[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67640-67643]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21632]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1643; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01649-A;
Amendment 39-22555; AD 2023-19-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace (Operations) Limited
and British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-19-22
for all British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Jetstream Series 3101 and
Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. AD 2017-19-22 required incorporating
BAE Systems' Corrosion Prevention and Control program into the
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the existing instructions
for continued airworthiness (ICA) for your airplane, which added new
and more restrictive inspections for corrosion that include inspecting
the door hinges/supporting structure and attachment bolts for the main
spar joint and engine support, and the rudder hinge location on the
vertical stabilizer, and applicable corrective actions. Since the FAA
issued AD 2017-19-22, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of the United
Kingdom (UK) superseded the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (now
European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) to correct an unsafe
condition on these products. This AD requires revising the ALS of the
existing ICA for your airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 6, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 6,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1643; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the MCAI, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd., Customer Information Department,
Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United
Kingdom; phone: +44 3300 488727; fax: +44 1292 675704; email:
[email protected]; website: baesystems.com/businesses/regionalaircraft/.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1643.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (816)
329-4059; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-19-22, Amendment 39-19052 (82 FR
44502, September 25, 2017) (AD 2017-19-22). AD 2017-19-22 applied to
all British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Jetstream Series 3101 and
Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. AD 2017-19-22 required incorporating
new revisions to the ALS of the existing ICA for your airplane to
incorporate new and more restrictive inspections for corrosion, which
include inspecting the door hinges/supporting structure and attachment
bolts of the main spar joint and engine support, and the hinge location
on the vertical stabilizer, and repair or replacement, as applicable.
The FAA issued AD 2017-19-22 to address corrosion on the rudder upper
hinge bracket and internal wing, areas of the passenger/crew door
hinges and supporting structure, the main spar joint, and the engine
support attachment bolts, which could lead to reduced structural
integrity with consequent loss of control.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2023 (88 FR
48393). The NPRM was prompted by UK CAA AD G-2022-0021, dated December
21, 2022 (referred to after this as the MCAI), issued by the UK CAA,
which is the aviation authority for the UK. The MCAI states that
reports were received of corrosion on the rudder tab hinges, fuselage
skin beneath the marker beacon antenna external doubler, and fuselage
skin beneath the static vent external doubler, resulting in the need
for new and more restrictive inspection requirements. The MCAI requires
accomplishing the actions specified in BAE Systems Jetstream Series
3100 & 3200 Corrosion Prevention and Control Programme, Manual Ref: JS/
CPCP/01, Revision 9, dated April 15, 2022 (BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/
CPCP/01, Revision 9) within the associated threshold and intervals
specified in BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1643.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the ALS of the
existing

ICA for your approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
by including new actions, which include inspecting the rudder tab
hinges, fuselage skin beneath the marker beacon antenna external
doubler, and fuselage skin beneath the static vent external doubler for
corrosion, and depending on the inspection results, performing
applicable corrective actions.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address corrosion on the rudder tab
hinges, fuselage skin beneath the marker beacon antenna external
doubler, and fuselage skin beneath the static vent external doubler.
The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to reduced
structural integrity of the affected parts with consequent loss of
control of the airplane.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and
determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed.
Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is
adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9.
This service information specifies procedures for a comprehensive
corrosion prevention and control program.
    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 ADDRESSES.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI applies to Model Jetstream Series 3100 and Jetstream
Series 3200 airplanes, which are identified on the FAA type
certificates as Jetstream Model 3101 and Jetstream Model 3201
airplanes, respectively.
    The MCAI specifies contacting BAE for approved corrective actions
instructions and this AD requires, for certain corrective actions,
contacting the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; UK CAA;
British Aerospace (Operations) Limited's Design Organization Approval
(DOA) (for Jetstream Series 3101); or British Aerospace Regional
Aircraft's DOA (for Jetstream Model 3201) for approved corrective
action instructions and accomplishing those instructions accordingly.
If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    The MCAI requires revising the existing aircraft maintenance
program (AMP) to introduce the actions specified in BAE Systems CPCP
Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9. After the AMP is revised, the MCAI does
not require recording AD compliance on a continued basis each time an
action in the revised AMP is performed. The AMP is not required for
U.S. operators for the affected airplanes; however, this AD requires
incorporating BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9, into the
ALS of the existing ICA for your airplane, which has the same intended
result as revising the AMP of not needing to record compliance with the
AD each time an individual action is accomplished.
    The MCAI requires doing all actions in BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/
CPCP/01, Revision 9, from the effective date of UK CAA AD G-2022-0021
and this AD requires doing all actions in BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/
CPCP/01, Revision 9, at the compliance times specified in that manual
or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, except for the actions identified in paragraph (g)(3) of
this AD.
    BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9 specifies reporting
of Level 2 and Level 3 corrosion, and this AD does not.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 42 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise the ICA........................  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85          $3,570
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The scope of damage found while performing the actions specified in
BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9, could vary
significantly from airplane to airplane. The FAA has no data to
determine the costs to repair or replace damaged parts on each airplane
or the number of airplanes that may require repair.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA has 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 above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative,

on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The 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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2017-19-22, Amendment 39-19052 (82
FR 44502, September 25, 2017); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2023-19-05 British Aerospace (Operations) Limited and British
Aerospace Regional Aircraft: Amendment 39-22555; Docket No. FAA-
2023-1643; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01649-A.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 6, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-19-22, Amendment 39-19052 (82 FR 44502,
September 25, 2017).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to British Aerospace (Operations) Limited Model
Jetstream Model 3101 airplanes and British Aerospace Regional
Aircraft Model Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2721, Rudder Tab
Control System; 5330, Fuselage Main, Plate/Skin.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion on the rudder tab
hinges, fuselage skin beneath the marker beacon antenna external
doubler, and fuselage skin beneath the static vent external doubler.
The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion on the
rudder tab hinges, fuselage skin beneath the marker beacon antenna
external doubler, and fuselage skin beneath the static vent external
doubler. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to
reduced structural integrity of the affected parts with consequent
loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight after the effective date of this AD,
revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the existing
instructions for continued airworthiness for your approved
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating
the actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including life
limits, specified in BAE Systems Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200
Corrosion Prevention and Control Programme, Manual Ref: JS/CPCP/01,
Revision 9, dated April 15, 2022 (BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/
01, Revision 9).
    (2) The actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD may be
performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private
pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft records
showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)
and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as
required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
    (3) Do all the actions in BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01,
Revision 9, as follows:
    (i) For all tasks other than 130/EX/01 C3, 140/EX/01 C2, 150/EX/
01 C2, 150/EX/01 C3, 150/EX/01 C4, and 200/EX/01 C3: At the
compliance times specified in BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01,
Revision 9, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For tasks 130/EX/01 C3, 140/EX/01 C2, 150/EX/01 C2, 150/EX/
01 C3, 150/EX/01 C4, and 200/EX/01 C3: Within 12 months after the
effective date of this AD.
    (4) If any discrepancy, as identified in BAE Systems CPCP Manual
JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9, is found during any inspection or task
required by paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, repair or replace, as
applicable, all damaged structural parts and components and do the
maintenance procedures for corrective action in accordance with and
at the compliance time specified in BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/
01, Revision 9, except reporting Level 2 and Level 3 corrosion and
reporting cracks or other structural defects are not required. If no
compliance time is defined, do the applicable corrective action
before further flight.
    (5) If during any inspection or task required by paragraph
(g)(3) of this AD, any discrepancy is found that is not identified
in paragraph (g)(4) of this AD or is beyond the repairable limits
specified in paragraph (g)(4) of this AD, before further flight,
contact either the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA;
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of the United Kingdom (UK); British
Aerospace (Operations) Limited's Design Organization Approval (DOA)
(for Jetstream Series 3101); or British Aerospace Regional
Aircraft's DOA (for Jetstream Model 3201) for approved corrective
action instructions and accomplish those instructions accordingly.
If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(h) Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the action required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD has
been done, no alternative actions and associated thresholds and
intervals, including life limits, are allowed unless they are
approved as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, mail
it to the address identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or email
to: [email protected]. If mailing information, also submit
information by email. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.

(j) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to UK CAA AD G-2022-0021, dated December 21, 2022, for
related information. This UK CAA AD may be found in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1643.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Doug Rudolph,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Westbury, NY
11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference 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) BAE Systems Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Corrosion
Prevention and Control Programme, Manual Ref: JS/CPCP/01, Revision
9, dated April 15, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE
Systems (Operations) Ltd., Customer Information Department,
Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United
Kingdom; phone: +44 3300 488727; fax: +44 1292 675704; email:
[email protected]; website: baesystems.com/businesses/regionalaircraft/.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. 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,

email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 18, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-21632 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 15705-15707]
[DOCID:fr30mr10-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF10-6-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Planned Line 1278--Line K Expansion
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

March 23, 2010.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Line 1278-Line K Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Columbia Gas
Transmission LLC's (Columbia) in Pike County, Pennsylvania and Orange
County, New York. This EA will be used by the Commission in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on April 23, 2010.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project, which includes affected landowners;
federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and
newspapers. State and local government representatives are asked to
notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities.
The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement.
However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval
conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement
negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could
initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas

Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for viewing
on the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a
number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of the Planned Project

    Columbia plans to remove and replace approximately 17 miles of
existing pipeline and related facilities in Pike County, Pennsylvania
and Orange County, New York. The majority of the planned facilities
would be constructed within the same ditch or right-of-way of the
existing pipeline. The Line 1278-Line K Project would consist of the
following facilities:

Pike County, Pennsylvania

     The abandonment and removal of 11.49 miles of 14-inch-
diameter Line 1278 pipeline with the installation of 11.25 miles of 20-
inch-diameter pipeline and 0.24 mile of two 10-inch-diameter pipelines;
and
     Upgrade of existing valves and traps.

Orange County, New York

     The abandonment and removal of 4.65 miles of 14-inch-
diameter Line K pipeline with the installation of a 20-inch-diameter
pipeline replacement;
     The abandonment and removal of 0.1 mile of 4-inch-diameter
Line U pipeline with the installation of a 4-inch-diameter pipeline
replacement within Columbia's existing Port Jervis Facility;
     The removal of three existing compressors and related
facilities at Columbia's Sparrowbush Compressor Station; and
     The upgrade of existing valves and traps.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
http://www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb approximately
150 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline.
Following construction, approximately 98 acres would be maintained for
permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage
would be restored and allowed to revert to former uses. Approximately
98.5 percent of the planned pipeline would be replaced within the same
ditch.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments
received will be considered during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Blasting
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species; and
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the planned
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an
application is filed with the FERC. As part of our pre-filing review,
we have begun to contact some Federal and State agencies to discuss
their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
The EA will be placed in the public record and, depending on the
comments received during the scoping process, may be published and
distributed to the public. A comment period will be allotted if the EA
is published for review. We will consider all comments on the EA before
we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments
are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section below.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or
special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally
cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. These agencies may
choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to
their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments
provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.
Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers has expressed its intention to
participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA to
satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related to this project.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for the section 106 process, we are using this
notice to solicit the views of the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\3\ We will document our findings on the
impacts on cultural resources and summarize the status of consultations
under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in our EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800.2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before April 23,
2010.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert eFiling staff available to assist you
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located at http://www.ferc.gov under the link
called ``Documents and Filings''. A Quick Comment is an easy method for
interested persons to submit text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the
``eFiling'' feature that is listed under the ``Documents and Filings''
link. eFiling involves preparing your submission in the same manner as
you would if filing on paper, and then saving the file on your
computer's hard drive. You will attach that file to your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on the links
called ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister''. You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes Federal, State, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned project.
    If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Columbia files its application with the Commission, you may
want to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's Web site. Please note that you may not request intervenor
status at this time. You must wait until a formal application for the
project is filed with the Commission.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., PF10-6). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-6979 Filed 3-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9090-9092]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02704]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68799; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to NASDAQ Rule 4120

February 1, 2013.
    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 January 24, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC proposes to correct an erroneous
deletion from NASDAQ Rule 4120(c)(7)(B) related to the randomization
period conducted prior to the IPO Cross under NASDAQ Rule 4753. The
Exchange has designated the proposed changes herein as immediately
effective.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange 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
    The Exchange hereby amends NASDAQ Rule 4120(c)(7)(B) which governs
the orderly launch of trading in initial public offerings (``IPOs'') of
NASDAQ-listed securities. Specifically, NASDAQ is amending Rule
4120(c)(7)(B) to insert language that describes the randomization
period of zero to fifteen seconds that automatically occurs prior to
the IPO Cross set forth in NASDAQ Rule 4753. The randomization period
is designed to prevent gaming of the IPO Cross by delaying for a
variable amount of time the precise moment of execution of each IPO
Cross. Although NASDAQ's execution system currently includes and for
years has included a randomization period for each IPO Cross, the
language describing the randomization period was erroneously removed
from Rule 4120(c)(7)(B).
    On August 20, 2007, NASDAQ filed SR-NASDAQ-2007-073 (``Original
Halt Cross Filing'') which, among other things, removed from Rule
4120(b)(7)(A) the rule language accurately describing the randomization
period prior to the launch of the NASDAQ Halt Cross. The purpose
section of the Original Halt Cross Filing stated as a rationale that:

    The randomization period was designed to deter market
participants from timing their participation in a way that harmed
other participants. This provision, however, results in other
markets trading after the issue has re-opened but prior to NASDAQ
restarting trading using the Halt Cross. NASDAQ believe[s] that it
is confusing and disruptive to market participants for NASDAQ, the
listing market, to continue a halt after other market centers have
resumed trading and, therefore, proposes to eliminate the random
period prior to the execution of the Halt Cross.

    This explanation focuses on Halt Crosses that NASDAQ initiates
following halts of stocks that have

previously traded in the secondary market; the reasoning does not apply
in the context of an IPO launch, as there is no trading on other
markets until the IPO Cross is completed.
    Nevertheless, Amendment 1 to SR-NASDAQ-2007-073 (``Amended Halt
Cross Filing''), which superseded the Original Halt Cross Filing,
erroneously removed the language accurately describing the
randomization period for each IPO Cross.\3\ The Amended Halt Cross
filing, among other things, removed the language describing the
randomization period from both the provisions governing the Halt Cross
(Rule 4120(c)(7)(A)) and the IPO Cross (Rule 4120(c)(7)(B)). The
Amended Halt Cross Filing offered no rationale for removing the
randomization period prior to the IPO Cross. In actuality, NASDAQ did
not intend to remove the randomization period and, in fact, the NASDAQ
system has continued through the present to include a randomization
period prior to each IPO Cross. Accordingly, NASDAQ is proposing to re-
instate in Rule 4120(c)(7)(B) language that accurately describes the
randomization period that is identical to the language it erroneously
removed via the Amended Halt Cross Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change to Modify the Halt Cross Process, Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 56348 (Aug. 31, 2007); 72 FR 51693 (Sept. 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transaction in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change promotes this goal by accurately describing an element of
NASDAQ's trading system that already protects investors and the public
interest by ensuring an orderly opening of trading in IPOs of NASDAQ-
listed securities. The specific functionality, the randomization
period, is designed to and does in fact prevent improper timing by an
Exchange member of its participation in the IPO Cross in a manner that
could harm other participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange's proposed rule change is unrelated to competition, because it
does not change the Exchange's current process and therefore will
neither alter the Exchange's competitiveness nor inhibit the ability of
any person to compete in the securities markets. Rather, the change is
focused solely upon ensuring that NASDAQ's rules accurately describe
the process in place to promote the orderly launch of trading following
an IPO on NASDAQ.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) Impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \6\ of the Act and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \7\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of the filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ under
the Act normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the
date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \9\
under the Act, the Commission may designate a shorter time if such
action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day
operative delay so that the Exchange can, pursuant to its rules, use
the randomization period to prevent improper timing by Exchange members
participating in an IPO Cross in a manner that could harm other market
participants. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest as the randomization period was previously in NASDAQ's rules
and is designed to prevent gaming of an IPO Cross by delaying for a
variable amount of time the precise moment of execution of each IPO
Cross.\10\ In addition, the Exchange represented that the NASDAQ system
already provides for the randomization period, therefore, waiving the
30-day operative delay will enable NASDAQ to bring its rules and system
in alignment quickly, thus reducing the potential for investor
confusion. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative
delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \11\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-015 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission,

100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-015. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. 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-NASDAQ-2013-015, and should be submitted on or before
February 28, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02704 Filed 2-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memorandum

Subject:	Summary of Meeting with National Lime Association (NLA)
From:		Matt Hakos, RTI
To: 		Brian Storey, EPA
Date:		November 12, 2021

I.	Purpose

The purpose of this meeting was for industry representatives to discuss the current rulemaking effort underway for the Lime Manufacturing Plant NESHAP and notify the EPA of their intent to provide additional data.

II.	Date and Time

The meeting was held virtually on November 10, 2021 between 1:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m.

III.	Attendees

Brian Storey, EPA
Kevin McGinn, EPA
Keith Barnett, EPA
Tiffany Moore, RTI
Matt Hakos, RTI
William C Herz, NLA
Bradford Frisby, NLA
Hunter Prillaman, NLA
Jonathan De'Ath, NLA
Tim Byrne, NLA
Deborah Maffet, NLA
Joe Freudenberg, Carmeuse and NLA

IV.	Summary of Meeting

The meeting started with introductions of all staff from the EPA, RTI, and the NLA. The NLA then presented a general overview of the lime industry in a power point presentation. This presentation summarized the current state of the industry, including information regarding operations, kiln configurations, feedstocks, fuels consumed, geographical distribution, and pollutants emitted. Next, the
NLA summarized the original and existing NESHAP's, focusing on the 2020 rule making and residual risk and technology review (RTR). The NLA inquired about the LEAN decision and its impact on future rule makings. The meeting then moved into a discussion of the following pollutants (currently unregulated): hydrogen chloride (HCl), mercury (Hg), organic hazardous air pollutants (o-HAP), and dioxin furans (D/F).

A summary of the main talking points is provided.

 The NLA expressed an interest in the EPA setting a health-based standard for HCl. The NLA summarized their position regarding HCl and stated that they will provide cost estimates for control of HCl. The NLA also expressed interest in EPA looking at subcategorization based on kiln type.
 The NLA indicated that for Hg, a variability factor should be applied to any potential standards, using intra-quarry data from floor sources. The NLA stated that they would provide data supporting this position. The NLA also noted that they would prefer the unit of measure for any potential Hg standard to be in units of pounds (lb) per million (MM) tons of lime produced. The NLA also indicated that they have Hg feedstock content information that they will provide to support any potential geographical sub-categorization.
 The NLA indicated that an aggregated o-HAP standard is most appropriate for their industry, noting that carbon monoxide (CO) and total hydrocarbons (THC) are not appropriate surrogates for their industry. The NLA stated that they will be providing more data for o-HAP.
 The NLA indicated that work practice standards are most appropriate for D/F due to very low emissions / non-detects.

Next, the EPA discussed a general timeline for the proposal, noting that February 2022 was a soft target deadline. The meeting ended with the NLA summarizing the data that they intend to provide to EPA to support the current rule making, including:

 Cost estimates to install controls for HCl.
 Hg data to support any potential intra-quarry variability factor.
 Hg feedstock content data to support any potential subcategorization.
 o-HAP data.
 The NLA committed to reviewing existing D/F test reports and to see if additional data is available.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 200 (Thursday, October 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 65466]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22881]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2020-73]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Avitas,
Inc.

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before November 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0263
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 7, 2020.
Brandon Roberts,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2018-0263.
    Petitioner: Avitas, Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  61.3(a)(1)(i); 61.113(a)
and (b); 91.7(a); 91.119(c); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) and
(2); and 91.417(a) and (b).
    Description of Relief Sought: Avitas, Inc. (Avitas) seeks relief
from 14 CFR 61.3(a)(1)(i); 61.113(a) and (b); 91.7(a); 91.119(c);
91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) and (2); and 91.417(a) and (b) to
extend and amend Exemption No. 17992A, which permits Avitas to
commercially operate unmanned aircraft systems, including, the
AeroVironment VAPOR 55 rotorcraft, over private property and beyond
visual line of sight for aerial monitoring of oil and gas facilities in
a specific rural location. Avitas is requesting an amendment to
Exemption No. 17992A in order to operate with part 107 certificated
pilots and over moving vehicles while crossing roads and add an
additional operating area in the Permian Basin, south of Midland,
Texas.

[FR Doc. 2020-22881 Filed 10-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37020-37025]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16491]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316; FRL-9964-74-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Nevada;
Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. The
revision consists of the ``Nevada Regional Haze 5-Year Progress
Report'' that addresses Regional Haze Rule requirements under the Clean
Air Act to document progress towards achieving visibility goals by 2018
in Class I Federal areas in Nevada and nearby states. The EPA is taking
final action to approve Nevada's determination that the regional haze
requirements in the existing Nevada Regional Haze SIP do not require
any substantive revision at this time.

DATES: This rule is effective September 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316
for this action. Generally, documents in the docket are available
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Please note
that while many of the documents in the docket are listed at https://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-
volume reports, or otherwise voluminous materials), and some may not be
available at either location (e.g., confidential business information).
To inspect the hard copy materials that are publicly available, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX,
Air Division, AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Krishna Viswanathan may be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Summary of Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview of Proposed Action

    The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP or ``the
State'') submitted the Nevada Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report
(``Progress Report'') to the EPA on November 18, 2014, to satisfy the
Regional Haze Rule requirements codified at 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and
(i). As described in our proposal, NDEP has demonstrated in its
Progress Report that the emission control measures in the existing
Nevada Regional Haze SIP are adequate to make progress towards the
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) in Class I Federal areas in Nevada and
in nearby states that may be affected by emissions from sources in
Nevada without requiring any substantive revisions to the Nevada
Regional Haze SIP. Our proposal discussed each element required under
40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i) for an approvable progress report,
summarized how the Progress Report addressed each element, and provided
our evaluation of the adequacy of the Progress Report for each element.
Please refer to our proposed rule for background information on the
Regional Haze Rule, the Nevada Regional Haze SIP, and the specific
requirements for progress reports.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    We received comment letters on our proposed approval of the
Progress Report from NDEP,\1\ the Sierra Club jointly with the National
Parks Conservation Association (``NGOs''),\2\ and two additional,
anonymous commenters.\3\ The following discussion contains our summary
of the comments and our response to each significant comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter from Jeffrey Kinger (NDEP) to Vijay Limaye (EPA)
(October 19, 2015).
    \2\ Letter from Gloria D. Smith (Sierra Club) and Stephanie
Kodish (NPCA) to Vijay Limaye (EPA) (October 19, 2015)(``NGOs'
Comment Letter'').
    \3\ See Comments EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0316-0070 and EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0316-0073 in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments From NDEP

    Comment: NDEP commented that the EPA's characterization of the
retirement of Reid Gardner Generating Station (RGGS) units 1, 2 and 3
and Tracy Generating Station units 1 and 2, as well as switching of
several units at Tracy and Fort Churchill Generating Stations to
natural gas as ``largely in response to Senate Bill (SB) 123 (2013
Legislative Session)'' was not accurate. NDEP commented that the
retirement of units 1, 2 and 3 at RGGS was a response to

Nevada Senate Bill 123, but that the other facilities undertook
retirement or fuel switching to comply with Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) requirements.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges this clarification. The
clarification does not have any effect on our proposed approval of the
Progress Report.
    Comment: NDEP requested that the EPA rescind the Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for RGGS as part of our final rulemaking on
the Progress Report because units 1, 2 and 3 of RGGS permanently shut
down in 2014.
    Response: The EPA intends to rescind the FIP applicable to units 1,
2 and 3 of RGGS in a separate action.
    Comment: NDEP commented on Table 5, which mistakenly referenced
Table 4-2 from the Progress Report rather than Table 4-4, and the last
paragraph on 80 FR at 55811, which incorrectly cited the range of
annual sulfate averages as ``4.10 to 50.5 percent'' rather than ``41.0
to 50.5 percent.''
    Response: The EPA acknowledges these corrections. The corrections
do not have any effect on our proposed approval of the Progress Report.
    Comment: NDEP commented that in the third paragraph of the EPA's
proposed rulemaking, the EPA states that NDEP attributed the large
contribution from particulate organic matter (POM) on the worst days at
the Jarbidge Wilderness Area (``Jarbidge'') mostly to wildfires and
windblown dust, while NDEP itself attributes POM largely to emissions
from wildfires.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges this clarification. The
clarification does not have any effect on our proposed approval.
    Comment: NDEP expressed support for the EPA's proposal to approve
NDEP's determination that its Nevada Regional Haze SIP requires no
substantive revisions at this time, given the demonstrated improvement
to nitrate and sulfate visibility impairment.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the comment.

Comments From the NGOs

    Comment: The NGOs asserted that ``NDEP's and EPA's findings that
the Nevada Regional Haze SIP is adequate to show reasonable progress
for Jarbidge towards the national visibility goal are not supported.''
The commenters noted that the preamble to the 1999 Regional Haze Rule
explains that a state may submit a declaration under 40 CFR
51.308(h)(1) ``if the state finds that the emission management measures
in the SIP are being implemented on schedule, and visibility
improvement appears to be consistent with reasonable progress goals.''
\4\ The commenter noted that NDEP proposed such a declaration, and that
the EPA had proposed to concur with the State's declaration, despite
the fact that visibility improvement at Jarbidge was not improving at a
rate consistent with achieving NDEP's 2018 RPG. The commenter also
noted that NDEP's RPG for the worst days at Jarbidge was based on
modeling conducted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) that
was subsequently found to be in error and that revised modeling
predicts 2018 visibility impacts for the worst days at Jarbidge that
are not on the ``glide path'' towards the national visibility goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 64 FR 35747 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: Initially, we note that, while the commenters refer to
``the national visibility goal'' (i.e., the ``prevention of any future,
and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution'' \5\), their primary concern appears to be progress
toward the 2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge. The EPA
agrees that the Progress Report does not demonstrate that visibility
conditions at Jarbidge will necessarily meet the RPG of 11.05 deciviews
(dv) on the 20 percent worst days by 2018. The EPA acknowledged this
fact in our proposal to approve the Progress Report. We stated that the
visibility conditions based on the Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data for the 20 percent worst
days for Jarbidge were relatively flat or only slightly improving.
However, this fact does not preclude NDEP from making a declaration
under Sec.  51.301(h)(1). The statement in the preamble to the 1999
Regional Haze Rule described one possible basis for such a declaration
that may be the most concise in certain situations, but was not a
statement of the only possible basis. Rather, the Regional Haze Rule
itself allows a state to submit a declaration if, ``based upon the
information presented in the progress report . . . the State determines
that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive
revision at this time in order to achieve established goals for
visibility improvement and emissions reductions . . .'' \6\ In this
instance, NDEP presented information in the Progress Report that
establishes that the overall lack of progress in monitored visibility
conditions on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge is not due to a
flaw in the SIP itself, but due in large part to extrinsic factors, as
described below, that could not be addressed through a substantive
revision to the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1).
    \6\ 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, as explained in our proposal, the Progress Report
demonstrates that current (i.e., 2008-2012) visibility conditions on
the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge are strongly influenced by light
extinction due to POM, which derives primarily from natural sources, as
well as coarse particulate mass, which partially derives from natural
sources.\7\ POM was the largest contributor to light extinction on the
20 percent worst days in each of the 5-year periods from the baseline
to current time period, accounting for 35.5 to 43.0 percent of
extinction, followed by coarse particulate mass (21.9 to 26.1 percent),
and sulfate (15.1 to 17.0 percent). Furthermore, over the course of the
progress period there was a significant increase in extinction from POM
(1.1 dv) and a small increase in extinction from coarse particulate
mass. By contrast, there were small decreases in extinction from
sulfate and nitrate (which derive primarily from anthropogenic
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX)).\8\ Thus, the overall lack of improvement in
monitored visibility conditions on the 20 percent worst days at
Jarbidge is largely attributable to an increase in extinction from non-
anthropogenic pollutants, which could not be remedied by a revision to
the Nevada Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 80 FR 55811.
    \8\ 80 FR 55812, Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to demonstrating the large influence of non-
anthropogenic pollutants, the Progress Report also establishes the
significant impact of out-of-state sources on Jarbidge. In particular,
the Progress Report refers to source apportionment modeling performed
by the WRAP to evaluate source areas that contribute to sulfate and
nitrate extinction on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge. As noted
in our proposal, this modeling indicated that the Outside Domain source
category (i.e., the background concentrations of pollutants from
international sources) was expected to contribute 43.8 percent of the
modeled sulfate and 27.5 percent of the modeled nitrate at Jarbidge in
2018.\9\ The WRAP source apportionment modeling also indicated that
emissions from upwind states, particularly Idaho and Oregon, also
contribute substantially to visibility impairment at Jarbidge. As with
non-anthropogenic emissions, these out-of-

state emissions could not be directly addressed through a revision to
the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. While NDEP could potentially have
provided notification concerning these out-of-state emissions under 40
CFR 51.308(h)(2) and/or (h)(3), we find it was reasonable for the State
not to have done so, given that the overall contributions of sulfate
and nitrate on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge are modest and
have declined since the baseline period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 80 FR 55816.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with regard to the modeling underlying the 2018 RPG, as
explained in response to a similar comment below, no revision to the
Nevada Regional Haze SIP is required to address the WRAP modeling
correction noted by the commenters. For these reasons, and taking into
consideration the large reductions in anthropogenic emissions of
SO2 and NOX already achieved in Nevada during
this planning period,\10\ we find that the State has adequately
supported its determination that no further substantive revision to the
Nevada Regional Haze SIP is needed at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 80 FR 55810 for a summary of these reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NGOs reiterated that visibility improvement at
Jarbidge is not consistent with NDEP's 2018 RPG for the 20 percent
worst days.\11\ The commenters also criticized NDEP's reliance in its
declaration on emission reductions from units that have shut down or
converted to natural gas at the Mohave, Reid Gardner, Tracy and Fort
Churchill generating stations because those units affect Class I
Federal areas in other states, rather than Jarbidge. The NGOs noted
that NDEP did not provide modeling to evaluate the impact of these
emissions reductions on visibility at Jarbidge and asserted that data
from the IMPROVE monitors at Jarbidge do not demonstrate a significant
improvement in visibility on the 20 percent worst days. The comment
concluded that, ``visibility on the 20 percent worst days at the
Jarbidge Class I area is not improving in a manner consistent with
Nevada's 2018 [RPG] of 11.05 [dv] for the 20 percent worst days, and .
. . emission reductions from the Reid Gardner, Tracy, and Fort
Churchill power plants are not likely to ensure the Jarbidge Wilderness
achieves the 11.05 dv [RPG] for the 20 percent worst days by 2018.''
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 2.
    \12\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: As noted previously, the EPA agrees that the Progress
Report does not demonstrate that visibility conditions at Jarbidge will
necessarily meet the RPG of 11.05 at Jarbidge on the 20 percent worst
days by 2018. However, there is no regulatory requirement for NDEP to
demonstrate in the Progress Report that Nevada will meet the RPG.
Rather, the purpose of a Progress Report is to ``evaluat[e] progress
towards the [RPG]'' \13\ by providing specific types of data and
analyses concerning visibility conditions and emissions and to make a
determination of adequacy under 40 CFR 51.308(h), based on this
information. If a state determines that the implementation plan is
inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources
within that state, it is required to revise its SIP within one year to
address the issue. Our proposal evaluated the Progress Report with
respect to each of the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h), and
concluded that it was adequate. The NGOs' comment has not provided any
new information or data that would change our proposed approval of the
Progress Report as meeting these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 40 CFR 51.308(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also do not agree with the commenters that it was improper for
the State to rely on emission reductions from power generating stations
that are not located near Jarbidge in making its declaration. The
Regional Haze Rule requires progress reports to include a ``summary of
emission reductions'' and specifically refers to such reductions as a
relevant consideration in determining whether substantive revision to
the SIP is required.\14\ Such consideration is not limited to those
emissions that have been demonstrated to affect in-state Class I areas.
Rather, the Regional Haze Rule expressly requires progress reports to
consider ``each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the
State, which may be affected by emissions from within the State.'' \15\
Therefore, it was appropriate for the State to consider all emissions
reductions within the State that could affect any in-state or out-of-
state Class I Federal area. In this case, we find that NDEP
appropriately took into account emission reductions throughout the
State. Thus, the comment letter does not provide any basis for us to
change our proposed finding that the Progress Report complies with the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h) and (i) and that NDEP is not
required to make any substantive revisions to the Nevada Regional Haze
SIP at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) and (h)(1).
    \15\ 40 CFR 51.308(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NGOs' second comment contends that the 11.05 dv RPG
for the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge was based on flawed modeling
and preliminary emissions projections for 2018, rather than later,
updated projections. The commenters assert that the EPA is ignoring
this issue and thereby implying that Jarbidge will be on the glide path
``based on the emission reductions that have occurred and that will
occur at Nevada sources in the next few years.'' The NGOs commented
that there is ``no modeling or other data demonstrating that that the
reduction of haze-forming pollution from these sources will provide
sufficient and reasonable visibility improvement at Jarbidge Wilderness
area.'' The NGOs also requested that the EPA ``not allow NDEP to rely
on an unjustified and unsupported 2018 reasonable progress goal for the
20% worst days at the Jarbidge Wilderness.''
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the WRAP submitted
additional information in April 2011 relevant to the modeling that
established the 2018 RPG of 11.05 dv for Jarbidge on the 20 percent
worst days. However, the regulations governing the required contents
for a Progress Report do not include reviewing and revising RPGs, and
the NGOs have not provided any citation to such a requirement for an
approvable Progress Report. The RPGs for Jarbidge were established in
Nevada's Regional Haze SIP. The EPA approved the Nevada Regional Haze
SIP in 2012, and in doing so approved the RPG of 11.05 dv on the 20
percent worst days for Jarbidge.\16\ In our proposed approval, we noted
that ``the EPA addressed the uncertainties associated with modeled
projections by making the RPG an analytic tool for the purpose of
evaluating progress, not an enforceable standard.'' \17\ We then
concluded that the WRAP modeling correction and revisions to emissions
projections did not require NDEP to withdraw and revise its Regional
Haze SIP after it had already been adopted and submitted. The commenter
has not pointed to any basis for us to reconsider this determination at
this time. Furthermore, if NDEP had revised the RPG to 11.82 dv to
reflect the WRAP modeling correction, the monitoring data at Jarbidge
would be assessed relative to a lower amount of progress, so Jarbidge
would now be closer to achieving the RPG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 76 FR 36450, 36465 (June 22, 2011) (proposed approval);
77 FR 17334, 17339 (March 26, 2012) (final approval).
    \17\ Id. at 36464 (citing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(v) and 64 FR
35733).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also agree with the commenter that there is uncertainty
regarding what

the ultimate effect of recent emissions reductions on visibility
conditions at Jarbidge will be as of 2018. However, contrary to the
commenter's suggestion, in the context of the Progress Report, there is
no requirement for NDEP or the EPA to conduct modeling to evaluate
whether these emissions reductions are sufficient for Jarbidge to be on
the glide path (i.e., to achieve natural conditions by 2064) or to meet
the 2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days. Thus, we do not agree with
the commenter that NDEP is improperly ``rely[ing]'' on the existing
2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge. Rather, in its
Progress Report, NDEP has used this approved 2018 RPG as a benchmark
for measuring progress that has occurred to date, as required by the
Regional Haze Rule.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(g) (requiring submittal of ``a
report . . . evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress
goal'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NGOs' comment letter asserts that the visibility
impact of wildfires does not exempt NDEP from adopting measures to
address contributions from stationary and area emissions sources that
may be affecting visibility impairment at Jarbidge.\19\ The comment
letter claims specifically that the North Valmy Generating Station
(NVGS) should have been evaluated to determine if reasonable progress
controls were required because it is located 160 kilometers from
Jarbidge and emits SO2 and NOX without modern
pollution controls. The comment letter contrasts the emissions from
NVGS to the projected emissions from Ely Energy Center, a proposed new
facility that was analyzed for visibility impact but was not
constructed. The commenters suggested that, since the Ely Energy Center
was projected to have an impact on Jarbidge, NVGS likely also has an
impact on Jarbidge. The comment letter faults NDEP for failing to
require reasonable progress controls at NVGS. The NGOs also state that
NDEP should use ``appropriate regulatory tools'' to minimize emissions
from oil and gas development in Nevada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA agrees that wildfire emissions do not ``exempt''
NDEP from requirements to address anthropogenic pollution, but we find
that NDEP has met the applicable requirements for a Progress Report.
Specifically, NDEP established in its Progress Report that progress
toward achieving the RPG of 11.05 dv at Jarbidge on the 20 percent
worst days by 2018 has not been impeded by any significant
anthropogenic emission changes within or outside the State.\20\ NDEP
reached this conclusion by evaluating significant emission decreases
from stationary sources within Nevada, the effect of emissions from
sources outside of Nevada on Jarbidge, and the effect of Nevada's
emissions on nearby Class I Federal areas that are outside of Nevada.
In the Progress Report, NDEP documented a substantial reduction in
anthropogenic emissions from stationary sources in Nevada as well as an
improvement in visibility at Jarbidge even though BART controls and
other state and federal measures are not yet fully implemented. NDEP
also demonstrated that relative to contributions from Idaho, Oregon,
and sources outside the U.S. (Outside Domain), Nevada's overall
stationary source contribution to visibility impairment at Jarbidge is
small on the 20 percent worst days.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Nevada Regional Haze 5-year Progress Report, Chapter Six--
Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress (40 CFR
51.308(g)(5)).
    \21\ Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, October
2009, Chapter 4, Table 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to NVGS, we note that in the EPA's approval of the
Nevada Regional Haze SIP, we determined that NDEP had reasonably
weighed the cost of additional emissions controls against the potential
benefits and concluded that additional controls were not warranted for
non-BART sources such as NVGS during the first planning period. NDEP
would only be required to revisit this conclusion during this first
planning period if it had determined that the Nevada Regional Haze SIP
``is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to
emissions from sources within the State'' under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(4).
However, as discussed elsewhere in this document, NDEP instead made a
well-supported declaration under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), and the EPA is
approving this declaration. One of the elements of the State's analysis
supporting its negative declaration was its showing that the overall
lack of improvement on the 20 percent worst days at Jarbidge has been
largely due to non-anthropogenic pollutants and out-of-state emissions,
rather than to emissions of SO2 and NOX from
anthropogenic sources such as NVGS. For example, in the 2008-2012 time
period (the most recent data provided in the Progress Report), nitrates
and sulfates accounted for 3.5 percent and 15.1 percent of total
extinction on the 20 percent worst days respectively.\22\ Furthermore,
source apportionment modeling indicates that the majority of this
extinction is from out-of-state sources, rather than in-state sources
such as NVGS.\23\ Thus, additional emission reductions from sources
such as NVGS would have relatively little effect on progress toward the
RPG for the 20 percent worst days for this first planning period.\24\
Accordingly, NDEP is not required to re-evaluate controls on non-BART
sources such as NVGS for the first planning period. NDEP will be
required to evaluate such controls in developing its Regional Haze SIP
for the next planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Nevada Regional Haze 5-year Progress Report Table 4-4.
    \23\ Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, October
2009, Chapter 4, Tables 4-5 and 4-6.
    \24\ We note that in the recent revisions to the Regional Haze
Rule, the EPA finalized a requirement that states select the 20
percent most impaired days, i.e., the days with the most impairment
from anthropogenic sources, as the ``worst'' days in SIPs and in
progress reports. See 82 FR 3103 (January 10, 2017) (codified at 40
CFR 51.301). Thus, we expect that in the next planning period,
anthropogenic sources such as NVGS will have a larger influence on
the worst days at Jarbidge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NGOs' comment letter concludes that the EPA ``must
require NDEP to evaluate and adopt measures to ensure the Jarbidge
Wilderness achieves reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goal in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(4) and no later than the
revised regional haze plan due in 2018.'' Specifically, the NGOs are
requesting that the EPA:

    (1) Find that NDEP's [RPG] for the 20 percent worst days at the
Jarbidge Wilderness is not based on a proper modeling analysis;
    (2) Establish a more realistic RPG goal, a goal based on proper
modeling and planned emission reduction requirements required under
the Nevada regional haze plan and state law. A proper goal would
show that visibility is not expected to improve at the Jarbidge
Wilderness in a manner consistent with achieving natural background
visibility by 2064; and
    (3) Ensure that NDEP evaluates and adopts additional measures to
achieve reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal at
the Jarbidge Wilderness.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ NGOs' Comment Letter at p. 6-7.

    Response: The EPA's role is to review progress reports as they are
submitted by the states and to either approve or disapprove the reports
based on their compliance with the requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule. There is no requirement or basis for the EPA to reassess or
revise the RPGs for Jarbidge as part of our review of NDEP's Progress
Report. Furthermore, as explained in our prior responses, nothing in
the Regional Haze Rule requires NDEP to adopt additional reasonable
progress measures based solely on the fact that Jarbidge will not
necessarily meet its 2018 RPG for the worst 20 percent days

or based solely on the fact that Jarbidge is not on the glide path. The
Progress Report complies with all applicable requirements and contains
a reasoned justification for determining that the Nevada Regional Haze
SIP is adequate without additional measures. NDEP will undertake a new
round of planning in the next few years, at which time it will be
required to evaluate additional control measures and set new RPGs for
Jarbidge for the next planning period based on updated, current
information, including new emissions inventories and modeling.

Anonymous Comments

    Comment: Two anonymous commenters requested that the EPA ``require
the best possible reductions in air pollution from Rocky Mountain
Power's coal plants'' via its action on Utah's Regional Haze plan.
    Response: These comments appear to be misdirected and are not
relevant to the current rulemaking action. The EPA took final action on
the Utah Regional Haze plan on July 5, 2016.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 81 FR 43894.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Final Action

    The EPA is taking final action to approve the Nevada Regional Haze
Plan 5-Year Progress Report submitted to the EPA on November 18, 2014,
as meeting the applicable Regional Haze Rule requirements as set forth
in 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i). In addition, we are re-codifying our
prior approval of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP in order to correct its
location within 40 CFR 52.1470(e). This recodification has no effect on
the substantive content of the Nevada SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations.\27\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as
meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Organic
carbon, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 24, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart DD--Nevada

0
2. Section 52.1470, paragraph (e), the table is amended by:
0
a. Removing the last entry ``Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (October 2009), excluding the BART determination for
NOX at Reid Gardner Generating Station in sections 5.5.3,
5.6.3 and 7.2, which EPA has disapproved''; and
0
b. Adding, under the heading ``Air Quality Implementation Plan for the
State of Nevada'' two entries before the entry ``Small Business
Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance
Program''.
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  52.1470   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA-Approved Nevada Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
     Name of SIP provision          geographic or         State       EPA approval date        Explanation
                                 nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Nevada Regional Haze State       State-wide........        11/18/09  77 FR 50936 (8/23/  Excluding Appendix A
 Implementation Plan (October                                         12).                (``Nevada BART
 2009), excluding the BART                                                                Regulation''). The
 determination for NOX at Reid                                                            Nevada BART
 Gardner Generating Station in                                                            regulation, including
 sections 5.5.3, 5.6.3 and 7.2,                                                           NAC 445B.029,
 which the EPA has disapproved.                                                           445B.22095, and
                                                                                445B.22096, is listed
                                                                                above in 40 CFR
                                                                                52.1470(c).
Nevada Regional Haze Plan 5-     State-wide........      11/18/2014  [Insert Federal     .......................
 Year Progress Report.                                                Register
                                                                      citation], 8/8/
                                                                      2017.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The organization of this table generally follows from the organization of the State of Nevada's original
  1972 SIP, which was divided into 12 sections. Nonattainment and maintenance plans, among other types of plans,
  are listed under Section 5 (Control Strategy). Lead SIPs and Small Business Stationary Source Technical and
  Environmental Compliance Assistance SIPs are listed after Section 12 followed by nonregulatory or quasi-
  regulatory statutory provisions approved into the SIP. Regulatory statutory provisions are listed in 40 CFR
  52.1470(c).

0
3. Section 52.1488 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1488  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (g) Approval. On November 18, 2014, the Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection submitted the ``Nevada Regional Haze Plan 5-
Year Progress Report'' (``Progress Report''). The Progress Report meets
the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule in 40 CFR 51.308.

[FR Doc. 2017-16491 Filed 8-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P