[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45762-45771]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21006]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0406; FRL-9967-77-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County; Regional Haze Progress Report State
Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the City of
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, New Mexico (the County) submitted by
the Governor on June 24, 2016. The SIP revision addresses

requirements of the Act and the EPA's rules that require the County to
submit a periodic report assessing reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for
regional haze with a determination of the adequacy of the existing
regional haze SIP.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-
0406, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit any information electronically that is considered
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or any other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment will be considered the official comment with multimedia
submissions and should include all discussion points desired. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or their contents submitted
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing systems). For additional submission methods, please
contact James E. Grady,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James E. Grady,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with James E. Grady or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-
665-7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' each mean ``the EPA.''

Table of Contents:

I. Background on Regional Haze
    A. Visibility Protection
    B. Regulation Overview
II. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress Report
III. Evaluation of Regional Haze Progress Report
    A. Class I Areas
    B. Status of Control Strategies
    1. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
    2. NOX and PM Control Strategies
    3. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    4. Mobile Source Emissions
    5. Fire and Smoke Management
    6. Fugitive and Unpaved Road Dust Measures
    7. Additional Controls--Local State Regulations
    8. Summary of Control Strategy Implementation
    C. Emission Reductions From Control Strategies
    D. Visibility Progress
    E. Emissions Progress
    F. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs
    H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
    I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background on Regional Haze

A. Visibility Protection

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that occurs over a wide
geographic area primarily from the pollution of fine particles
(PM2.5) in nature.\1\ Fine particles causing haze consist of
sulfates, nitrates, organics, elemental carbon (EC), and soil dust.\2\
Airborne PM2.5 can scatter and absorb the incident light
and, therefore, lead to atmospheric opacity and horizontal visibility
degradation. Regional haze limits visual distance and reduces color,
clarity and contrast of view. Emissions that affect visibility include
a wide variety of natural and man-made sources. In New Mexico, the most
important sources of haze-forming emissions are coal-fired power
plants, oil and gas development, woodland fires, and windblown dust.
Reducing PM2.5 and its precursor gases in the atmosphere is
an effective method of improving visibility. PM2.5
precursors consist of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Fine particles are less than or equal to 2.5 microns
([micro]m) in diameter and usually form secondary in nature
indirectly from other sources. Particles less than or equal to 10
[micro]m in diameter are referred to as PM10. Particles
greater than PM2.5 but less than PM10 are
referred to as coarse mass. Coarse mass can contribute to light
extinction as well and is made up of primary particles directly
emitted into the air. Fine particles tend to be man-made, while
coarse particles tend to have a natural origin. Coarse mass settles
out from the air more rapidly than fine particles and usually will
be found relatively close to emission sources. Fine particles can be
transported long distances by wind and can be found in the air
thousands of miles from where they were formed.
    \2\ Organic carbon (OC) can be emitted directly as particles, or
formed through reactions involving gaseous emissions. Elemental
carbon, in contrast to organic carbon, is exclusively of primary
origin and emitted by the incomplete combustion of carbon-based
fuels. They are especially prevalent in diesel exhaust and smoke
from wild and prescribed fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulation Overview

    In section 169A of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress declared as a
national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any
existing, visibility impairment in mandatory class I Federal areas
where impairment results from manmade air pollution.\3\ Congress added
section 169B to the CAA in 1990 that added visibility protection
provisions, and the EPA published final regulations addressing regional
haze with the 1999 Regional Haze Rule (RHR).\4\ The RHR revised the
existing visibility regulations and established a more comprehensive
visibility protection program for mandatory Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze are found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309.
States must demonstrate reasonable progress toward meeting the national
goal of a return to natural visibility conditions for mandatory Class I
Federal areas both within and outside states by 2064. The requirement
to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all fifty states, the District
of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. The City of Albuquerque and
Bernalillo County,\5\ New Mexico must also submit

a regional haze SIP separate from the State of New Mexico \6\ to
completely satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA
for the entire State under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act
(section 74-2-4).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks
exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in
existence on August 7, 1977. The EPA, in consultation with the
Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility was identified as an important value. The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries,
such as park expansions. Although states and tribes may designate
additional areas as Class I, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in the CAA applies only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' When the term ``Class
I area'' is used in this action, it means ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' [See 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979 and CAA
Sections 162(a), 169A, and 302(i)].
    \4\ See July 1, 1999 Regional Haze Rule final action (64 FR
35714), as amended in July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39156), October 13, 2006
(71 FR 60631), June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33656) and in January 10, 2017
(82 FR 3079).
    \5\ Note that the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County is
treated like a ``state'' for purposes of implementing the RHR, which
is written specifically for states. The EPA regulates and funds
Bernalillo County as it does any other state air agency. Enacted in
1967, the New Mexico State Air Quality Control Act [NMSA 1978
Sections 74-2-4, 74-2-5, and 74-2-7] allowed for the establishment
of the Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) as a local board and
empowered it with the authority to administer and enforce its air
quality regulations within Bernalillo County. The AQCB has
jurisdiction over all of Bernalillo County, (including the City of
Albuquerque), except Indian lands. The State of New Mexico
Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) has jurisdiction over all
other counties in New Mexico.
    \6\ On December 31, 2003, New Mexico submitted a regional haze
SIP with later revisions (July 5, 2011 and October 7, 2013) that
addressed 40 CFR 51.309. The EPA approved both of the (2003 and
2011) submittals on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693) and approved a
2013 revision on October 9, 2014 with two separate rules (79 FR
60985 and 79 FR 60978). The New Mexico progress report was approved
by the EPA on November 3, 2015 (see 80 FR 67682).
    \7\On November 12, 2003, the County first adopted its 40 CFR
51.309 regional haze SIP with later revisions (August 13, 2008; June
8, 2011). The EPA approved these submittals on Apr. 25, 2012 (77 FR
24768).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress Report

    The RHR requires a comprehensive analysis of each state's regional
haze SIP every ten years and a progress report at five-year intervals.
The five-year review is intended to provide an interim report on the
implementation of, and, if necessary, mid-course corrections to, the
regional haze SIP. The progress report provides an opportunity for
public input on the County's (and the EPA's) assessment of whether the
approved regional haze SIP is being implemented appropriately and
whether reasonable visibility progress is being achieved consistent
with the projected visibility improvement in the SIP. At a minimum, the
required elements of the progress report under the RHR must include the
following seven elements: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See also General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze
Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in
Development and Review of the Progress Reports), April 2013, EPA-
454/B-03-005, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/haze_5year_4-10-13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Provide a description of the status of implementation of all
measures included in the regional haze SIP.
    (2) Summarize the emissions reductions achieved throughout the
state.
    (3) Provide an assessment of current visibility conditions and the
change in visibility impairment over the past five years.
    (4) Provide analysis tracking the change over the past five years
in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from
all sources and activities within the state.
    (5) Provide an assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred
over the past five years that have limited or impeded progress in
reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility.
    (6) Provide an assessment of whether the current SIP elements and
strategies are sufficient to enable the state (or other states with
mandatory Class I areas affected by emissions from the state) to meet
all established RPGs.
    (7) Provide a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy
and any modifications to the strategy as necessary.
    The City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, New Mexico submitted
its progress report SIP for the County under 40 CFR 51.309 on June 24,
2016. Typically, progress report requirements of most states are
covered under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). 40 CFR 51.309 presents nine
western states with an optional approach of fulfilling RHR requirements
by adopting emission reduction strategies developed by the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC). These strategies were designed
primarily to improve visibility of sixteen Class I areas in the
Colorado Plateau area.\9\ Three western states (New Mexico, Utah and
Wyoming) including the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, NM
exercised the option provided in the RHR to meet alternative
requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.309 for regional haze SIPs. For
these states, the required content of the five-year progress report is
identical with those for the other states, but are codified at 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10) instead of at 40 CFR 51.308 (g) and (h). This section
specifies fixed due dates in 2013 and 2018 for these progress
reports.\10\ In contrast, under 40 CFR 51.308, states must submit a
progress report five years from submittal of the initial implementation
plan. Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states are required to submit, at
the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the
adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four
possible actions, as described in more detail in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in
Southeast Utah, Northern Arizona, Northwest New Mexico, and Western
Colorado. The sixteen mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand
Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest
National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon
Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness,
West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National
Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital
Reef National Park, and Zion National Park.
    \10\ The 1999 RHR provided that these three states will
eventually revert to the progress report due date requirements in 40
CFR 51.308 for the second implementation period. Recently, there was
an extension of the second regional haze implementation period
deadline from 2018 to 2021. (82 FR 3080, January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Evaluation of Regional Haze Progress Report

    On July 28 2011, the AQCB submitted a regional haze SIP for its own
geographic area of Bernalillo County, New Mexico (including the City of
Albuquerque) that addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309.\11\ This
SIP submittal was a necessary component of the regional haze plan for
New Mexico to ensure that the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of
the CAA were satisfied for the whole state. On July 6, 2016, the EPA
received the periodic report on progress for the County's regional haze
SIP in the form of a SIP revision. This latest submission is the
subject of this proposed approval. The periodic report was made in the
first implementation period to assess visibility progression for Class
I areas in and outside of the County that were negatively affected by
emissions from within the County. The progress report included the
County's determination that the existing regional haze SIP required no
substantive revisions to achieve the established regional haze
visibility improvement and emission reduction goals for 2018. The EPA
agrees with the County's assessment and is proposing to approve its
progress report SIP on the basis that it satisfies all requirements of
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) as explained in further details in each subsequent
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See the EPA's proposed approval (77 FR 24768, April 25,
2012) and final rule (77 FR 71119, November 29, 2012) for the
County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Class I Areas

    The City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County does not formulate
specific RPGs for particular Class I areas within its borders since no
such areas exist.\12\ Therefore, the County is not required to identify
RPGs or calculate baseline and natural visibility conditions at any
Class I area. The County, however, is required to address the
apportionment of visibility impact from the emissions generated by
sources within the County at Class I areas outside of the County
borders. As a result, the progress report addressed the emissions
impact on RPGs and related emission reduction goals for nine Class I
areas within the state of New Mexico that were identified as being
close

enough to the County that they could conceivably be affected by
emissions from within the County. The nine Class I areas within New
Mexico that were addressed in the progress report were: Bandelier
Wilderness, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, Carlsbad
Caverns National Park, Gila Wilderness, Pecos Wilderness, Salt Creek
Wilderness, Wheeler Peak Wilderness, White Mountain Wilderness, and San
Pedro Parks Wilderness.\13\ Visibility impairment at New Mexico's nine
Class I areas was tracked in units of deciviews (dv)\14\ as measured by
eight monitors in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) Network. Through collaboration with the Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP),\15\ the AQCB worked with New Mexico
and other western states to assess state-by-state contributions to
visibility impairment in specific Class I areas affected by Albuquerque
and Bernalillo County, NM emissions. The determinations in the progress
report relied on the technical analysis and emission inventories
developed by the WRAP which is documented online and also appears in
the technical appendices.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 77 FR 24768, 24790 (Apr. 25, 2012).
    \13\ The Section 309 SIP submitted by New Mexico in December
2003 addressed only San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area and the other
Class I areas were added in a later SIP revision under Section
309(g) in June 2011 and revised in October 2013. The EPA approved
both of the (2003 and 2011) submittals on November 27, 2012 (77 FR
70693) and approved a 2013 revision on October 9, 2014 with two
separate rules (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 60978).
    \14\ A deciview is a haze index derived from calculated light
extinction, such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to
uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire range of
conditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The preamble to the
RHR provides additional details about the deciview (64 FR 35714,
35725, July 1, 1999).
    \15\ The WRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal governments,
state governments and various federal agencies representing the
western states that provides technical and policy tools for the
western states and tribes to comply with the EPA's Regional Haze
regulations. Detailed information regarding WRAP support of air
quality management issues for western states is provided on the WRAP
Web site (www.wrapair2.org). Data summary descriptions and tools
specific to RHR support are available on the WRAP Technical Support
System Web site (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/).
    \16\ The Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule
Reasonable Progress Summary Report technical support document has
been prepared on behalf of the fifteen Western State members in the
WRAP region to provide the technical basis for use by states to
develop the first of their individual reasonable progress reports
for the 116 Federal Class I areas located in the Western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to find that the County has appropriately
identified the Class I areas in this report which could be affected by
emissions from within the County, as required by 40 CFR 51.309(g). This
regulation provides a requirement for compliance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)
to the extent that planning is necessary for areas other than the
sixteen Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau addressed in the initial
2003 regional haze SIP. In the ensuing sections, the EPA addresses
these Class I areas and the seven regulatory elements required by the
progress report SIP; \17\ how the County's progress report SIP
addressed each element; and the EPA's analysis and proposed
determination as to whether the County satisfied each part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Status of Control Strategies

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires a description of the status of
implementation of all control measures included in the regional haze
SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the
state.
    The County evaluated the status of all control measures in its 2011
regional haze SIP in accordance with the requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The major control measures identified by the
County in the progress report are as follows:
     SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
     NOX and PM Control Strategies
     Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
     Mobile Sources Emissions \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), New Mexico is required to
submit interim reports to the EPA and the public on the
implementation status of the regional and local strategies to
address mobile source emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Fire and Smoke Management
     Fugitive and Unpaved Road Dust Measures
     Additional Controls--Local State Regulations
    The County identified ammonium sulfate, particulate organic matter,
and coarse mass as the largest contributors to visibility impairment at
New Mexico's Class I areas that need to be controlled.\19\ Many of the
sources, however, that produce these visibility-impairing pollutants in
New Mexico are natural, rather than anthropogenic in nature, and are
not controllable. For the purpose of this progress report, the County
focused on those emission sources that were anthropogenic in nature (as
did New Mexico in its report). The primary sources of ammonium sulfate
are point sources and mobile source emissions. Ammonium sulfate results
from SO2 and NH3 precursor emissions.
SO2 emissions in New Mexico are generally associated with
anthropogenic point sources such as coal-fired power plants, other
industrial sources like refineries and cement plants, and both on and
off-road mobile sources. Particulate organic matter emissions in New
Mexico are from natural and anthropogenic fire. Large wildfire events
in the west dominate particulate organic aerosol emissions which are
emitted directly into the air as particles instead of gases. Coarse
mass emissions in New Mexico happen mainly as a result of windblown and
fugitive dust. Coarse mass settles out of air more rapidly than fine
particles, so strong wind events act as a transport vehicle to carry
them long distances. Otherwise, they will typically be found close to
the emission source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See the County's 2016 regional haze progress report
submittal (page 9) which was reiterated in New Mexico's regional
haze progress report (page 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
    The progress report discussed the SO2 Milestone and
Backstop Trading Program as a control measure to reduce emissions for
major sources of SO2.\20\ The County has participated in
this voluntary program since December 31, 2003.\21\ As part of this
program, the Section 309 western states and the County must submit an
annual report that compares tracked stationary sources of
SO2 emissions to yearly milestones.\22\ A milestone is an
established maximum level of annual emissions for a given year (from
2003-2018). The milestones help establish annual SO2
emission reduction targets. The annual targets represent RPGs in
reducing visibility-impairing emissions. If states fail to meet the
milestones, then the backstop-trading program is triggered to

implement an emissions cap. The cap allocates emission allowances (or
credits) to the affected sources based on the cap, and requires the
sources to hold sufficient allowances to cover their emissions each
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Under Section 309, nine western states and the tribes
within those states had the option of submitting plans to reduce
visibility-impairing emissions at sixteen Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau. Five states (Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Wyoming) and the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, NM
exercised this option by submitting plans to the EPA by December 1,
2003. Oregon and Arizona have since elected to cease participation
in the Milestone and Backstop Trading Program in 2006 and 2010,
respectively. The tribes are not subject to any deadline and can
still opt into the program at any time.
    \21\ The County cooperates with its WRAP partners to maintain an
inventory of regional SO2 emissions, across the Section
309 states. The City of Albuquerque Air Quality Program (AQP)
monitors SO2 ambient air concentrations in Bernalillo
County consistent with EPA regulations. See the City of Albuquerque
Environmental Health Department (EHD) Web site at https://www.cabq.gov/airquality/documents for Annual Network Reviews for
Ambient Air Monitoring.
    \22\ See WRAP Web site at https://www.wrapair2.org/reghaze.aspx
for the Regional Milestone reports. A final 2014 milestone report
was posted on March 7, 2016 and a draft 2015 report was posted
recently on March 20, 2017. Appendix G of the County progress report
includes the 2013 Regional SO2 Emissions and Milestone
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regional haze SIP requires multiyear averaging of emissions for
the milestone comparison. From 2005-2017, the three-year average, which
includes the reporting year and the two previous years, is calculated
and compared to the milestone. The regional milestone for 2013 was
185,795 tons SO2. The three-year average SO2
emissions for 2011, 2012, and 2013 was 105,402 tons SO2,
which was 43 percent below the 2013 milestone. In table 1 below, 2014
and 2015 WRAP data shows similar SO2 reduction trends that
continue beyond 2013 toward 2018. No triggering of the backstop trading
program has been necessary and the likelihood of meeting the 2018
target means no changes in the program are needed at the moment. The
compliance dates show that SO2 emissions have consistently
been below each annual RPG and are currently tracking to be below the
2018 milestone.

                                      Table 1--SO2 Emission Milestones \23\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Regional SO2      Average SO2 emissions to determine compliance with
                                        milestone tons                          milestone
                 Year                      per year    ---------------------------------------------------------
                                             (tpy)
                                                                SO2  (tpy)                 3-Year average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008..................................         269,083  265,662..................  2006, 2007 and 2008.
2009..................................         234,903  165,633..................  2007, 2008 and 2009.
2010..................................         200,722  146,808..................  2008, 2009 and 2010.
2011..................................         200,722  130,935..................  2009, 2010 and 2011.
2012..................................         200,722  115,115..................  2010, 2011 and 2012.
2013..................................         185,795  105,402..................  2011, 2012 and 2013.
2014..................................         170,868  96,392...................  2012, 2013 and 2014.
2015..................................         155,940  91,310...................  2013, 2014 and 2015.
2016..................................         155,940  Not Available............  2014, 2015 and 2016.
2017..................................         155,940  Not Available............  2015, 2016 and 2017.
2018..................................         141,849  Not Available............  2016, 2017 and 2018.
2019 forward..........................         141,849  Not Available............  Annual; no averaging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. NOX and PM Control Strategies
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The milestone numbers reflect the participation of Wyoming,
Utah, and New Mexico (including the City of Albuquerque and
Bernalillo County) in the 309 backstop trading program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The County included a report in its 2011 regional haze SIP that
assessed emission control strategies for NOX and PM
stationary sources, and the degree of visibility improvement that would
result from their implementation.\24\ The report concluded that current
and future NOX and PM emissions do not show to be major
contributors to regional haze (typically about two percent on average)
in the vast majority of western Class I areas. The report represented
the initial assessment of stationary source NOX and PM
strategies for regional haze, and was a starting point for a more
extensive analysis in the future. The 2011 regional haze SIP stated
that the progress report would assess the need for new NOX
and PM control measures to address any new contributions to regional
haze from stationary sources in the County. The County concluded in the
progress report that it does not find new control measures necessary
for NOX and PM stationary sources at this time. Stationary
source NOX and PM emissions in the County have not impeded
reasonable progress of emissions and visibility in New Mexico as a
whole and are not likely to do so. Please refer to the emission
reduction section of this report for more details regarding
NOX and PM emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The report, Stationary Source NOX and PM Emissions in the
WRAP Region: An Initial Assessment of Emissions, Controls, and Air
Quality Impacts, was prepared by the WRAP and is included in
Appendix H-O of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ BART sources are those sources that have the potential to
emit 250 tons or more of visibility-impairing pollutants, were put
in place between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and whose
operations fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed source
categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regional haze SIP determined that there are no BART-eligible
sources in the County, so there are no requirements to install BART
controls.\26\ Even so, the progress report mentioned how the County
must still specifically demonstrate that its SO2 milestone
and backstop-trading program will achieve greater reasonable progress
than would be achieved by implementation of BART controls.\27\ Under
this approach, a section 51.309 regional haze SIP must establish
declining SO2 emission milestones for each year of the
program through 2018. The milestones must be consistent with the
GCTVC's goal of fifty to seventy percent reduction in SO2
emissions by 2040. As demonstrated in the County's regional haze SIP,
the SO2 milestones provide greater reasonable progress than
BART and track at a sixty percent pace reduction of the 1990
SO2 emission levels.\28\ The actual annual SO2
emission reduction results outperformed this milestone pace. The
progress report showed that the three-year average SO2
emissions for 2013 was 43 percent below the 2013 milestone at 105,402
tons SO2 (see Table 1). That represents a 71 percent
reduction from the 1990 emission totals and is exceeding the GCVTC goal
of fifty to seventy percent reduction. The regional SO2
emissions have continued to decline at a faster pace than called for by
the SO2 milestones. Thus, as anticipated, the milestone
program has actually continued to achieve greater reasonable progress
than would be the case if BART were implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The WRAP identified three potential BART-eligible sources
in the County. These were PNM Reeves Generating Station, GCC Rio
Grande Inc., and Cobisa Person Power Project. The AQCB assessed
whether these facilities were existing stationary facilities as
defined at 40 CFR 51.301 and determined that all three sources were
not BART-eligible. PNM Reeves and GCC Rio Grande were not in
existence nor operating during the requisite time period, and Cobisa
Person Power Project did not have emission units in the 26 source
categories for BART. See the EPA's proposed approval for the
County's regional haze SIP (77 FR 24768, 24782, April 25, 2012).
    \27\ 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i).
    \28\ See the County's 2011 regional haze SIP submittal (pages
112-124). SO2 emissions from sources in 1990 totaled
358,364 tpy and the 2018 milestone is 141,849 tpy, which represents
sixty percent reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Mobile Source Emissions
    The progress report mentioned that the County is relying upon
federal standards as long-term measures to

achieve declines in mobile source emissions that contribute to regional
haze.\29\ The County also committed itself in the SIP to monitoring
mobile source emissions (through the WRAP) to assure a continuous
decline in emissions as defined in 40 CFR 51.309(b)(6).\30\ A statewide
inventory of baseline and future annual mobile source emissions has
been compiled for the years 2003-2018 with assistance from the
WRAP.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See the County's 2011 regional haze SIP (pages 56-58) and
New Mexico's 2011 regional haze SIP (page 144) for ongoing
implementation of federal mobile source regulations. The County
regional haze SIP listed as a haze-control measure 20.11.104 NMAC,
Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles. This regulation was
adopted in 2007 to implement California's clean car standards. At
the time the regulation was adopted by New Mexico, the California
standards were projected to substantially differ from federal motor
vehicle emissions standards. Since that time, the California and
federal programs for emissions standards for motor vehicles have
become more aligned with each other than was expected by New Mexico
when it adopted the State Mobile Source Regulation. For example, in
2009, the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) proposed ``regulatory convergence'' with California on motor
vehicle fuel economy standards. See 74 FR 49454 (September 28,
2009). This was subsequently adopted, starting with model years
2012-2016. 75 FR 25323 (May 7, 2010). Therefore, 20.11.104 NMAC is
currently redundant and is not being implemented.
    \30\ See the County's 2011 regional haze SIP (page 59).
    \31\ See WRAP 2013 Summary Report, pages 3-11 to 3-20, 4-1 to 4-
2, and 6-222 to 6-233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Fire and Smoke Management
    The County is relying on fire and smoke management programs under
20.11.21 NMAC, Open Burning, in order to help control anthropogenic
fire related emissions of VOCs, NOX, elemental carbon,
organic carbon, and PM2.5. This regulation requires that
most open burning in Bernalillo County be conducted under a permit from
the City of Albuquerque EHD subject to specific requirements,
including: reporting of emissions for use in emissions inventories;
consideration of alternatives to burning; use of enhanced smoke
management techniques recommended by the WRAP; and use of specific
emission reduction techniques. The programs in this measure are
generally designed to limit increases in emissions, rather than to
reduce existing emissions.
6. Fugitive and Unpaved Road Dust Measures
    The progress report mentioned measures that provide for control of
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from unpaved roads and
from stationary fugitive dust sources.\32\ The EHD implements this
requirement through 20.11.20 NMAC, Fugitive Dust Control, which
requires the use of reasonably available control measures (RACM) to
reduce fugitive dust that impairs visibility or adversely affects
public health, welfare, and safety.\33\ The measure prevents fugitive
dust from leaving sites where it is produced, and thus reduces the
amount of those emissions. The regulation requires sources to obtain
permits and pay related fees, limits construction activity, and has an
active enforcement program in place to implement the provisions on an
ongoing basis. In addition, the AQCB tracks road dust emissions with
the assistance of the WRAP. They provide updates, including modeling
and monitoring information, on paved and unpaved road dust emission
impacts on visibility in the sixteen Colorado Plateau Class I Areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ For more information on the WRAP modeling and assessment of
road dust impacts, see section F of the County regional haze SIP
(pages 69-71).
    \33\ The City of Albuquerque EHD also has delegated authority to
enforce applicable federal standards related to particulate matter,
as promulgated in 40 CFR Sections 60, 61, and 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Additional Controls--Local State Regulations
    The County lists several local regulations that are being used to
aid in controlling emissions that contribute to the formation of
regional haze at Class I areas. These regulations, and the pollutants
targeted by them, appear in table 2 below. The EHD implements and
enforces these regulations on a continuing basis.

      Table 2--County Regulations Applicable to Regional Haze \34\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pollutant
          Regulation                  Description          controlled
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.11.22 NMAC.................  Wood burning..........  CO, PM.
20.11.65 NMAC.................  Volatile Organic        VOCs.
                                 Compounds.
20.11.66 NMAC.................  Process Equipment.....  PM.
20.11.67 NMAC.................  Equipment, Emissions,   SO2, NOX, PM.
                                 Limitations.
20.11.71 NMAC.................  Municipal Solid Waste   CO.
                                 Landfills.
20.11.100 NMAC................  Motor Vehicle           CO, PM,
                                 Inspection,             hydrocarbons.
                                 Decentralized.
20.11.102 NMAC................  Oxygenated Fuels......  CO.
20.11.103 NMAC................  Motor Vehicle Visible   PM.
                                 Emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Summary of Control Strategy Implementation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See the County Web site for a listing of the NMAC rules at
http://<IP_ADDRESS>/nmac/_title20/T20C011.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that the County adequately addressed
the status of control measures in its regional haze SIP, as required by
the provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) for the first
implementation period. The County's progress report documented the
status of all control measures included in its regional haze SIP and
described additional measures that came into effect since the County's
regional haze SIP was completed, including state regulations and
various federal measures. All major control measures were identified
and the strategy behind each control was explained. The County included
a summary of the implementation status associated with each control
measure and quantified the benefits where possible. In addition, the
progress report SIP adequately outlined the compliance timeframe for
all controls

C. Emission Reductions From Control Strategies

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) require the state
to provide a summary of the emission reductions achieved in the state
through the control measures subject to the requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). As mentioned previously, the County identified
ammonium sulfate, particulate organic matter, and coarse mass as the
largest contributors historically to visibility impairment at New
Mexico's Class I areas for the initial round of regional haze SIPS.
Many of the sources, however, that produce these visibility-impairing
pollutants in New Mexico are natural, rather than anthropogenic in
nature, and are not controllable. As a result, the New Mexico progress
report focused on emission reductions from

point sources because they represent the anthropogenic sources in New
Mexico.\35\ The New Mexico report showed that these pollutants have
mostly been contributing less to visibility impairment at New Mexico
Class I areas over time, and the anthropogenic point source emissions
related to these pollutants have also been declining in areas of the
state outside the County.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See the 2014 New Mexico Regional Haze Progress Report (page
7).
    \36\ See Figure 3.6 from the 2014 New Mexico Regional Haze
Progress Report (page 15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For comparison, in its progress report, the County took the same
approach as New Mexico and reported anthropogenic point source emission
data (see table 3) from the County for NOX, SO2,
PM10, and PM2.5 and compared it to WRAP 2018
projections for the 2008-2013 time-period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See the 2016 County Regional Haze Progress Report (page
21).

          Table 3--The County Stationary Point Source Emissions Compared to 2018 WRAP Projections \37\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                PM2.5 (tpy)
                      Year                           NOX (tpy)       SO2 (tpy)      PM10 (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................           1,139              57           1,222             239
2011............................................           1,120              74             186             110
2012............................................           1,167             132             351             116
2013............................................           1,401             165             323             117
2018 WRAP Projections...........................           3,402           1,612             411              23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The County noted that pollutant emissions from the County have not
impeded reductions in the rest of the state. SO2 and
NOX county emission trends have increased slightly since
2008 but have remained well below the WRAP 2018 projections for point
sources and were just a fraction of the levels observed in the rest of
the state (see table 4). PM10 emission levels for the County
were below the WRAP 2018 projections while PM2.5 levels were
above the WRAP predictions. Although the PM2.5 levels were
above WRAP 2018 projections, PM emission levels from the County have
decreased in a downward trend for both fine particulates and coarse
mass since 2008. When comparing pollutant emission contributions of
NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5
from the County to the statewide national emission inventory (NEI), the
County concluded that it is improbable that the County emissions have
had significant impacts on nearby Class I areas. The reported point
source amounts from the County remain low in comparison to those from
the rest of the state as seen from the statewide NEI data in table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ As reported in the online EPA Emissions Inventory System
(EIS) Gateway database for point sources only.

                    Table 4--NEI Point Source Emission Data for New Mexico for 2002-2014 \38\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                PM2.5 (tpy)
                      Year                           NOX (tpy)       SO2 (tpy)      PM10 (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................          95,493          36,392           6,558           5,511
2005............................................          72,707          18,532           3,611           2,994
2008............................................          57,461          22,868           2,953           1,754
2011............................................          47,497          19,987           2,545           1,722
2014............................................          42,623          12,535           3,091           1,538
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NEI data shows that the emission trend of each major
contributor to visibility impairment in New Mexico has decreased
significantly since 2002. NOX emissions have decreased by 55
percent and SO2 emissions have decreased by 65 percent. PM
reductions also reduced considerably from their NEI baseline totals
(52% for PM10 and 72% for PM2.5) and remain below
the 2018 WRAP projections for New Mexico, although not especially
pronounced.\39\ A more-detailed breakdown of the distribution of each
contributing pollutant species can be seen in section E of this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Figure 3.6 from the 2014 New Mexico Regional Haze
Progress Report (page 15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that the County adequately addressed
the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) with its summary of
emission reductions of visibility impairing pollutants. Overall, the
County demonstrated the emission reductions achieved in the major
contributing visibility impairing pollutants in the County for the
first implementation period. Anthropogenic emissions of haze related
pollutants from stationary point sources in the County are unlikely to
reverse the larger, favorable statewide emission trends, because over
time such local emissions have remained at a fraction of the levels
seen in the rest of the state. Furthermore, such county emissions are
under or close to the WRAP 2018 projections for those pollutants.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See the 2016 County Regional Haze Progress Report (pages
15-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Visibility Progress

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) require that states
with Class I areas provide the following information for the most
impaired and least impaired days \41\ for each area, with values
expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values: (1)
Current visibility conditions; (2) the difference between current
visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions; and (3) the
change in visibility impairment over the past five years. The County
does not have any Class I areas within its borders; therefore, no
visibility data is required to be analyzed for this element. In regard
to New Mexico's Class I areas outside of the County, please note that
when comparing baseline to current visibility conditions, the New
Mexico progress report showed that New Mexico is currently on track, if
not exceeding, the visibility impairment

emission reductions needed to achieve RPG's for 2018.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The most and least impaired days in the regional haze rule
refers to the average visibility impairment (measured in deciviews)
for the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the
highest and lowest amount of visibility impairment, respectively,
averaged over a five-year period (see 40 CFR 51.301).
    \42\ See table 2.1 of New Mexico Regional Haze Progress Report
(page 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Emissions Progress

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) require an analysis
tracking emission changes of visibility impairing pollutants from the
state's sources by type or category over the past five years based on
the most recent updated emission inventory. In its progress report SIP,
the County presented WRAP emission inventories for 2002, 2008, and
2011, as well as projected inventories for 2018, in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D). The pollutant inventories
included SO2, NOX, NH3, VOCs, organic
carbon, elemental carbon, coarse mass, and soil dust. The inventories
were categorized for all major visibility-impairing pollutants under
major source groupings either as anthropogenic or natural. The
anthropogenic source categorization included point and area sources; on
and off-road mobile sources; area oil and gas; fugitive and road dust;
and anthropogenic fire. The natural source categorization included
natural fire, wind-blown dust, and biogenic sources. A breakdown of the
total anthropogenic emissions for the County and state can be seen
below in table 5. The table shows the percent apportionment of County
emissions for each of the key haze-causing pollutants related to the
rest of the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The emission totals for the County are taken from the
County regional haze progress report (tables 3.22-3.29). Emission
totals for the entire state of New Mexico are taken from the New
Mexico Regional Haze progress report (tables 3.23-3.30). Detailed
inventory descriptions for development of the WRAP Base02b, plan02c
and plan02d inventories are available on the WRAP TSS Web site
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/Emissions.aspx and
archived on the original WRAP Web site http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/pivot.html.

          Table 5--Comparison of County and State Anthropogenic Emissions to WRAP 2018 Projections \43\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2002 Total
                                                     baseline       2008 Total      2011 Total       WRAP 2018
       Pollutant species            Inventory        emissions       emissions       emissions      projections
                                                    (tons/year)     (tons/year)     (tons/year)     (tons/year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2...........................  County..........     4,772 (10%)             291      1,250 (6%)          13,770
                                State...........          48,354          27,392          21,624
NOX...........................  County..........    33,661 (11%)          16,960     14,760 (9%)          26,819
                                State...........         295,266         211,132         168,008
NH3...........................  County..........      1,400 (4%)             856        682 (2%)           1,683
                                State...........          32,266          43,840          37,071
VOCs..........................  County..........     25,573 (7%)          19,137     14,574 (7%)          23,891
                                State...........         344,077         268,792         214,360
PM2.5.........................  County..........     2,229 (18%)           4,112      5,777 (7%)           2,433
                                State...........          12,573          61,587          85,576
Coarse Mass...................  County..........    16,387 (25%)          36,982     56,655 (7%)          17,369
                                State...........          66,096         511,327         830,697
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The WRAP data showed that the percentage of County emissions
contributing to the total state emissions has decreased for each
pollutant species from the 2002 baseline to 2011. The WRAP emission
inventories were previously identified in the SIP as reflecting
overestimates of actual emissions in key source categories. Even so,
there has not been a drastic, sudden spike in the percentages, which
would be a cause for concern for visibility degradation at the Class I
areas. The decreasing WRAP percentages are indicators that the County
``conservative'' emission estimates have improved throughout the first
implementation period and are contributing less and less to visibility
impairment at Class I areas outside of its borders from 2002-2011. The
County concluded that it is unlikely that the County emissions had
significant impacts on nearby Class I areas as a result. The County's
contribution of emissions compared to the New Mexico emission
inventory, as estimated by the WRAP, is six percent of the State
SO2 emissions; nine percent of the State NOX
emissions; two percent of the State NH3 emissions; seven
percent of the State VOC emissions; seven percent of the State
PM2.5 emissions; and seven percent of the State coarse mass
emissions. These percentages are all down from their 2002 baseline
levels. PM2.5 and coarse mass 2011 total emissions are
higher than the WRAP 2018 projections, but their decreasing percent
contributions are better indicators of the progress made since
emissions have increased statewide, yet their percentages have
decreased from eighteen and 25 percent respectively, in 2002, to seven
percent each in 2011.
    The EPA is proposing to find that the County adequately addressed
the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D). The EPA concludes
that the County presented an adequate analysis tracking emission trends
for the key visibility impairing pollutants. The analysis provided the
most recent period of approximately five years for which data was
available in practical terms (2002-2008), and provided an additional
update for 2011 that presented further information covering
approximately two five-year periods (2002-2011). The trends indicate
that it was improbable that sources located within the County caused or
contributed to visibility impairment in any Class I area located
outside of the County. The emission trends declined within the County
compared to 2002 baseline levels and the percent contributions related
to the rest of the state have all continued to decline over time.

F. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) require an
assessment of whether any significant emission changes have occurred
within the state over the five-year period since the SIP was submitted,
and whether emission increases outside the state are affecting a Class
I area within the state adversely. A ``significant change'' could be
either a substantial unexpected increase in anthropogenic emissions
that occurred over the five-year period or a significant expected
reduction in anthropogenic emissions that did not occur in the analysis
for the SIP.
    The EPA proposes to conclude that the County adequately addressed
the provisions under 40 CFR

51.309(d)(10)(i)(E). The County does not have any Class I areas within
its borders, so there is no requirement to assess impacts in the County
from sources outside of its boundaries. Furthermore, the County sources
do not impact any of the Class I areas outside of its borders, as was
stated in the County's regional haze SIP revision, which the EPA
approved on April 25, 2012.\44\ In conjunction with that previous
action, the EPA's current analysis of emission reductions to meet the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) and 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D)
show that no ``significant changes'' in emissions within the County
have occurred to impede visibility improvement or have adversely
affected the nine Class I areas in New Mexico.\45\ Emission trends for
the key visibility impairing pollutants were confirmed to be decreasing
from the baseline to 2018 by statewide NEI data and reported County
emissions. Additionally, the WRAP data showed that emissions from the
County have remained at the same percentage levels over time or
decreased relative to emissions from elsewhere in the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See 77 FR (24768, 24791).
    \45\ Changes in wildfires are not a ``change'' to report under
51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) per EPA guidance, General Principles for the 5-
Year Regional Haze Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans (page 15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) require an
assessment of whether the current regional haze SIP is sufficient to
enable the state, or other states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas
affected by emissions from the state. The County does not contain any
Class I areas, and emissions from the County were found to not impact
any Class I areas outside of its borders. As discussed previously, the
NEI data showed that the total emissions of each major contributor to
visibility impairment in New Mexico has decreased significantly since
2002. The total County emissions have remained at a fraction of the
levels seen in the rest of the state and are under or close to the WRAP
2018 RPGs when looking at the cumulative anthropogenic emissions.
    The County provided a breakdown showing whether or not every key
pollutant in each source category was meeting its 2018 RPGs for annual
emissions.\46\ Of the 56 individual RPGs for the County, 42 were either
being met or referred to pollutants that showed declining emissions
since 2002. Fourteen of the County goals were not yet being met as of
the 2011 WRAP inventory, but nine of those annual goals showed reported
emission levels less than 200 tpy, and one was just under 500 tpy.
Those ten goals were associated with point sources and on and off road
mobile source categories. The County concluded that those ten reported
emissions were unlikely to impede New Mexico's progress toward
achieving statewide goals for emissions and visibility since the
emission levels represented a negligible portion of total statewide
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Showed in tables 3.22-3.29 of the County Regional Haze
Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The four remaining annual emission goals that were not being met
covered coarse mass, organic carbon, and PM2.5 pollutants.
The increased contributions from these pollutants were associated with
fugitive/road dust and area (non-point) source categories. Annual
emissions with higher levels of organic matter, elemental carbon,
PM2.5 and coarse mass with a lower contribution from
ammonium sulfate are heavily dominated from wildfires and particulate
matter. High coarse mass was measured during the spring, which was
indicative of high-wind events that occurred during the late winter and
spring months in New Mexico. Wildfires or high-wind events might again
affect annual emissions in the 2018 timeframe, but the County showed
that it is meeting nearly all of its annual emission goals even with
experienced annual emission increases from natural events that still
have not hindered New Mexico from meeting its RPGs beyond the County
borders. The County expects further reduction of SO2 and
NO2 emissions, the primary pollutant species associated with
anthropogenic sources, to continue their broad declines in the same
areas.
    The EPA proposes to conclude that the County has addressed 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) because its current regional haze SIP is sufficient
to enable the state of New Mexico and other nearby states to meet their
RPGs, particularly as the County was not identified as contributing to
any impairment in such Class I areas. The fairly constant proportion of
County emissions compared to the rest of the state are negligible. In
spite of natural events, the County showed that it is meeting nearly
all of its annual emission goals and the annual emission increases from
natural events still have not hindered New Mexico from meeting its RPGs
beyond the County borders.

H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(10)(i)(G) require a review of a
state's visibility monitoring strategy for visibility impairing
pollutants and an assessment of whether any modifications to the
strategy are necessary. In its progress report SIP, the County stated
that there are no Class I areas within its boundaries, and therefore it
was not required to fulfill this provision. The EPA proposes to
conclude that the County is exempt from addressing the requirements of
40 CFR 51.309(10)(i)(G), as that requirement is solely for states with
Class I areas in their borders.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The New Mexico progress report concluded (pages 46-47) that
no changes in the state's visibility monitoring strategy are needed
because the IMPROVE network has continued to provide adequate
monitoring data to support implementation of the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states are required to submit, at
the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the
adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four
possible actions based on information in the progress report. 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(ii) requires states to take one of the following actions:
    (1) Submit a negative declaration to the EPA that no further
substantive revision to the State's existing regional haze SIP is
needed.
    (2) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another state(s) which participated in a regional planning
process, the State must provide notification to the EPA and to the
other state(s) which participated in the regional planning process with
the states. The State must also collaborate with the other state(s)
through the regional planning process for developing additional
strategies to address the plan's deficiencies.
    (3) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another country, the State shall provide notification, along
with available information, to the Administrator.
    (4) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources within the State, then the State shall revise its
implementation plan to

address the plan's deficiencies within one year.
    The City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, New Mexico has
provided the information required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i) in the
five-year progress report. Based upon this information, the County
stated in its progress report SIP that it believes that the current
Section 309 and Section 309(g) regional haze SIPs are adequate to meet
the State's 2018 RPGs and require no further revision at this time.
Thus, the EPA has received a negative declaration from the City of
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, NM.

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the City of Albuquerque and
Bernalillo County, New Mexico's regional haze five-year progress report
SIP revision (submitted June 24, 2016) as meeting the applicable
regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The EPA
is proposing to approve the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County,
New Mexico's determination that the current regional haze SIP is
adequate to meet the State's 2018 RPGs.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011), and 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017);
     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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the
SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe
has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best Available
Retrofit Technology, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur
dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 26, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2017-21006 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3066-3067]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00711]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2019-0022; OMB No. 1660-0134]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Preparedness Activity Registration and
Feedback

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Christi Collins, AICP, Branch Chief, Preparedness Behavior Change,
Individual and Community Preparedness Division (ICPD), National
Preparedness Directorate, FEMA, DHS, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20024,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed information collection
previously published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2019 at 84
FR 60403. No comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to
notify the public that FEMA will submit the information collection
abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and
clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: Preparedness Activity Registration and Feedback.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0134 (and moving a survey from Generic Clearance,
1660-0130).
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 008-0-8 (Preparedness Activity
Registration) and FEMA Form 519-0-11 (Preparedness Activity Feedback
Form).
    Abstract: This collection will allow ICPD to gather the following
information from the public via web form(s):

 Feedback: General feedback on the effectiveness of national
FEMA preparedness programs and initiatives and website user experience
 Activity Details: Information regarding the type, size and
location of preparedness activities hosted by members of the public and
community organizers
 POC Information: For registration within the site and follow-
on communication, if needed
 Future Engagement Requests: Allow for the public to enroll in
the ICPD newsletter or other public communications
 Publication Ordering: Submitting requests to the FEMA
publication warehouse to have materials shipped directly to members of
the public

    To fulfill its mission FEMA's ICPD collects information from
individuals and organizations by the Preparedness Activity Registration
Form and the Preparedness Activity Feedback Form located within a
public website (called the ``Preparedness Portal''). This collection
facilitates FEMA's ability to assess its progress for the following
programs:

 Ready 2 Help (www.ready.gov/game)
 You Are the Help Until Help Arrives (www.ready.gov/until-help-arrives)
 Event Registration (www.ready.gov/prepare) (includes
Prepareathon event registration)
 Collections where ICPD partners with other National
Preparedness Directorate (NPD) offices

    As new programs or initiatives are created, ICPD will leverage the
pre-approved questions in the question bank provided for this
collection. Known future activities include:

 Community-Based Organization Continuity and Resilience
Training
 Website User Experience Feedback

    ICPD uses this information to inform the continuous improvement of
the programs and the Division's outreach. Further, the information
allows the Division to analyze seasonal trends in preparedness across
the variety of programs. Raw data is not shared outside of the
database; only results of the data assessment is shared. The data is
used for internal reports as well as public-facing talking points.
    As new programs or initiatives are created, ICPD will leverage the
pre-approved questions in the question bank provided for this
collection. Known future activities include:

 Community-Based Organization Continuity and Resilience
Training
 Website User Experience Feedback

    ICPD uses this information to inform the continuous improvement of
the programs and the Division's outreach. Further, the information
allows the Division to analyze seasonal trends in preparedness across
the variety of programs. Raw data is not shared outside of the
database; only results of the data assessment is shared. The data is
used for internal reports as well as public-facing talking points.
    Affected Public: Individuals, organizations and groups who wish to
register for ICPD Preparedness activities to take advantage of FEMA's
related resources and available supporting materials.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 86,115.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 86,115.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,174.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $196,424.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: There are
no operation and maintenance costs for respondents.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: There are no
capital and start-up costs for respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $12,205.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption

above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Maile Arthur,
Deputy Director of Information Management, Mission Support, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2020-00711 Filed 1-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-27-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 150 (Wednesday, August 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46492-46494]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0343]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Little River to Savannah River

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Lady's Island Bridge, across the
Beaufort River, Mile 536.0 at Beaufort, SC. This deviation will test a
change to the drawbridge operation schedule to determine whether a
permanent change to the schedule is needed to reduce vehicular traffic
concerns in surrounding communities. This deviation will allow Lady's
Island Bridge to close for extended hours during peak morning and
afternoon commute hours. The bridge owner, South Carolina Department of
Transportation, requested this action to assist in reducing traffic
caused by bridge openings.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on August 5, 2015 until
6 p.m. on November 3, 2015.
    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard
on or

before September 4, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be received
by the Coast Guard on or before September 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-0343 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Rod Elkins at telephone 305-415-
6989, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2015-0343), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online
via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the
Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax,
hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having
been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket
Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, type the docket number [USCG-2015-
0343] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a
Comment'' on the line associated with this rulemaking. If you submit
your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know
that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2015-0343) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    As of now, we do not plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit
a request for one using one of the three methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine
that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The Ladys Island in Beaufort, South Carolina has a vertical
clearance of 30 feet at mean high water in the closed position. The
normal operating schedule is published in 33 CFR 117.911(f). As
currently implemented, the draw shall operate as follows:
    (1) On Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays:
    (i) From 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need not
open; and,
    (ii) Between 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour
and half-hour.
    (2) At all other times the draw shall open on signal.
    This schedule has been in effect since Dec. 16, 1985.
    For the following reasons the Coast Guard is testing a new schedule
for the Lady's Island Bridge:
    The City of Beaufort, South Carolina and South Carolina Department
of Transportation have requested that the U.S. Coast Guard change the
regulation of this bridge as it has negatively impacted the City of
Beaufort and surrounding communities. According to both the City of
Beaufort and the South Carolina Department of Transportation, vehicle
traffic in downtown Beaufort has increased substantially over the last
few years and city officials are anticipating additional growth in this
area which will produce additional vehicle traffic. As the Lady's
Island Bridge is located just west of the city, each time it opens
vehicle traffic is at a standstill and at times takes longer than a \1/
2\ hour to clear; thereby, making some vehicles wait for two bridge
openings. This temporary deviation is intended to test a new bridge
operation schedule to reduce traffic caused by bridge openings. The
bridge owner, South Carolina Department of Transportation, has reviewed
the City of Beaufort's request to change the operating schedule and has
asked the Coast Guard to pursue recommended changes. In the event the
test proves successful, the Coast Guard will issue a further rule
making this change permanent.
    This deviation will allow the Lady's Island Bridge in Beaufort,
South Carolina to remain closed to navigation from 6:30 a.m. to 9 a.m.
and from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. Between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. the bridge will
open on the top of the hour. At all other times the bridge will open on
demand.
    Any vessel that can safely transit under the Lady's Island Bridge
while closed may continue to navigate under the bridge during this
deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular

operating schedule immediately at the end of this temporary deviation's
effective period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: July 24, 2015.
 Barry Dragon,
Bridge Administrator, U.S. Coast Guard, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-19112 Filed 8-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41838-41840]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17205]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67387; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-87]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Phlx's Fee Schedule Governing Order Execution on Its NASDAQ OMX PSX
Facility

July 10, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 27, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Phlx proposes to modify Phlx's fee schedule governing order
execution on its NASDAQ OMX PSX (``PSX'') facility. Phlx will implement
the proposed change on July 2, 2012. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/nasdaqomxphlx/phlx/, at Phlx's principal office, at http://www.sec.gov,
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 self regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Phlx is proposing to modify its fee schedule governing order
execution on PSX. Currently, PSX has a fee schedule under which members
are charged a relatively high fee of $0.0027 per share executed to
access liquidity and receive a relatively high rebate when providing
liquidity, with the level of the rebate varying based on whether the
order providing the liquidity is displayed or non-displayed, whether
liquidity is provided through a minimum life order, and the original
size of the order providing the liquidity. In addition, the current fee
schedule has special pricing with regard to securities listed on the
New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'').
    Phlx is proposing to replace much of the current fee schedule with
a new schedule under which market participants providing liquidity will
be charged a low fee, and members accessing liquidity will either be

charged a low fee or not incur a fee, depending on their volume levels.
Phlx believes that the change may encourage greater use of PSX.
    For securities priced at $1 or more per share, an order that
accesses liquidity through a market participant identifier (``MPID'')
through which a market participant provides an average daily volume of
25,000 or more shares of liquidity or accesses an average daily volume
of 3.5 million or more shares of liquidity during the month will pay no
fee when accessing liquidity. Other orders that access liquidity will
pay $0.0005 per share executed. By contrast, members now pay $0.0019
per share for accessing liquidity in securities listed on NYSE, and
$0.0027 per share executed for other securities. For securities priced
at less than $1, Phlx is lowering the fee from 0.20% of the total
transaction cost to $0.10% of the total transaction cost.
    For securities priced at $1 or more per share, Phlx will charge
$0.0002 per share executed for an order that provides liquidity through
an MPID through which a market participant provides an average daily
volume of 10 million or more shares of liquidity during the month, and
will charge $0.0005 per share executed for other orders that provide
liquidity. By contrast, members now receive a rebate ranging from
$0.0005 to $0.0026 per share executed when providing liquidity. For
securities priced below $1, Phlx will continue neither to charge a fee
nor to pay a rebate with respect to orders that provide liquidity.
2. Statutory Basis
    Phlx believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with Sections
6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which Phlx operates or controls, and is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
All similarly situated members are subject to the same fee structure,
and access to Phlx is offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms.
Phlx believes that the change to the fees for orders that access
liquidity is reasonable, because it will result in a substantial
reduction in the cost of accessing liquidity on PSX. Similarly, Phlx
believes that although the proposal will replace rebates for providing
liquidity on PSX with fees, the change is reasonable because the level
of the fees is very low compared with fees charged by other trading
venues that charge liquidity providers. For example, NASDAQ OMX BX
charges liquidity providers fees that range from $0.0015 to $0.0018 per
share executed, while PSX proposes to charge fees ranging from $0.0002
to $0.0005 per share executed. Phlx further believes that the proposed
changes are consistent with an equitable allocation of fees. The
changes will result in a move away from a maker-taker pricing model, in
which one side of a trade pays a fee and the other receives a credit,
to a model in which both sides are charged very low rates, or one side
is charged a low rate and the other is not charged. While Phlx believes
that for many exchanges, the emphasis of the maker-taker pricing model
on encouraging deep and liquid markets provides market structure
benefits, it also believes that market participants may benefit from an
alternative pricing model that offers consistently low cost on all
trades. Phlx also believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory, in that the basic rate of $0.0005 per share executed is
the same for both accessing and providing liquidity, while more
favorable pricing tiers are offered to market participants that
contribute to the success and market quality of PSX through active use
of its trading services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Phlx notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, Phlx must continually adjust its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems
that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards
applicable to exchanges. Phlx believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment because it is designed to create
pricing incentives for greater use of PSX's trading services.

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

    Phlx 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. Because the market
for order execution is extremely competitive, members may readily opt
to disfavor Phlx's execution services if they believe that alternatives
offer them better value. The proposed change is designed to enhance
competition by using pricing incentives to encourage greater use of
PSX's trading services.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\5\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the 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 to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2012-87 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-Phlx-2012-87. 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, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office 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-Phlx-2012-87 and should be
submitted on or before August 6, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17205 Filed 7-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 242 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 78651]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31737]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 772

Definitions of Terms

CFR Correction

    In Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 300 to 799,
revised as of January 1, 2015, on pages 723, 727, and 733, in Sec.
772.1, remove the definitions of ``fault tolerance'', ``laser
duration'' and ``positioning accuracy''.

[FR Doc. 2015-31737 Filed 12-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01-D