a
procedural policy for establishing airworthiness standards for the type
certification of certain UAS. If the FAA determines it appropriate, as
UAS technology develops and generally applicable standards are
identified, the FAA may establish standards through rulemaking. During
those activities, the FAA would further evaluate the UAS categories
established by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the
diversity of UAS designs to help inform future agency action. The FAA
will continue its collaboration with international partners in
government and industry on UAS certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/40525/delegated-act_drones.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kilroy Aviation, the CNO, and the CDA commented on FAA resources
for UAS certification projects. The CNO and the CDA requested the FAA
allocate sufficient personnel to support the exponential increase in
UAS certification projects. Kilroy Aviation requested the FAA delegate
UAS compliance findings to designees. The FAA is committed to the safe
and efficient integration of UAS into the NAS, and type certification
of UAS is an important step in that process. The FAA will continue to
assess its resources and make any necessary adjustments to process
certification projects of UAS and other aircraft. However, comments
regarding the delegation of UAS certification findings to designees are
beyond the scope of this policy.
    One commenter requested the policy prohibit UAS manufacturers from
self-certifying their designs. This comment is beyond the scope of this
policy. This policy outlines only the process for how the FAA will
establish airworthiness standards for the type certification of certain
UAS. FAA Order 8110.4C contains procedures and policy for the type
certification of products, including how an applicant for a type
certificate demonstrates compliance.
    The CNO and the CDA requested the FAA ensure early and frequent
coordination among FAA offices. These commenters stated that inter-
office coordination between those responsible for issuing the type
certificate and those responsible for issuing operational authority was
critical, so that applicants have the authority to operate the UAS when
its type certificate is issued. The FAA agrees. A type certificate is a
design approval and only one of several

requirements (airworthiness, pilot certification, registration, air
traffic control authorization, air carrier certification, etc.) that
must be met for an aircraft to operate in the NAS. The FAA established
the UAS Integration Office to facilitate coordination amongst FAA
offices on UAS activities.
    ALPA requested the FAA limit the duration of the policy to not more
than two years, as the process should only be interim until the FAA
develops certification regulations specifically designed for UAS. The
FAA does not agree. At this time, it is not possible to foresee when
generally applicable airworthiness standards for UAS would be
established or what form they may take. The FAA may supersede this
policy at any time by issuing generally applicable standards through
rulemaking.
    An individual requested the policy define unmanned aircraft using
consistent taxonomy. This commenter noted that many common UAS designs
are not easy to categorize as an airplane, rotorcraft, or hybrid lift.
This commenter also requested that the policy define the term
``unmanned aircraft system,'' as that term is not defined in 14 CFR
1.1. The FAA agrees that UAS designs are diverse. However, this policy
only addresses the process for how the FAA will establish airworthiness
standards for the type certification of certain UAS as a special class.
Although there is no corresponding definition in 14 CFR part 1, the
term ``unmanned aircraft system'' is defined by statute at 49 U.S.C.
44801(12) as an unmanned aircraft and its associated elements
(including communication links and the components that control the
unmanned aircraft) that are required for the operator to operate safely
and efficiently in the NAS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See also 14 CFR 107.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Airworthiness Criteria for UAS

    ALPA, the CNO, the CDA, NAAA, Wing Aviation LLC (Wing Aviation),
Kilroy Aviation, Valqari LLC, and six individual commenters requested
the FAA adopt specific airworthiness criteria for UAS. These criteria
included subjects such as weather, collision avoidance, marking and
coloring, strobe lighting, system safety assessments, payload, weight,
software, propeller shrouds and other safety equipment, noise,
batteries, public safety, and control stations. Kilroy Aviation
requested the FAA consider using the certification criteria for ``small
category VTOL aircraft'' adopted by EASA. Amazon Prime Air requested
that, while the FAA uses the process under Sec.  21.17(b) for type
certification, the agency also form a working group to evaluate and
create new rules for UAS airworthiness standards. These comments are
beyond the scope of this policy. This policy outlines only the
procedures for how the FAA will establish airworthiness standards for
the type certification of certain UAS. The particularized airworthiness
criteria for each applicant will vary as appropriate and applicable to
the specific UAS design. The FAA will announce and seek public comment
on the airworthiness criteria for each applicant. The FAA will also
continue to work with the public, industry, other civil aviation
authorities, and standards development organizations to create and
refine standards and policy for UAS.
    Wing Aviation and other commenters requested the airworthiness
criteria for UAS be performance-based. The FAA agrees and anticipates
issuing performance-based airworthiness criteria based on each
applicant's design when possible. The FAA will announce and seek public
comment on these criteria for each applicant.
    Kilroy Aviation, the CNO, and the CDA requested the FAA harmonize
UAS certification standards with EASA and other foreign civil aviation
authorities. The FAA agrees that having harmonization and consistency
on UAS policy and requirements with foreign authorities is prudent;
however, the implementation of this comment is beyond the scope of this
policy.

F. Operational Rules for UAS

    The CNO, the CDA, Valqari LLC, and three individual commenters
requested the FAA adopt specific criteria and rules for UAS based on
operational factors. These factors included beyond visual line of sight
(BVLOS) operations (especially in rural areas), designated airspace
below 400 feet for agricultural drone use, night operations, and
location of the UAS operation. Operational considerations, such as
BVLOS and detect and avoid requirements, are beyond the scope of this
policy.
    Several commenters also requested that the policy be risk-based and
account for the specific risks encountered by each UAS within its
operating environment. The FAA agrees and plans to use a risk-based
approach for UAS type certification. The FAA anticipates issuing
performance-based airworthiness criteria for each individual
applicant's design. For example, some applicants will demonstrate
compliance with the criteria by durability and reliability (D&R)
testing at a level tailored for the design based on its risk. The D&R
testing would result in an acceptable number of successful flight
hours, representative of mission cycles to substantiate the overall
reliability of the UAS.
    Several commenters requested that the FAA restrict UAS operations
over residential areas and schools and provide protections for
citizens' right to privacy. The operational issues raised by these
comments are beyond the scope of this policy, which is limited to the
process for establishing airworthiness standards for type
certification.
    The CNO, the CDA, and an individual requested that the FAA combine
operational authority with the issuance of the type certificate. These
commenters suggested that since the airworthiness criteria for each
type-certificated UAS will go through the public notice and comment
process, that process should include any exemptions from parts 91 and
61 (general operating and flight rules and flight crew certification
requirements) necessary to operate. These commenters further suggested
that the conditions and limitations typically included in the grant of
an exemption could then be incorporated on the TCDS as operating
limitations. This policy outlines the process for how the FAA will
establish airworthiness standards for the type certification of certain
UAS. The process for granting relief from operational and airmen
certification rules is addressed in 14 CFR part 11.

G. Request for Generally Applicable Standards

    Kilroy Aviation, the CNO, the CDA, and an individual requested that
the FAA issue additional guidance or rulemaking or recognize standards
for UAS certification in a timely manner. The FAA is committed to
developing the regulations, policy, procedures, guidance material, and
training requirements necessary to support the safe and efficient
integration of UAS into the NAS. The implementation of these activities
is beyond the scope of this policy.

H. Comments Regarding Airmen

    Droneport Texas LLC requested the FAA update remote pilot training
requirements and study aids so pilots are aware of the distinctions for
type-certificated UAS. This commenter also requested the FAA create
specialized training for maintainers, operators, and remote pilots of
UAS type certificated as a special class of aircraft. One individual
requested the FAA develop

different classes of recreational UAS pilots. Another individual
requested the FAA create specific aircraft type ratings for remote
pilots. However, the airmen training and certification issues raised by
these comments are beyond the scope of this policy, which is limited to
the process for type certification.

I. Requests for the FAA To Withdraw the Policy

    An anonymous commenter opposed the policy and stated it will stifle
innovation, limit recreation, and unnecessarily intrude on personal
freedoms. Fifteen individual commenters opposed the policy based on
concerns it would overburden hobbyists and negatively impact the model
aircraft community. The FAA infers that these commenters would like the
FAA to withdraw the policy. This policy will not burden or negatively
impact a person conducting limited recreational operations with a small
unmanned aircraft under 49 U.S.C. 44809, because type certification is
not required for these operations. For other UAS, type certification
may be required, depending on the weight of the UAS, the purpose of the
operations, and the operating rules to which the UAS is subject. This
policy provides a timely and flexible type certification process to
ensure that a UAS design complies with appropriate safety standards.

J. Requests for an Extension of the Comment Period

    Two individual commenters requested that the FAA extend the comment
period in order to solicit additional input and define additional
requirements. These comments noted that the comment period for this
notice overlapped with the comment period for the FAA's proposed
rulemaking on remote identification of UAS (84 FR 72438, December 31,
2019). The FAA has considered the request and determined that 30 days
provided an appropriate time for comment on the proposed policy, as
sufficient feedback on the policy was provided by the public during the
comment period.

K. Comments on Other FAA Rules

    Some commenters expressed concerns about the FAA's proposed remote
identification rule. Other commenters stated opposition to FAA's rules
for small UAS in part 107. DJI Technology, Inc., commented on
operations and associated waivers under part 107. Because these
comments concern FAA rulemakings on other issues, they are outside the
scope of this policy.

L. Other Out of Scope Comments

    Two commenters requested the FAA address UAS-related products (3-D
printed parts, test benches). DJI Technology, Inc., requested that the
FAA revise its regulations to allow American companies to manufacture
UAS at facilities outside the United States. An individual commenter
requested that the FAA revise 14 CFR 21.25(a)(1) to allow UAS as a
special purpose operation for issuance of a restricted category type
certificate. These comments are outside the scope of this policy, which
specifies a process for establishing airworthiness standards for type
certification of certain UAS.
    The FAA also received and reviewed several comments that were very
general, stated the commenter's viewpoint without a suggestion specific
to the policy, or did not make a request the FAA can act on. These
comments are outside the scope of this policy.

Policy

    The FAA has determined that some UAS may be type certificated as a
``special class'' of aircraft under Sec.  21.17(b). The FAA will issue
type certificates for UAS with no occupants onboard under the process
in Sec.  21.17(b). However, the FAA may still issue type certificates
under Sec.  21.17(a) for airplane and rotorcraft UAS designs where the
airworthiness standards in part 23, 25, 27 or 29, respectively, are
appropriate for the certification basis. This policy applies only to
the procedures for the type certification of UAS, and is not intended
to establish policy impacting other FAA rules pertaining to unmanned
aircraft, such as operations, pilot certification, or maintenance.
    The FAA will seek public comment on the particularized
airworthiness criteria for each applicant as certification standards
for this new special class evolve. Once generally applicable standards
are identified, the FAA may conduct rulemaking.
    The FAA's part 107 rulemaking on small UAS was only the first step
in the FAA's plan to integrate UAS into the NAS. Many long-term
activities are required for full integration of present and future UAS
operations, which will include the delivery of packages and
transportation of people. The UAS affected by this policy will include
those used for package delivery. Future FAA activity, through either
further policy or rulemaking, will address type certification for UAS
carrying occupants.
    The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of
law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is
intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing
requirements under the law or agency policies.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 11, 2020.
Pat Mullen,
Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-17882 Filed 9-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 82)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25072-25077]
[DOCID:fr28ap06-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2003-TN-0001, EPA-R04-OAR-2004-TN-0001-200413(a); FRL-
8163-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Revisions to
the Tennessee Nitrogen Oxides Budget and Allowance Trading Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving two State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's Nitrogen
Oxides (NOX) Budget Trading Program (Trading Program)
submitted October 27, 2003, and December 10, 2003, by the State of
Tennessee. The first revision corrects a miscalculation in Tennessee's
NOX trading budget for non-electric generating units (non-
EGUs) resulting from the use of an incorrect control efficiency
percentage for one of the Trading Program's non-EGU sources--an Eastman
Chemical Company boiler. The correction of this miscalculation results
in a 147 tons per season (tps) increase in Tennessee's NOX
trading budget for non-EGUs--making its non-EGU trading budget 5,666
tps, instead of 5,519 tps, and increasing Tennessee's total State-wide
NOX budget from 163,928 tpy to 164,075 tpy. Based on this
correction, Tennessee's second revision reallocates trading allowances
to Eastman Chemical Company--increasing the NOX trading
allowances from 416 tps to 549 tps for the Eastman Chemical Company
boiler.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective June 27, 2006 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 30, 2006. If
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-

OAR-2003-TN-0001 or EPA-R04-OAR-2004-TN-0001, by one of the following
methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2003-TN-0001 or EPA-R04-OAR-2004-TN-0001'',
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Stacy DiFrank, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2003-TN-0001 or EPA-R04-OAR-2004-TN-0001.'' EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The http://

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which

means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your

e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. 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 in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy DiFrank, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9042. Ms. DiFrank can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 27, 1998, EPA published the NOX SIP Call (63
FR 57356). In the NOX SIP Call, EPA took final action to
prohibit specified amounts of emissions of one of the main precursors
of ground level ozone, NOX, in order to reduce ozone
transport across state boundaries in the eastern half of the United
States. EPA also set forth requirements for each of the affected upwind
states to submit SIP revisions prohibiting those amounts of
NOX emissions which significantly contribute to downwind air
quality problems. In addition, EPA established state-wide
NOX emissions budgets for the affected states to be met by
the year 2007. See 40 CFR 51.121(e)(2). The state-wide NOX
emissions budgets were calculated by assuming the emissions reductions
that would be achieved by applying available, highly cost-effective
controls to source categories of NOX. The source categories
identified and regulated in the NOX SIP Call were electric
generating units (EGUs), non-electric generating units (non-EGUs),
internal combustion engines, and cement kilns. For the State of
Tennessee, EPA determined the total 2007 State-wide NOX
emissions budget to be 163,928 tons per season (tps), with the
following 5 sub-budgets:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       EGU              Non-EGU              Area             Nonroad            Highway             Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     25,814 tps          5,519 tps         13,333 tps         52,920 tps         66,342 tps       163,928 tps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See 69 FR 3015, 3016 (January 22, 2004).

    To assist the states in their efforts to meet the NOX
SIP Call, the NOX SIP Call final rulemaking included a model
NOX allowance trading regulation, called the
``NOX Budget Trading Program for State Implementation
Plans,'' (40 CFR part 96), that could be used by states to develop
their regulations. In the NOX SIP Call, EPA explained that
if states developed an allowance trading regulation consistent with the
EPA model rule, they could participate in a regional allowance trading
program that would be administered by EPA. See 63 FR 57458-57459. EPA's
model NOX budget and allowance trading rule sets forth a
NOX emissions trading program for large EGUs and non-EGUs.
For a full description of EPA's model NOX budget trading
program, see 63 FR 57514-56538 and 40 CFR part 96.
    In an emissions budget and allowance trading program, the state
sets an emissions trading budget for covered sources. The trading
budget limits the total number of allowances for each source covered by
the program during a particular control period. After setting the
trading budget, the state then assigns, or allocates, allowances to the
participating entities up to the level of the trading budget. Each
allowance authorizes the emission of a quantity of pollutant, e.g., one
ton of airborne NOX. At the end of the control period, each
source must demonstrate that its actual

emissions during the control period were less than or equal to the
number of available allowances it holds. Sources that reduce their
emissions below their allocated allowance level may sell their extra
allowances. Sources that emit more than the amount of their allocated
allowance level may buy allowances from the sources with extra
reductions.
    In response to the NOX SIP Call, Tennessee submitted SIP
revisions in 2000, 2001, and 2003 that consisted of standards for
cement kilns and a NOX Budget Trading Program for large
EGU's and certain non-EGUs (Trading Program). Tennessee's Trading
Program applies to all large EGUs and to non-EGUs that have a heat
input capacity equal to or greater than 250 million Brithish thermal
units (mmBtu) per hour. Under the Trading Program, each NOX
allowance permits a source to emit one ton of NOX during the
seasonal control period. NOX allowances may be bought or
sold. Unused NOX allowances may also be banked for future
use, with certain limitations. Upon finding that the submittals met the
requirements of Phase I of the NOX SIP Call, EPA fully
approved the State's Trading Program on January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3015).
Under the approved Trading Program, Tennessee's NOX trading
budget was as follows:

           Tennessee's Previously Approved NOX Trading Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Tennessee 2007
                                                           NOX Trading
                    Source category                      Program budget
                                                         emissions (tps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU...................................................            25,814
Non-EGU...............................................             5,519
                                                       -----------------
    Total.............................................           31, 333
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, and also pursuant to the Trading Program, the State
made allocations under the trading budget to its EGU and non-EGU
sources.
    On October 27, 2003, and December 10, 2003, Tennessee submitted SIP
revisions to its Trading Program. The first SIP revision submittal
corrects a miscalculation in Tennessee's trading budget for non-EGUs.
This miscalculation resulted from the use of an incorrect control
efficiency percentage for one of the Tennessee Trading Program's non-
EGU sources--an Eastman Chemical Company boiler. The correction of this
miscalculation results in a 147 tps increase in Tennessee's trading
budget for non-EGUs--making its non-EGU trading budget 5,666 tps,
instead of 5,519 tps, and increases Tennessee's State-wide
NOX budget from 163,928 tpy to 164,075 tpy. Based on this
correction, Tennessee's second SIP revision submittal reallocates
trading allowances to Eastman Chemical Company.

II. Analysis of Tennessee's October 27, 2003 Submittal: Correction to
Non-EGU Trading Budget

    At the time it developed its Trading Program, Tennessee calculated
its 2007 trading budget for covered non-EGUs to be 5,519 tps. This 2007
trading budget reflects calculations for 24 units at 10 plants. The
calculations, based upon EPA's NOX SIP Call methodology,
require (1) the determination of an adjusted baseline emissions amount
(total uncontrolled emissions) at each unit; (2) the application of a
growth factor of 1.65; (3) the application of presumptive controls of
60 percent; (4) the calculation of each unit's budget--which represents
the difference between the total uncontrolled emissions and the
presumptively controlled emissions; and (5) the summation of the total
resulting budgets for all units to establish a total non-EGU trading
budget. Where units already had controls in place during the period
used for the NOX SIP Call inventory, uncontrolled emissions
were determined by calculating the control efficiency of those controls
and adding those ``controlled'' emissions back into the baseline
amount. Using this formula, Tennessee determined its non-EGU trading
budget to be 5,519 tps. See Tennessee Rule 1200-3-27-.06(1)(f).
    The State of Tennessee's SIP submittal, dated October 27, 2003,
seeks EPA approval to change Tennessee's SIP (specifically Tennessee
Rule 1200-3-27-.06(1)(f)) to reflect a non-EGU trading budget of 5,666
tps, instead of 5,519 tps. The basis for this change is information
from Eastman Chemical Company indicating that the control efficiency
for the low-NOX burners and overfire air on its wall-fired,
pulverized coal boiler--Boiler Unit 016 (325-31)--was incorrectly
identified as 40 percent during the development of the State's non-EGU
trading budget. The correct control efficiency is 54.5 percent. Eastman
Chemical Company recognized this error during preparation of its Clean
Air Act title V permit application. The corrected control efficiency of
54.5 percent is calculated as follows:
     For pulverized coal, dry bottom wall-fired bituminous pre-
New Source Performance Standards boilers, an emission factor of 22
pounds per ton (lb/ton) was used;
     Assuming coal at 12,500 Btu/lb, these factors are equal to
0.88 lb/mmBtu and 0.6 lb/mmBtu, respectively. Boiler Unit 016 (325-31)
has a best available control technology limit of 0.4 lb/mmBtu. This
would equate to a control efficiency of (0.88-0.4)/0.88 = 54.5 percent.
    The original calculation of Tennesee's trading budget for Boiler
Unit 016 (325-31) using the incorrect control efficiency of 40 percent
was 457.776 tps, which, together with the trading budgets from other
covered non-EGUs, resulted in a total non-EGU trading budget of 5,519
tps. The 457.776 tps trading budget for Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) was
calculated using the following information:
     Controlled emissions for the Boiler are 416.16 tps.
     A 40 percent control efficiency reflected the control of
277.44 tps.
     When those 277.44 tps of controlled NOX
emissions were added back into the baseline of 416.16 tps, the
resulting adjusted baseline emissions (reflecting all uncontrolled
emissions) was 693.6 tps.
    In calculating the trading budget using the incorrect control
efficiency figure of 40 percent, the adjusted baseline emissions for
the Boiler (693.6 tps) were multiplied by the growth factor of 1.65 to
render the amount of uncontrolled emissions for the Unit for the year
2007 (1,144.44 tps). A presumptive control of 60 percent was then
applied to the uncontrolled emissions to render the amount of emissions
that are controllable at the Boiler (686.664 tps). The difference
between the 2007 uncontrolled emissions (1,144.44 tps) and the
controllable emissions (686.664 tps) represented the trading budget for
the Unit (457.776 tps). Thus, the original calculations for Boiler Unit
016 (325-31) were as follows:
     Total 2007 uncontrolled emissions: 693.6 tps x 1.65 =
1,144.44 tps.
     Presumptive controlled emissions (60 percent) 1,144.44 tps
x 0.6 = 686.664 tps.
     Trading budget for Boiler: 1,144.44 tps - 686.664 tps =
457.776 tps.
    However, using the corrected control efficiency of 54.5 percent
(versus 40 percent) results in more uncontrolled emissions being added
back into the adjusted baseline emissions amount (total uncontrolled
emissions) calculated for Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) and further results
in an increase to the Boiler's trading budget. That is, using the
corrected control efficiency for the Boiler of 54.5 percent results in
an additional 222.178 tps of controlled emissions that should have been
added back into the Boiler's adjusted baseline emissions--resulting in
an adjusted baseline emissions for Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) of 915.778
tps.

    In calculating the trading budget using this corrected information,
the adjusted baseline emissions for the Boiler (915.778 tps) are
multiplied by the growth factor of 1.65 to render the amount of 2007
uncontrolled emissions for the Boiler (1,511.0337 tps). A presumptive
control of 60 percent is then applied to the uncontrolled emissions to
render the amount of 2007 emissions that are controllable at the Boiler
(906.62022 tps). The difference between the 2007 uncontrolled emissions
(1,511.0337 tps) and the controllable emissions (906.62022 tps)
represents the trading budget for the Boiler (604.41348 tps). The
corrected calculations for Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) are as follows:
     Uncontrolled emissions through 2007: 915.778 tps x 1.65 =
1,511.0337 tps.
     Presumptive controlled emissions (60 percent) 1,511.0337
tps x 0.6 = 906.62022 tps.
     Trading budget for Boiler: 1511.0337 tps - 906.62022 tps =
604.41348 tps.
    The corrected calculations result in a trading budget for Boiler
Unit 016 (325-31) of 604.413 tps rather than 457.776 tps. This is a
difference of an additional 146.637 tps (or 147 tps when rounding up).
The corrected, and additional 147 tps, revises Tennessee's total non-
EGU trading budget upward--from 5,519 tps to 5,666 tps. This also
revises the total Tennessee State-wide NOX budget upward
from 163,928 tps to 164,075 tps.
    EPA has reviewed these calculations and concurs with this revision
to both the non-EGU trading budget and the overall State-wide
NOX budget for Tennessee. Therefore, EPA is approving
Tennessee's October 27, 2003 SIP revision. Tennessee's overall
NOX emissions budgets and Trading Program budgets are now as
follows:

             Tennessee's Current NOX Trading Program Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Tennessee 2007
                                                           NOX Trading
                    Source category                      Program budget
                                                         emissions (tps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU...................................................            25,814
Non-EGU...............................................             5,666
                                                       -----------------
    Total.............................................            31,480
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Tennessee's Current Overall NOX Emissions Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Tennessee 2007
                    Source category                        NOX budget
                                                         emissions (tps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGUs..................................................            25,814
Non-EGUs..............................................             5,666
Area Sources..........................................            13,333
Non-road Sources......................................            52,920
Highway Sources.......................................            66,342
                                                       -----------------
    Total.............................................           164,075
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analysis of Tennessee's December 10, 2003 Submittal: Reallocation
of Allowances

    In light of the above correction to Tennessee's non-EGU trading
budget, the State's second SIP submittal, dated December 10, 2003,
reallocates a portion of the corrected non-EGU trading budget (now
5,666 tps) to Eastman Chemical Company's Boiler Unit 016 (325-31)
pursuant to the State's allocation methodology that is set out in its
EPA-approved Trading Program. See Tennessee Rule 1200-3-27-.06(2),
Subpart E. The reallocation provides the Eastman Chemical Company
Boiler with 133 tps of additional trading allowances, for a total of
549 tps.
    Under its EPA-approved Trading Program, Tennessee's NOX
trading budget allowances are submitted as proposed SIP revisions to
EPA for approval. See Tennessee Rule 1200-3-27-.06(1)(h)(3). The
State's original EGU and non-EGU trading allowances (submitted to EPA
on October 4, 2001) were approved by EPA on January 22, 2004 (69 FR
3015). With very few exceptions, Tennessee allocates allowances
equivalent to 60 percent of the adjusted baseline emissions to each
non-EGU unit in its Trading Program. Under the State's original
(uncorrected) 5, 519 tps trading budget, Tennessee allocated a total of
5,255 tps to the 24 units in its Trading Program. Of that 5,255 tps,
Eastman Chemical's Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) was allocated 416 tps based
upon the above-discussed erroneously calculated adjusted baseline
emissions of 693.6 tps.
    Tennessee's December 10, 2003, SIP submittal seeks to adjust the
allocation of allowances to Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) in light of the
correction to the State's non-EGU trading budget which resulted from
correcting the Boiler's adjusted baseline emissions. Using the
corrected adjusted baseline emissions for Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) of
915.778 tps, the portion of the non-EGU trading budget allocated to the
Eastman Chemical Boiler under the State's 60% allocation methodology
becomes 549 tps, rather than 416 tps (an increase of 133 tps). That is,
using the State's allocation methodology, 60 percent of the Boiler's
adjusted baseline emissions of 915.778 equals 549 tps.
    It should be noted that the 133 tps increase in allocations to
Boiler 016 (325-31) uses only a portion of the corrected non-EGU
trading budget (e.g., 133 tps of the 147 tps added to the trading
budget after correction). The remainder of the corrected trading budget
increase (14 tps) has not been re-allocated by the State. With the 133
tps allocations increase to Boiler 016 (325-31), the resulting
corrected total of allocations to all non-EGUs in the State's Trading
Program is 5,388 tps. This total of non-EGU allocations represents 95
percent of the State's non-EGU trading budget as required by the
Trading Program (and EPA's model trading program). See Tennessee Rule
1200-3-27-.06, Subpart E, Section 92.42(c)(2).
    Because Tennessee's reallocation of allowances to Eastman Chemical
Company's Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) was made in accordance with the
State's EPA-approved Trading Program, EPA concurs with the reallocation
and is approving Tennessee's December 10, 2003, SIP submittal. The
allocation to Eastman Chemical Company's Boiler 016 (325-31) is now 549
tps.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the Tennessee SIP.
EPA has reviewed the State of Tennessee's justification concerning the
re-calculation of non-EGU NOX emissions and concurs with
Tennessee's 2007 state-wide NOX budget for non-EGUs of 5,666
tps. With this re-calculation, EPA is also approving the resulting
increase in Tennessee's State-wide NOX emission budget--now
at 164,075 tps. In addition, EPA has also reviewed the State's request
to re-allocate allowances of the non-EGU NOX budget to
Eastman Chemical Company's Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) based upon these
corrections and concurs with the revised allocation of 549 tps for this
Unit.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 27, 2006
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
May 30, 2006.

    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on June 27, 2006 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if
we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 rule 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 June 27, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 19, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. Section 52.2220(c) is amended by revising the entries in Table 1 for
``Section 1200-3-27-.06'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                  Table 1.--EPA-Approved Tennessee Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State effective                        Federal Register
         State citation              Title/subject           date          EPA approval date        notice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 1200-3-27-.06...........  NOX Trading Budget   October 19, 2003.  April 28, 2006....  [Insert citation
                                   for State                                                   of publication].
                                   Implementation
                                   Plans.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-4023 Filed 4-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P