[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3678-3679]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00980]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10004-61-OW]

Notice of Webinar Briefing and Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of webinar briefing and public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA's Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) will
hold a webinar briefing on January 30, 2020 and a public meeting on
February 11-13, 2020 in Washington, DC. The purpose of the webinar will
be to receive a background briefing on the Backhaul Alaska program. The
purpose of the public meeting will be to: Consider a report by the EFAB
Stormwater Infrastructure Finance Task Force Workgroup; conduct a
consultation with the EPA on financing options for the Backhaul Alaska
program; receive briefings on other environmental financing topics; and
consider possible future projects.

DATES: The webinar will be held on January 30, 2020 from 1 p.m. to 3
p.m. EST. The February 11, 2020 through February 13, 2020 public
meetings will be held as follows: February 11 and 12, 2020 from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m. EST, and on February 13, 2020 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: The webinar briefing will be conducted by webinar only and
is open to the public; interested persons must register in advance at
https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/2221546055725723395. The
public meeting will be held at the Washington Marriott Georgetown, 1221
22nd Street NW, Washington, DC 20037. The meeting is open to the
public; however, seating is limited. All members of the public who wish
to attend the meeting are asked to register in advance, no later than
February 5, 2020 at https://efabmeetingfeb2020.eventbrite.com.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
further information concerning the webinar briefing or the public
meeting may contact Stephanie Sanzone, EFAB Coordinator, via telephone/
voice mail<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
EFAB mailing address is: EPA Environmental Financial Advisory Board
(4204M), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460. General information about the EFAB can be
found on the EPA website at https://www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/efab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The EFAB is an EPA advisory committee chartered under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, to provide
advice and recommendations to the EPA on innovative approaches to
funding environmental programs, projects, and activities.
Administrative support for the EFAB is provided by the Water
Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center within the EPA's Office of
Water. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the
EFAB will hold a webinar briefing and a public meeting for the
following purposes:
    Webinar Briefing: The purpose of the webinar on January 30, 2020
will be for members of the EFAB to receive a briefing on the Backhaul
Alaska program in preparation for a consultation on the program to be
held at the February 11-13, 2020 public meeting. Due to unforeseen
administrative circumstances, the EPA is announcing this webinar with
less than 15 calendar days notice. The webinar is open to the public,
but no oral public comments will be accepted during the briefing.
Written public comments relating to the Backhaul Alaska consultation
should be provided in accordance with the instructions below on written
statements.
    Public Meeting: The agenda for the meeting on February 11-13, 2020
will include:
    (1) Review of a report by the EFAB Stormwater Infrastructure
Finance Task Force Workgroup. Pursuant to Section 4101 of the America's
Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, the Task Force was established under
the auspices of the EFAB to prepare a report on the availability of
public and private sources of funding for the construction,
rehabilitation, and operation and maintenance of stormwater
infrastructure. The final Task Force report will be considered by the
EFAB for revision or approval for transmittal

to the agency. For additional information on the work of the Task
Force, contact Ms. Ellen Tarquinio, EPA staff lead, at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Consultation on financing options for the Backhaul Alaska
program. In 2019, the EFAB prepared an advisory report on revenue
options for a waste service backhaul program in rural Alaska. At the
request of EPA Region 10, the EFAB has agreed to engage in further
discussions on financing and governance options for the Backhaul Alaska
program. A consultation is a form of advisory activity that provides
oral advice and feedback from the EFAB members at a public meeting. For
additional information on the Backhaul Alaska program, contact Ms.
Gabriela Carvalho, EPA Region 10, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) Briefings on environmental finance topics. The EFAB will hear
from invited EPA representatives on issues relating to financing of
environmental protection in small communities.
    (4) Discussion of potential future advisory topics. EFAB members
will discuss potential environmental finance topics on which the Board
may wish to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: Briefing materials for the
webinar and materials for the February 11-13, 2020 meeting (including
meeting agenda and draft review documents) will be available on the EPA
website at https://www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/efab.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees has a different
purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore,
the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is
different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program
office. Federal advisory committees provide independent advice to the
EPA. Members of the public can submit comments on matters being
considered by the EFAB for consideration by members as they develop
their advice and recommendations to the EPA.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation at EFAB public meetings will be limited to five
minutes. Persons interested in providing oral statements at the
February 11-13, 2020 meeting should contact Stephanie Sanzone in
writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above
by February 5, 2020 to be placed on the list of registered speakers.
    Written Statements: Written statements for the February 11-13, 2020
meeting should be received by February 5, 2020 so that the information
can be made available to the EFAB for its consideration prior to the
meeting. Written statements should be sent via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(preferred) or in hard copy with original signature to the EFAB mailing
address above. Members of the public should be aware that their
personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may
be posted to the EFAB website. Copyrighted material will not be posted
without explicit permission of the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodations for a
disability, please contact Sandra Williams at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 10 business days prior to the meeting
to allow as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: January 13, 2020.
Andrew Sawyers,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2020-00980 Filed 1-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


l she realized the harmful effects associated with chemical exposure. After moving to her farm 3 she found her community was contaminated. Ms. Cummings remarked that people are eating fish 4 contaminated with dioxins, female fish are taking on male sexual characteristics ( as are some 5 female humans in the community), and there is a high rate of children with learning disabilities as 6 well as a high rate of leukemia. She stated she worked on a dioxin FACA and is still worried 7 about the dioxins which she believes are probably caused from chlorine. Her message to industry 8 was to stop dumping poisons and to stop using chlorine. 9 10 Linda Young, Southeast coordinator of the Clean Water Network, stated she was also speaking on 11 behalf of Margaret Williams of the Citizens for Toxic Exposure, a group located in southern 12 Florida which evolved due to concern about citizens' health. She emphasized the public health 13 must not go unprotected because of scientific uncertainties and encouraged the application of the 14 precautionary principle. Ms. Young also noted the need to assess the effects of chemicals on the 15 most vulnerable populations, including the fetus. 16 17 Lisa Doig, of the Farmworkers Association of Florida, Inc., stated she strongly suspects a direct 18 relationship between exposure to pesticides and worker outbreaks of rashes, welts, bumps on the 19 body, birth defects, and miscarriages. She commented on cases where women farmworkers 20 experienced rashes, believed to be caused by chemical exposure, and then subsequently had 21 miscarriages. Ms. Doig suggested an in depth study into the cause and effect relationship of 22 pesticides and public health threats, and making available to the public the results. 23 24 Estaban Caro Jr., a farmworker, stated that as a common worker he is exposed to a number of 25 different pesticides and suffers from itching and swelling skin. He said the farmworkers are aware 26 of their exposure to such chemicals on a daily basis. With the help of organizations like the 27 Farmworkers Association, Mr. Caro explained, workers have been better able to get needed 28 information about how to protect themselves from pesticide exposure and how to get treatment 29 once exposure occurs. He expressed concern about how the exposure will affect him and other 30 workers in the long run and asked the Committee to do whatever possible to make the 31 farmworkers lives a little better. 32 Response to Public Comment 33 34 Dr. Lynn Goldman thanked the public for their comments and reminded them of the Committee's 35 scope. She expressed concern about the fern industry and indicated more attention needs to be 36 focused in this area. Dr. Goldman noted the need for the Committee to understand the extent of 37 exposure possible and to understand that laws and regulations do not always work as they should. 38 39


[Federal Register: August 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 150)]
[Notices]
[Page 45258-45260]
[DOCID:fr04au08-77]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58244; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change as Modified
by Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Repeal NASD Rule 1130 and Incorporated
NYSE Rules 405A, 440F, 440G and 477 as Part of the Process of
Developing the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

July 29, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 16, 2008, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. On July 15,
2008, FINRA filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA proposes a rule change to repeal NASD Rule 1130 (Reliance on
Current Membership List) and incorporated NYSE Rules 405A (Non-Managed
Fee-Based Account Programs--Disclosure and Monitoring), 440F (Public
Short Sale Transactions Effected on the Exchange), 440G (Transactions
in Stocks and Warrants for the Accounts of Members, Allied Members and
Member Organizations) and 477 (Retention of Jurisdiction--Failure to
Cooperate) as part of the process of developing the consolidated FINRA
rulebook. The text of the proposed rule change is available at FINRA,
the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.finra.org.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
Background
    As part of the process of developing the new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\3\ FINRA is proposing a rule change
to repeal NASD Rule 1130 (Reliance on Current Membership List) and
incorporated NYSE Rules 405A (Non-Managed Fee-Based Account Programs--
Disclosure and Monitoring), 440F (Public Short Sale Transactions

Effected on the Exchange), 440G (Transactions in Stocks and Warrants
for the Accounts of Members, Allied Members and Member Organizations)
and 477 (Retention of Jurisdiction--Failure to Cooperate) to eliminate
duplicative provisions and remove requirements that are specific to the
NYSE marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of two sets of rules:
(1) NASD Rules and (2) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together referred to as the ``Transitional
Rulebook''). The Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to those members
of FINRA that are also members of the NYSE (``Dual Members''). Dual
Members also must comply with NASD Rules. From more information
about the rulebook consolidation process, see FINRA Information
Notice, March 12, 2008 (``Rulebook Consolidation Process'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
NASD Rule 1130 (Reliance on Current Membership List)
    The proposed rule change would repeal NASD Rule 1130, which
provides that the Secretary of FINRA shall furnish every member a list
of all members of FINRA, and shall currently keep every member advised,
by amendments to the list or otherwise, of all new members and of all
suspensions and cancellations of membership. The rule also requires
that each member provide such information to its offices and associated
persons as appropriate, and entitles members to rely on the information
provided by FINRA for the purpose of complying with the rules.
    FINRA is proposing to repeal NASD Rule 1130 because the requirement
to furnish a membership list is substantially similar to provisions in
Article IV, Section 4 of the FINRA By-Laws, which require the Secretary
of FINRA to keep a currently accurate and complete membership roll,
which shall at all times be available to all members, governmental
authorities and the general public.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Additionally, information about membership suspensions and
cancellations is available to firms and the public through
BrokerCheck and announced to members in a monthly report of
disciplinary actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NYSE Rule 405A (Non-Managed Fee-Based Account Programs--Disclosure and
Monitoring)
    The proposed rule change would repeal Incorporated NYSE Rule 405A,
which prescribes certain requirements in connection with placing a
customer in a fee-based brokerage account. Among other things, the rule
requires a member to provide the customer, in advance of opening such
an account, a detailed disclosure document that must include, at a
minimum: A description of the services provided, eligible assets, fees
charged, an explanation of how costs will be computed and/or the
provision of cost estimates based on hypothetical portfolios, any
conditions or restrictions imposed and a summary of the program's
advantages and disadvantages. The rule also requires that the member
make a determination that the program is appropriate for the customer,
as well as ongoing monitoring of transactional activity by customers
and procedures to follow up with customers whose account activity may
be inappropriate in the context of the fee-based program.
    Incorporated NYSE Rule 405A essentially codifies, in a more
prescriptive fashion, guidance regarding the applicability of NASD Rule
2110 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) to fee-
based programs set forth in NASD Notice to Members 03-68. In general,
the Notice requires members to have reasonable grounds to believe that
a fee-based account is appropriate for a particular customer, taking
into account the services provided, cost and customer preferences. The
Notice further explains that a member must implement supervisory
procedures to require a periodic review of fee-based accounts to
determine whether they remain appropriate for their respective
customers.
    As a practical matter, these requirements may have little or no
current applicability to brokerage accounts in light of a recent court
holding that fee-based compensation constitutes ``special
compensation'' that triggers the requirements of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940.\5\ As a result of the court's decision, firms
generally have converted fee-based brokerage accounts into advisory
accounts or altered the compensation practices for such accounts (e.g.
charging transaction-based commissions rather than a fixed fee or
percentage of assets under management). However, both the Notice and
Incorporated NYSE Rule 405A are aimed at fee-based accounts that do not
constitute advisory accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Financial Planning Ass'n v. SEC, 375 U.S. App. D.C. 389,
482 F.3d 481 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent fee-based programs may continue to exist in some form
in brokerage accounts, FINRA believes the Notice provides the necessary
guidance for members to conform their conduct in accordance with the
just and equitable principles of trade mandated by NASD Rule 2110, and
further provides firms with the flexibility to adopt policies and
procedures to achieve that compliance in a manner consistent with their
business structure and practices.
NYSE Rules 440F (Public Short Sale Transactions Effected on the
Exchange) and 440G (Transactions in Stocks and Warrants for the
Accounts of Members, Allied Members and Member Organizations)
    The proposed rule change would repeal Incorporated NYSE Rules 440F
and 440G. Incorporated NYSE Rule 440F requires members to report on
Form SS20 round-lot short sale transactions in stocks or warrants
effected on the NYSE floor for public customers. Incorporated NYSE Rule
440G requires members to report on Form 121 round-lot purchases or
sales of stocks or warrants effected on the NYSE floor for members,
allied members or member organizations. FINRA is proposing to repeal
these rules as they are specific to the NYSE marketplace and relate
solely to exchange transactions.
NYSE Rule 477 (Retention of Jurisdiction--Failure to Cooperate)
    Both FINRA's By-Laws and Incorporated NYSE Rule 477 provide for
retained jurisdiction over former members and associated persons for
initiating disciplinary actions. Under Article IV, Section 6 and
Article V, Section 4 of the FINRA By-Laws, a former member or former
associated person, respectively, remains subject to the filing of a
FINRA complaint for two years after termination based on conduct that
commenced prior to the termination. In the case of former associated
persons, the FINRA By-Laws also provide that the two-year period
recommences if an amendment to a notice of termination filed within the
original two-year period discloses possible misconduct. Incorporated
NYSE Rule 477 provides for retained jurisdiction over a member or a
member's employee for an unspecified time if, prior to termination or
within one year following termination, NYSE serves written notice on
such member or person that it is making inquiry into matters that
occurred prior to termination.
    Under the proposed rule change, FINRA would continue to use the
retention of jurisdiction provisions set forth in the FINRA By-Laws and
would repeal the corresponding provisions in Incorporated NYSE Rule
477.
    FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 60 days
following Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions

of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\6\ which requires, among other things,
that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change would
eliminate duplicative and unnecessary rules and advance the development
of a more efficient and effective Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve such proposed rule change; or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2008-029 on the subject line.

Paper comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2008-029. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2008-029 and should be
submitted on or before August 25, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17788 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 225 (Friday, November 24, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55752-55755]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24738]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0982; Product Identifier 2017-SW-009-AD; Amendment
39-19102; AD 2017-23-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-24-02 for
Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. AD 2014-24-02
required repetitively inspecting the main rotor (M/R) rotating
scissors, removing certain lower half scissor spherical bearings
(bearings) from service, and installing a special nut. This new AD
revises the inspection requirements and requires replacing the
bearings. This AD is prompted by a new report of a dislodged bearing of
an M/R rotating scissor. The actions of this AD are intended to correct
an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 11, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of December 11,
2017.
    We must receive comments on this AD by January 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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-2017-
0982; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any
incorporated by reference service information, the economic evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness,
Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone
+39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. It is also

available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0982.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    We issued AD 2014-24-02, Amendment 39-18035 (79 FR 70785, November
28, 2014) (AD 2014-24-02), for Agusta S.p.A. Model AB139 and AW139
helicopters with a M/R rotating scissors part number (P/N) 3G6230A00733
with a bearing P/N 3G6230V00654 installed. AD 2014-24-02 required
repetitive inspections of the M/R rotating scissors for damage and play
of the bearing and replacing the nut with a special nut, P/N
3G6230A06851, which lengthens the compliance time for repetitive
inspections. AD 2014-24-02 was prompted by AD No. 2014-0215-E, dated
September 24, 2014, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for
the Member States of the European Union. EASA AD No. 2014-0215-E
corrected an unsafe condition for the AgustaWestland S.p.A and
AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation Model AB139 and AW139
helicopters. EASA advised of reports of early excessive play in the
bearings and a report of a chipped bearing liner.

Actions Since AD 2014-24-02 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2014-24-02, EASA issued AD No. 2017-0028-E,
dated February 15, 2017, which supersedes AD No. 2014-0215-E. EASA AD
No. 2017-0028-E was prompted by a report of a dislodged bearing P/N
3G6230V00654 with special nut P/N 3G6230A06851 installed. EASA advises
that all bearings P/N 3G6230V00654 could prematurely damage or wear,
including those with the special nut. For these reasons, EASA AD No.
2017-0028-E partially retains the repetitive inspections and requires
replacement of the bearing with improved bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 as
terminating action for the inspections.
    Additionally, Agusta S.p.A. has changed its name to Leonardo
Helicopters. Because the FAA is in the process of updating this name
change on its FAA type certificate and it is not yet effective, this AD
specifies Agusta S.p.A. as the type certificate holder.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We
are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by
EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist
or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Leonardo Helicopters (previously Agusta S.p.A.) Alert
Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-392, Revision A, dated February 14, 2017.
This service information specifies repetitively inspecting the M/R
rotating scissors to monitor the bearings and replacing the bearing
with a new part-numbered bearing.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    We reviewed Leonardo Helicopters AW139 IETP Document Code AMP-39-C-
62-31-00-00A-31AC-A, Rotating control installation--Fixed swashplate
and rotating scissors--Detailed inspection, Issue 29, dated July 31,
2017. This service information describes procedures for a detailed
inspection of the fixed swashplate and rotating scissors.

AD Requirements

    This new AD reduces the inspection interval for some M/R rotating
scissors, clarifies the inspection for damage, adds an inspection for
movement of the bearing out of its seat, and retains the inspection for
play of the bearing. Depending on the outcome of these inspections,
this AD requires replacing the bearing with an improved bearing,
replacing the rotating scissor attachment flange with a certain part-
numbered rotating scissor attachment flange, and replacing the nut with
a certain part-numbered special nut. If not done as a result of the
inspections, this AD also requires replacing each nut with a certain
part-numbered special nut.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires replacing each bearing P/N 3G6230V00654 with
bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 within 12 months; whereas, this AD does not.
We plan to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to give the public
an opportunity to comment on this long-term requirement.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 103 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to
comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
Inspecting for bearing liner wear, seat movement, and play will take
about 1 work-hour for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $8,755 for the
U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Replacing a bearing will take 2 work-
hours and parts will cost $892 for a cost of $1,062 per bearing.
Replacing a rotating scissor attachment flange will cost $20,629 for
parts and no additional labor. Installing two special nuts on a
helicopter will take 1 work-hour and parts will cost $682 for a cost of
$767 helicopter and $79,001 for the U.S. fleet.
    According to Leonardo Helicopter's service information, some of the
costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty
coverage by Leonardo Helicopter. Accordingly, we have included all
costs in our cost estimate.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting
these AD

requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to
correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk
to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the
adoption of this rule because the unsafe condition can adversely affect
the controllability of the helicopter and some of the required
corrective actions must be accomplished within 5 hours time-in-service
and thereafter every 24 hours. Other corrective actions in this AD must
be accomplished within 100 hours time-in-service; however, these
helicopters are generally high-usage aircraft and could reach this
compliance time within a very short calendar time.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-24-02, Amendment 39-18035 (79 FR 70785, November 28, 2014), and
adding the following new AD:

2017-23-08 Agusta S.p.A.: Amendment 39-19102; Docket No. FAA-2017-
0982; Product Identifier 2017-SW-009-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters with main
rotor (M/R) rotating scissors with a lower half scissor spherical
bearing (bearing) P/N 3G6230V00654 installed, certificated in any
category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as excessive play of the
bearing in the M/R rotating scissors. This condition could result in
failure of the M/R rotating scissors and subsequent loss of control
of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2014-24-02, Amendment 39-18035 (79 FR
70785, November 28, 2014).

(d) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 11, 2017.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter before
the first flight of each day or at intervals not exceeding 24-clock
hours, whichever occurs later:
    (i) Using a magnifying glass and a flashlight, visually inspect
each bearing for wear of the bearing liner. Some examples of wear
are shown in Figures 4 through 8 of Leonardo Helicopters Alert
Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-392, Revision A, dated February 14, 2017
(BT 139-392). If there is any wear of the liner, before further
flight, replace the bearing with bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 and
install special nut P/N 3G6230A06851. Replacing the bearing with
bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 constitutes terminating action for the
remaining actions of this AD for the bearing.
    (ii) Inspect each bearing for movement. Refer to Figure 9 of BT
139-392. If the bearing moves freely out of its seat, before further
flight, replace the rotating scissor attachment flange with flange
P/N 3G6220A00633, replace the bearing with bearing P/N 3G6230V00655
and install special nut P/N 3G6230A06851. Replacing the bearing with
bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 constitutes terminating action for the
remaining actions of this AD for the bearing.
    (iii) Inspect the M/R rotating scissors for play and wear of
each bearing, paying particular attention to the bearing staking
condition, by manually moving the lower half scissor along the axis
of the spherical bearing. Refer to Figure 1 of BT 139-392. If there
is any play or wear beyond allowable limits, before further flight,
replace the bearing with bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 and install
special nut P/N 3G6230A06851. Replacing the bearing with bearing P/N
3G6230V00655 constitutes terminating action for the remaining
actions of this AD for the bearing.
    (2) Within 100 hours TIS, replace and torque each lower half
scissor nut with special nut P/N 3G6230A06851 to the M/R rotating
scissor in accordance with the Compliance Instructions, Part II,
steps 5.1 through 5.9 of BT 139-392, except you are not required to
discard parts.
    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any M/R
rotating scissors with a bearing P/N 3G6230V00654 installed.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior
Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft
Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    (1) Leonardo Helicopters AW139 IETP Document Code AMP-39-C-62-
31-00-00A-31AC-A, Rotating control installation--Fixed

swashplate and rotating scissors--Detailed inspection, Issue 29,
dated July 31, 2017, which is not incorporated by reference,
contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For
service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A.
Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta
520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-
711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review a copy of the service information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0028-E, dated February 15, 2017.
You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2017-0982.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6200, M/R System.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Leonardo Helicopters Alert Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-392,
Revision A, dated February 14, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Leonardo Helicopters service information identified in
this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head
of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va)
Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 7, 2017.
Scott A. Horn,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-24738 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


addressed here and in Section 2.0 of the RTC Document. Overall, as a
result of the comments received on the proposal and

our continued evaluation of the circumstances, we are issuing only a
general permit for graphic arts and printing operations. Three
commenters provided comments regarding the EPA's proposal to establish
a permit by rule for graphic arts and printing operations. One
commenter agreed that the approach could provide significant time
savings due to its streamlined approach. However, two commenters were
concerned that a permit by rule approach does not provide the public,
including Indian tribes, the opportunity to comment on a minor source's
use of the permit. Another commenter disagreed that a permit by rule is
consistent with the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule, which
requires preconstruction permits. The commenter asserted that use of a
permit by rule would effectively mean that sources exceeding the minor
source permit threshold are effectively exempt from permitting. One
commenter argued that the use of a permit by rule on tribal lands is
not appropriate for either true minor or synthetic minor sources. Two
commenters requested that the EPA provide either a notice and comment
period or a consultation process for tribes for the permit by rule
approach, citing that tribes must be given an opportunity to comment to
recognize their sovereignty. For these reasons, the commenters
supported only a general permit approach.
    The EPA is not finalizing a permit by rule, either in lieu of or in
conjunction with a general permit, for the graphic arts and printing
operations source category for two reasons. First, many sources in this
source category are major sources and require synthetic minor source
permits in order to gain minor source status. While some of these
sources may be true minor sources, the potential variation in size of
individual sources warrants including a mechanism for creating
synthetic minor sources. The permit by rule is not a mechanism that can
be used to create synthetic minor sources; the general permit is a
mechanism that can create synthetic minor sources, as it affords the
opportunity for the Reviewing Authority to perform a review. The EPA
established this approach when we finalized the first set of general
permits and permits by rule in May 2015.\46\ Thus, a general permit is
more appropriate for this source category. Second, we agree with
commenters that the permit by rule approach does not provide the
public, including Indian tribes, the opportunity to comment about a
minor source's use of the permit. We are, therefore, finalizing a
general permit for this source category, which is an approach that
affords the public an opportunity to object to a source gaining
coverage under the permit pursuant to 40 CFR 49.157(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ ``General Permits and Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor
New Source Review Program in Indian Country for Five Source
Categories,'' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 80 FR 25068, May
1, 2015, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-05-01/pdf/2015-09739.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the use of permits by
rule effectively means that sources exceeding the minor source permit
threshold are exempt from a permit. We also disagree that the permits
by rule are not consistent with the concept of preconstruction permits
in the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. A permit by rule
establishes a standard set of requirements that must be met by any
source commencing construction in reliance on that permit and, thus,
serves the same purpose as any other preconstruction permit. The
primary difference between a permit by rule and a general permit is
procedural, not substantive. As to consistency with the concept of
preconstruction permits in the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule,
the rule specifically authorizes the issuance of the general permits
and the permits by rule we have issued thus far.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to comments on finalizing both permitting mechanisms
for graphic arts and printing operations, we include responses here and
in Section 7.0 of the RTC Document. As noted, we have decided to
finalize only a general permit for graphic arts and printing
operations, rather than to make both permit types available for the
graphic arts and printing operations source category. We are not
finalizing the proposed ``hybrid'' approach for graphic arts and
printing operations because the EPA does not believe that sources in
the source category are appropriate candidates for permits by rule,
particularly since some of them may be major sources seeking synthetic
minor status. Furthermore, we believe that having two permit types
would add additional complication to administration of the rule with
little, if any, apparent benefit. We are not adopting such a hybrid
approach.
    Finally, the EPA did not receive any comments on the issue of using
a streamlined general permit/permit by rule application for graphic
arts and printing operations. However, because this permit will serve
as a general permit for true minor and synthetic minor sources, we are
enhancing the application to request additional details about equipment
present at the site. Since applicant sources could potentially be major
sources seeking minor source status, we need to ensure that we have
sufficient information to be able to make an approval review decision.

C. Proposed Rule Change to the Federal Indian Country Minor New Source
Review Rule in One Area: Shortening the General Permit Application
Review Process From 90 to 45 Days for Graphic Arts and Printing
Operations

1. Proposed Rule
    In the July 17, 2014, proposed rule, we proposed to change the
Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule at 40 CFR 49.156(e)(4) to shorten
the general permit application review process from 90 to 45 days for
one source category: Graphic arts and printing operations.
2. Summary of Comments, Responses and Final Action
    This section provides a brief summary of other significant comments
received and our responses. A full summary of the comments received on
this subject and our responses are presented in Section 8.0 of the RTC
Document.
    Two commenters supported the proposal to amend 40 CFR 49.156(e)(4)
to shorten the review period to 45 days for the graphic arts and
printing operations permit. Conversely, one commenter recommended not
reducing the review period since the EPA requires time to: (1) Review
the material safety data sheets of graphic arts materials used; (2)
review the specifications on gas-fired burners on heatset printing
presses and oxidizers; and (3) evaluate internal combustion engines for
compliance with NSPS and NESHAP requirements. We agree with the
commenter that this source category requires a 90-day review period,
particularly since the general permit is also serving as a permit to
create synthetic minor sources. Consequently, the EPA is not finalizing
revisions to Sec.  49.156(e)(4) to shorten the general permit
application review process from 90 to 45 days for the graphic arts and
printing operations source category.

D. Control Technology Review

1. Proposed Rule
    In the proposal, we requested comment on various aspects of the
EPA's conclusion following its control technology review that, because
the control measures in the draft general permits are currently used by
other similar sources in other areas of the country, the measures in
the draft

permits are technically and economically feasible and cost effective.
2. Summary of Comments, Responses and Final Action
    This section provides a brief summary of significant comments
received and our responses. A full summary of the comments received on
this subject and our responses are presented in Section 3.0 of the RTC
Document. The EPA is largely retaining the basic approach to the
control technology review outlined in the July 17, 2014, proposal.
    One commenter expressed confusion over the term ``control
technology.'' The commenter requested the EPA clarify if this refers to
add-on controls or if it includes controls that may be part of the
equipment itself. In response, we note that the term ``control
technology'' refers to integrated controls, add-on controls and other
emissions reduction techniques (e.g., work practice standards and the
use of compliant materials).
    One commenter stated that because the EPA intends to issue general
permits at the national level instead of through Regional
Administrators, the Agency should require the most stringent
requirements applicable in adjacent areas of Indian country. The
commenter recommended that the general permits require the use of BACT
and the most current version of adjacent area rules and regulations to
avoid a competitive disadvantage. The commenter also noted that the EPA
may wish to consider making general permits applicable only within one
of the EPA Regions, in order to avoid making sources in Indian country
subject to more stringent requirements than those in adjacent states.
    Regarding the level at which the EPA issues general permits, the
commenter is correct that all of the general permits that the EPA has
established to date (including this set) have been at the national
level. However, we may in the future issue general permits (or permits
by rule) on a smaller geographic scale for a particular state or region
of the country. In fact, in the first batch of streamlined permits we
issued, we indicated that EPA Region 9 will be developing a general
permit or permit by rule for areas within California for gasoline
dispensing facilities.\48\ In addition, once the EPA issues a general
permit at the national level, Regional offices serving as the Reviewing
Authority are responsible for processing the Request for Coverage and
issuing the Approval of Request for Coverage under nationally-issued
general permits (as well as any general permits issued by that Region
for a smaller geographic area), Alternatively, a tribe may serve as the
Reviewing Authority for its area of Indian country by taking delegation
of responsibility for implementing the permit program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding other points made by the commenter, the EPA crafted the
minor source general permits to ensure air quality is properly
protected and to provide a streamlined approach, where appropriate. We
undertook a survey of existing national and state requirements, and
reviewed, weighed and compared these requirements to develop general
permits that would help provide a level playing field for minor sources
in Indian country. The EPA has not necessarily adopted the most
stringent of these observed standards, but, rather, has evaluated
relevant rules and regulations to determine the most appropriate and
commonly employed standards for each source and unit type covered under
the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. The EPA has the authority to
determine that a particular general permit or permit by rule is no
longer sufficient to protect air quality for new or modified sources in
a particular geographic area and, thus, does not meet the requirements
of the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. Such a determination
would consider, for example, local air quality conditions, typical
control technology of other emission reduction measures used by similar
sources in surrounding areas, anticipated economic growth in the area
and/or cost-effective emission reduction alternatives. If the EPA were
to make such a determination, it could either issue a revised general
permit for use in that area or require sources in that area to obtain
source-specific permits. In addition, the EPA Regional Administrators
may adopt general permits or permits by rule that apply within those
areas.

E. Setback Requirements

1. Proposed Rule
    For the draft general permits for boilers, concrete batch plants,
engines, and sawmill facilities, we included permit provisions related
to the location of emitting activities relative to the source property
boundary. We call these provisions, which are designed to minimize the
impacts of emissions, setback requirements. Under a setback
requirement, sources may not locate or expand within a specific
distance from the property boundary and nearest residences. We proposed
that these provisions seemed both reasonable and prudent measures to
protect local air quality, and are economically feasible and cost
effective.
2. Summary of Comments, Responses and Final Action
    This section provides a brief summary of significant comments
received and our responses. A full summary of the comments received on
this subject and our responses are presented in Section 4.0 of the RTC
Document.
    Two commenters supported the inclusion of setback requirements for
boilers, concrete batch plants, spark and compression ignition engines,
and sawmill facilities. These commenters requested that the EPA not
only apply the setback requirements to schools and nursing homes, but
also to other physical locations such as community centers, health care
facilities, hospitals, agricultural fields, ball fields, parks,
locations designated for cultural and subsistence activities, and
waterways. The same commenters requested that the EPA carefully
consider each tribe's sovereign right to manage and oversee land use
within its own boundaries. The commenters noted that some tribes may
not provide for setback requirements where others may already have
setback requirements that are less restrictive than those in the draft
permits. The commenters recommended that the EPA consult and
communicate with tribes on the application of setback requirements and
that the EPA insert a provision in the general permits allowing a tribe
to obtain a partial or full waiver from the requirements (e.g., from
the types of buildings to which the requirements apply).
    Two commenters objected to the inclusion of setback requirements in
the stationary compression ignition and spark ignition engines general
permits. The commenters argued that the EPA has not demonstrated the
need for or provided any data to support setback requirements and that
no current NSPS or NESHAP for engines includes similar requirements.
The commenters further argued that setting distances to property
boundaries is counter to, and conflicts with, federal and state agency
requirements for land management and parks and wildlife preserves
created to minimize surface disturbance and encroachment on endangered
species areas. One commenter noted that specific setback requirements
are already included in Indian mineral leases. Another commenter urged
that setback regulations have historically been considered ``land use''
regulation relegated to state and local jurisdictions. The commenters
stated that establishing a setback requirement that applies to all of
Indian country would create

jurisdictional conflicts. The commenter further warned that the EPA
would be setting precedent that could cause other regulatory agencies
to follow suit.
    One commenter did not support the use of physical markers on a
property to show compliance with the setback requirements.
    Due to the lack of an EPA analysis demonstrating the air quality
benefits of requiring setbacks, we lack sufficient information to
incorporate them in the final general permits for boilers and emergency
engines, concrete batch plants, spark and compression ignition engines,
and sawmill facilities. Therefore, the final general permits for these
source categories do not contain setback provisions. Nonetheless, the
Reviewing Authority retains the discretion to deny the granting of
source coverage under the general permits for any source category based
on local air quality concerns.

F. Requirements Relating to Threatened or Endangered Species and
Historic Properties

1. Proposed Rule
    The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure, in consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries
Service (the Services), that any action they authorize, fund, or carry
out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any listed
threatened or endangered species, or destroy or adversely modify the
designated critical habitat of such species. The NHPA requires federal
agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on
historic properties--i.e., properties that are either listed on, or
eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places--and
to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (the Council)
a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. We provided
draft screening processes in Appendices to the draft Request for
Coverage Forms for the draft general permits that we made available for
comment to ensure appropriate consideration of listed species and
historic properties.
2. Summary of Comments, Responses and Final Action
    This section provides a brief summary of significant comments
received and our responses. A full summary of the comments received on
this subject and our responses are presented in Section 5.0 of the RTC
Document. Overall, as a result of the comments we received, we are
largely retaining the processes we presented in the proposal with some
adjustment in this final action.
    Two commenters expressed concerns regarding provisions for listed
species and historic properties. One commenter contended that the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
currently develop a resource management plan for oil and gas activities
on Indian lands that triggers ESA and NHPA review. The commenter argued
that it is unnecessary to repeat an ESA or NHPA review during the
general permit process given that it may rely on this existing review.
The commenter further asserted that the proposed provisions would
require minor source permit applicants to interface with various
federal agencies in the absence of any procedures governing that
interaction, and that the legal consequences of certifying compliance
with the ESA and NHPA are undefined.
    The EPA is aware that new sources locating in Indian country may
also need approvals or other authorizations from other federal agencies
such as the BIA or the BLM, which may trigger a review under the ESA
and/or the NHPA. Such approvals or authorizations by other agencies
are, however, separate from the authorization provided in the EPA's
minor NSR general permits. However, to avoid duplication of effort, we
believe it is appropriate for facilities seeking to be covered under
the general permits to use listed species and historic property
assessments, analyses, and outcomes obtained through BIA/BLM's separate
compliance with the ESA and NHPA in connection with their own actions
to satisfy the relevant screening procedures for coverage under the
minor NSR general permits. We anticipate that where a separate ESA or
NHPA compliance process is undertaken by BIA/BLM in connection with a
new source, that process will satisfy the EPA's permit screening
procedures.
    Therefore, we have modified the listed species procedures in
appendix A for endangered and threatened species that are attached to
the Request for Coverage Forms to clarify that this approach is the
first consideration in the screening process. We believe that this
option as a first choice is already clear in the historic property
screening procedures and, therefore, we have not revised appendix B in
that regard in the historic properties procedures included with the
Request for Coverage Forms.
    One commenter expressed concerns about the ability of permit
applicants to meet the compliance requirements of the ESA and NHPA,
citing limitations in time and availability of in-house expertise. The
commenter asserted that the process could be costly and requested
whether the EPA has assessed the time and cost impacts to comply with
the ESA and NHPA. The EPA understands that satisfactorily addressing
the screening procedures for threatened and endangered species and
historic properties will impose some burden on sources seeking coverage
under general permits. However, we have attempted to streamline the
screening processes in order to minimize the effort needed to complete
them. For example, both sets of procedures have been clarified to make
more explicit that sources can, as appropriate, rely on prior
assessments performed by other federal agencies to satisfy the
procedures.

G. Use of Throughput Limits and Capacity Limits

1. Proposed Rule
    The Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule requires the Reviewing
Authority to establish annual allowable emission limitations for each
affected emissions unit and for each NSR-regulated pollutant emitted by
the unit, if the unit is issued an enforceable limitation lower than
the PTE of that unit (see 40 CFR 49.155(a)(2)). The EPA included
throughput, fuel usage, and materials usage limitations and compliance
monitoring requirements in the draft general permits and proposed
permit by rule as a means for limiting emissions and demonstrating
compliance with those limits.
    For the six source categories in this action, some states (but not
all) provide both annual tpy allowable emission limitations and
throughput limits in their general permits. Other states provide only
overall production limits that limit the amount of throughput a
facility can process over a period of time. We requested comment on the
use of throughput limits as a surrogate for tpy allowable emission
limitations, or, alternatively, establishment of annual allowable
emission limitations for each pollutant, and the use of throughput
limits as surrogate monitoring measures to demonstrate compliance with
tpy annual allowable emission limitations.
2. Summary of Comments, Responses and Final Action
    This section provides a brief summary of significant comments
received and our responses. A full summary of the comments received on
this subject and our responses are presented in Section 6.0 of the RTC
Document. In the final general permits, the EPA has retained the
throughput limits contained in the

draft general permits, except that we have revised the limits in the
final general permits for boilers and emergency engines, spark ignition
engines, compression ignition engines and sawmill facilities. This has
included adding control options and fuel-based limits to accommodate
synthetic minor sources.
    Two commenters supported the use of throughput production limits as
a surrogate for annual tpy emission limits in the draft concrete batch
plants general permit. The commenters declared that facilities
currently track information about the material they process, and that
complying with a throughput limitation would be less costly. One
commenter stated that the proposed rule does not provide for different
production limits for facilities located in attainment and
nonattainment areas for PM, and requested that the EPA consider this
issue more closely.
    The EPA appreciates the commenters' support for the use of
throughput limits. The EPA also appreciates the commenters' concern
regarding separate production limits for PM10 and
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. We set the throughput limit in
the draft concrete batch plants general permit to ensure that a source
in any area (attainment or nonattainment) would not be a major source.
    For the draft boilers general permit, two commenters supported the
use of varying capacity limits as a surrogate for annual tpy emission
limits based on boiler and process heater size. The commenters
supported the use of different capacity limits for process heaters and
process heaters and boilers combined located in ozone nonattainment
areas. The commenters also supported finalizing two boilers general
permits--one intended for smaller, simpler sources using capacity
limits, and one for larger, more complex sources using tpy emission
limitations and additional monitoring and recordkeeping. The EPA has
decided to issue only one final ``General Air Quality Permit for New or
Modified Minor Source Boilers and Emergency Engines in Indian
Country,'' which also covers emergency engines. We do not agree that
two are needed. We believe that one permit for boilers can accommodate
boilers of varying sizes.
    Two commenters expressed concerns with the capacity limits included
in the draft spark ignition engines general permit. The commenters
noted an inconsistency between the engine site capacity limit of 1,750
hp and the emission limits set by reference to Table 1 of 40 CFR part
60, subpart JJJJ. One commenter provided the example that, using the
EPA's PTE spreadsheet and a single 1,000 hp 4-stroke lean burn engine,
the CO limit of 2.0 grams per hp-hour in Table 1 yields a total annual
CO emission PTE of just under 20 tpy, which would allow for up to 5,000
hp site capacity based on a 100 tpy limit. The commenters stated that
these issues bring into question whether the draft spark ignition and
compression ignition engines permits should include capacity-based
limits or emissions-based limits. Both commenters reasoned that
emission limits are preferable to capacity limits, because an emission
limit approach would allow flexibility for operators to determine how
to configure engines. One commenter argued that if the EPA uses
capacity limits, then it would seem pointless to also include emission
limits or monitoring. The commenter stated that capacity limits are
most appropriate for small engines to simplify exclusion from minor
source NSR, stating that neither the draft spark ignition engines
general permit nor the draft compression ignition engines general
permit addressed excluding low emitting small engines. The commenter
further argued that the upper limit used should actually be 250 tpy to
avoid the PSD Program in attainment areas.
    The EPA acknowledges that, in setting the capacity limits in the
draft spark ignition engines general permit, the limit was based on the
highest emission factor under the NSPS for the various engines types.
We also acknowledge that there is significant variability in the
emission factors for the different types of engines. Given the
differences, we are revising the capacity limits to add a fuel-based
capacity limit option for natural gas-fired spark ignition engines. In
addition, the draft spark ignition engines general permit does not
apply to engines in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas
processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector. The EPA has
issued a separate, final rulemaking addressing oil and natural gas
activities that includes requirements for non-emergency engines.\49\
Non-emergency spark ignition engines (and any additional emergency
engines) located at sources that are not in the oil and natural gas
production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural
gas sector are eligible for coverage under the final ``General Air
Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Spark Ignition Engines
in Indian Country.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ ``Federal Implementation Plan for True Minor Sources in
Indian Country in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas
Processing Segments of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector; Amendments to
the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country to
Address Requirements for True Minor Sources in the Oil and Natural
Gas Sector,'' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 81 FR 35944,
June 3, 2016, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-06-03/pdf/2016-11969.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding excluding small engines, we note that the Federal Indian
Country Minor NSR rule exempts stationary internal combustion engines
with a manufacturer's site-rated hp of less than 50. The EPA finalized
this exemption during the development of the general permits.\50\ We
have revised the permitting documents to reflect this exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ ``Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian
Country--Amendments to the Federal Indian Country Minor New Source
Review Rule,'' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 79 FR 31035,
May 30, 2014, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-05-30/pdf/2014-11499.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the use of emission limits versus capacity limits, we
have retained the capacity limits but we have also added additional
flexibility by allowing for the use of synthetic minor fuel limits in
lieu of the engine capacity limits. This flexibility is close to the
approach suggested by the commenter, as it allows for engines of
greater capacity as long as overall fuel use remains below the
specified threshold. We consider this approach the best option for the
types of owners and operators that we expect to be subject to the
permits--striking a balance between flexibility and ease of compliance.
Sources needing even greater operational flexibility should consider
applying for a source-specific permit. The general permits are intended
for common, straightforward permitting actions.
    Regarding the upper tpy emission limit used for setting the limits
in the permit, we disagree with the commenter's suggestion of using 250
tpy. While the EPA will still determine when sources applying for a
general permit need a source-specific permit due to air quality
concerns, we do not believe that will occur as often as would be
required if we used the upper threshold in attainment areas proposed by
the commenter.
    Two commenters supported the proposed approach for establishing
capacity limits for compression ignition emergency and non-emergency
engine sources that differentiate among locations in ozone attainment,
unclassifiable, or Marginal/Moderate ozone nonattainment areas. The
commenters requested that the EPA explain why the draft general permit
for stationary spark ignition engines does not use a similar approach.
One commenter stated that nonattainment minor source permitting should
be

regionally specific and based on emissions inventory evaluation and
modeling to determine the requirements after a designation is made. The
commenter declared that because no nonattainment designation has been
made in any tribal land areas, it is premature to specify minor source
permitting requirements. The EPA notes that the draft general permit
for spark ignition engines does not need separate limits for sources in
different types of ozone areas. The limiting pollutant--the pollutant
with the highest emissions in setting the capacity limits--is CO. The
established limits in the draft general permit are set low enough to
ensure sources in ozone nonattainment areas will be below the major
source thresholds, regardless of the area's classification. The final
``General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source Spark
Ignition Engines in Indian Country'' is not available in Serious CO
nonattainment areas. Currently, there are no CO nonattainment areas.
    Regarding the comment that nonattainment minor source permitting
should be based on an emissions inventory evaluation and modeling, in
this instance it is not necessary to develop an emissions inventory or
perform ambient air modeling in order to establish minor source permits
in attainment or nonattainment areas that are protective of air
quality. The general permits in this action are intended to prevent the
construction of sources that would interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS in attainment and nonattainment areas.
However, some of the general permits in this action do not cover all
potential nonattainment areas because, in order to protect air quality
in such areas, we would have had to construct an overly stringent,
potentially unworkable permit for such sources in such areas. A better
alternative is to direct such sources to work with the Reviewing
Authority to develop a more workable, source-specific permit. Moreover,
the Reviewing Authority has the discretion under the Federal Indian
Country Minor NSR rule to not grant coverage under a general permit to
a particular source or in a particular area if there is a concern that
the general permit will not be protective of air quality in the area.
    Three commenters supported the EPA's draft emission limitations for
sawmill facilities, including a limitation of 25 million board feet on
a 12-month rolling basis and a total tpy VOC emission limitation that
becomes more stringent based on the increasing classification of the
ozone nonattainment area in which the facility is located. However, one
commenter asserted that it was unlikely a sawmill facility would be a
true minor NSR facility and approach 80 tpy VOC without triggering the
major source threshold for HAPs (Condition 23 of the draft sawmill
facilities general permit). Regarding the comment that a source may
trigger the major source threshold for HAPs prior to reaching the 80
ton per year/12-month rolling emission limits, the EPA has determined
that such a scenario could arise and has added a synthetic minor limit
for HAP emissions in the final ``General Air Quality Permit for New or
Modified Minor Source Sawmill Facilities in Indian Country.''
    One commenter requested that the EPA use a 12-month rolling total
limit for the production limits and emissions limitations in Conditions
19, 23 and 41 of the draft sawmill facilities general permit. The
commenter also expressed concern that new sources in operation for less
than 12 months would not be able to determine compliance with the draft
conditions for the first 11 months. The commenter provided draft
language for consideration.
    The EPA notes that the draft sawmill facilities permit uses a 12-
month rolling total for the production limits and emissions limitations
in Conditions 19, 23, and 41 of the draft general permit. Regarding the
concern that new sources would have difficulty determining compliance
with the draft conditions in the first 11 months, the general permit
requires that sources maintain records of monthly production and
monthly VOC emissions and submit an annual report that evaluates the
source's compliance status with the emission limitations and standards.
This will allow a source to evaluate its eventual compliance with the
12-month rolling total well before the 12th month. We have not modified
the final ``General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified Minor Source
Sawmill Facilities in Indian Country,'' as suggested by the commenter.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
Control Number 2060-0003. The general permits finalized in this action
do not impose any new obligations or enforceable duties on any state,
local or tribal government or the private sector. This action merely
establishes general permits to aid sources in satisfying the
requirements of the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The EPA analyzed the impact of
streamlined permitting on small entities in the Federal Indian Country
Minor NSR rule.\51\ The EPA determined that that action would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This action merely implements a particular aspect of the
Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. As a result, this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no
net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities. And,
by establishing general permits that simplify and shorten the
permitting process, this rule will lessen the burden on small business
in the affected source categories that are seeking to construct in
Indian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ ``Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian
Country,'' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 76 FR 38748, July
1, 2011, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/07/01/2011-14981/review-of-new-sources-and-modifications-in-indian-country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate, as described in
the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. Sources that choose to use one or more of the
general permits finalized in this action must comply with the
requirements contained therein; however, no source is required

to use the general permits. As a result, the action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal government or the
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EPA conducted outreach
on the July 17, 2014, proposal via on-going monthly meetings with
tribal environmental professionals in the development of this final
action. The EPA offered consultation to elected tribal officials
immediately after proposal on June 14, 2014, via letter to 566 tribes
to provide an opportunity for meaningful and timely input into the
development of this regulation. No tribal officials requested
consultation on this action.
    Two commenters took exception to the EPA's claim that the proposed
rule would ``not impose duties or responsibilities on tribes.'' The
commenters noted that several Indian tribes own and operate facilities
covered under source categories identified in the draft rule, and,
thus, the draft rule will impose duties or responsibilities on some
tribes. The commenters requested that the EPA review the number of
tribes that own and operate facilities represented by the source
categories listed in the proposed rule and determine the extent of the
duties and responsibilities imposed on the tribes. The EPA disagrees
with the assertion that the rule ``imposes duties or responsibilities
on tribes.'' As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA
concluded that the rule would not impose duties or responsibilities on
tribes, although it will have tribal implications. Some tribes may own
affected facilities in the source categories for which we are issuing
general permits via this action. However, this action merely provides
general permits to aid interested minor sources in Indian country in
satisfying the already existing requirement under the Federal Indian
Country Minor NSR rule that they obtain a minor source permit. This
action does not impose any requirements on sources in these source
categories that may need to obtain a minor source permit to construct
in Indian country. The use of the general permits in this final action
is optional; they do not impose any compliance requirements on any
source unless and until the EPA grants coverage under one of the
permits to a source.
    This action reflects tribal comments on and priorities for
developing general permits and permits by rule in Indian country. The
RTC document details all of the comments we received on the July 17,
2014, proposal from tribal and other entities. We received comments
from 5 tribal commenters. We have responded favorably to tribal
comments in the several areas, including:
     General support for the establishment of general permits
for the six categories;
     Structure and general requirements of the draft general
permits;
     Authorizing multiple locations for the use of certain
general permits;
     Specific provisions of the draft spark ignition and
compression ignition engines general permits;
     Specific provisions of the draft sawmill facilities
general permit;
     Utilizing a permit by rule for graphic arts and printing
operations; and
     Use of throughput limits and capacity limits.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
Section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    The final action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided
to use the EPA Methods 5, 7, 9, 10, 18, 22 and 25A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A.\52\ Three voluntary consensus standards were identified as
applicable for purposes of the proposal:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Information on any available voluntary consensus standards
that we indicated could be used as alternatives to the emissions
measurement standards in the draft general permits can be found in:
``Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for General Permits and
Permits by Rule for the Indian Country Minor New Source Review
Program; 40 CFR part 49, subparts 156(c) and 162,'' from Robin
Segall, Acting Group Leader, Measurement Technology Group, to Laura
McKelvey, Group Leader, Community and Tribal Programs Group,
February 7, 2014, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151, https://www.epa.gov/tribal-air/tribal-minor-new-source-review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 part 10 ``Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses'' (alternative to the EPA Method 7);
    2. ASTM D7520-09 ``Standard Test Method for Determining Opacity of
a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere'' (alternative to the EPA
Method 9); and
    3. ASTM D6420-99 (2010) ``Test method for Determination of Gaseous
Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry'' (alternative to the EPA Method 18).
    We are not finalizing these in this rulemaking. The use of these
voluntary consensus standards would not be practical with applicable
law due to a lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data and
other important technical and policy considerations. The EPA did not
receive comments that have caused us to alter the standards and methods
in the final permits.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that the human health or environmental risk
addressed by this action will not have potential, disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority,
low-income or indigenous populations. This action does not affect the
level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
Rather, this final rule implements certain aspects of the Federal
Indian Country Minor NSR rule. Therefore, this final action will not
have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minorities, low-income or indigenous
populations in the United States.
    Our primary goal in developing this program is to ensure that air
resources in Indian country will be protected in the manner intended by
the CAA. We believe that when sources have permits

and compliance reporting requirements, that means that there will be
reduced emissions and greater responsibility on the part of sources.
This final action will reduce adverse impacts by improving air quality
in Indian country. In addition, we seek to establish a flexible
preconstruction permitting program for minor sources in Indian country
that is comparable to similar programs in neighboring states in order
to create a more level regulatory playing field for owners and
operators within and outside of Indian country. This final action will
reduce an existing disparity by filling the regulatory gap.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49

    Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures,
Air pollution control, Indians, Indians-law, Indians-tribal government,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 16, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-23178 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30884]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0461; Airspace Docket No. 12-AWP-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Restricted Area R-2502E; Fort Irwin, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action changes the designated controlling agency for
restricted area R-2502E, Fort Irwin, CA, from the Federal Aviation
Administration, High-Desert Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON),
Edwards, CA, to FAA, Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center
(ARTCC). This change will improve the efficiency of air traffic
operations in the vicinity of Fort Irwin, CA.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, July 26, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace, Regulations
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    For operational considerations and improved efficiency of the
National Airspace System, the FAA is changing the assigned controlling
agency for restricted area R-2502E, Fort Irwin, CA, to ``FAA, Los
Angeles ARTCC.''

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 73 to update the controlling agency for restricted area R-2502E,
Fort Irwin, CA. The FAA is changing controlling agency responsibility
for R-2502E from ``FAA, High-Desert TRACON, Edwards, CA,'' to ``FAA,
Los Angeles ARTCC.''
    This is an administrative change and does not affect the
boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the
restricted area; therefore, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) are unnecessary.
    Section 73.25 of 14 CFR part 73 was republished in FAA Order
7400.8U, effective February 16, 2012.
    The FAA has determined that this action only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as amends the description of restricted area R-2502E at Fort Irwin, CA.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 311d. This airspace action is an administrative change to
update the assigned controlling agency for R-2502E. It does not alter
the altitudes, time of designation or use of the restricted airspace at
Fort Irwin, CA, therefore, it is not expected to cause any potentially
significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances
exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  73.25  [Amended]

0
2. Sec.  73.25 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-2502E Fort Irwin, CA [Amended]

    By removing the current Controlling agency and substituting the
following:
    Controlling agency. FAA, Los Angeles ARTCC.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2012.
Ellen Crum,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2012-12541 Filed 5-23-12; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P