[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60978-60985]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23905]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0214; FRL-9917-43-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Regional Haze and Interstate Transport Affecting Visibility State
Implementation Plan Revisions; Withdrawal of Federal Implementation
Plan for the San Juan Generating Station

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to withdraw a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for New Mexico
that became effective on September 21, 2011, that applies to the San
Juan Generating Station (SJGS) in San Juan County, New Mexico, which is
operated by the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM). We are
removing the FIP requirements because we are taking final action today
in a separate document in the Federal Register to approve revisions to
the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the New
Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) to EPA, which address revised
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) and the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) concerning non-interference with programs in other states to
protect visibility.

DATES: This final rule is effective November 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0214. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information the disclosure of which is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will
be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. A 15 cent per page fee will be
charged for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area on the seventh floor
at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Feldman (6PD-L), Air
Planning Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue (6PD-L), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Feldman can also be reached via electronic mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What final action is EPA taking?
III. Responses to comments received
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    The State of New Mexico adopted and transmitted an Interstate
Transport SIP revision on September 17, 2007 for the purpose of
addressing the ``good neighbor'' provisions of the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA disapproved a portion of that SIP submittal
addressing the requirements with respect to visibility transport and
concurrently promulgated a FIP establishing enforceable NOX
and SO2 emission limits for the SJGS on August 22, 2011. EPA
found that New Mexico sources, except the San Juan Generating Station,
were sufficiently controlled to eliminate interference with the
visibility programs of other states (see 76 FR 52388). EPA set
SO2 emission limits of 0.15 pounds per million British
Thermal Units (lb/MMBtu) for the four units of the SJGS. EPA set
enforceable NOX emission limits of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu

based upon EPA's NOX BART determination for SJGS, to ensure
that its emissions would meet the ``good neighbor'' requirement for
visibility protection, as well as the requirement for NOX
BART. (76 FR 52388, August 22, 2011). EPA's NOX BART
emission limits can be met by the installation of selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) at all four units of SJGS. Among other things, the FIP
also included a sulfuric acid (H2SO4) emission
limit to minimize the contribution of this pollutant to visibility
impairment, since emissions of this pollutant can potentially increase
due to operation of SCR.
    The background for today's final rule withdrawing that FIP and
today's separate action approving the New Mexico SIP revisions is
discussed in detail in our May 12, 2014 notice (see 79 FR 26909). The
comment period on the proposed action was open for thirty days, and
several comments were received.

II. What final action is EPA taking?

    We are withdrawing the New Mexico Regional Haze (RH) and Interstate
Transport (IT) FIP at 40 CFR 52.1628, which applies to Units 1, 2, 3,
and 4 of PNM's San Juan Generating Station. As explained in our May 12,
2014 proposal (see 79 FR 26909), this action is possible because of our
separate action to approve the New Mexico SIP revisions, which update
the New Mexico RH and Visibility Transport SIP to include a revised
BART determination for the units at the PNM's San Juan Generating
Station, as well as enforceable SO2 and NOX
emission limits for the SJGS that sufficiently prevent emissions from
sources in New Mexico from interfering with the visibility programs of
other states. New Mexico's revised SIP includes a control scenario
proposed by PNM that incorporates the shutdown of two of the four units
at the SJGS by December 31, 2017--a new control scenario that had not
been evaluated as part of the FIP. EPA has determined that when cost,
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and anticipated
visibility benefits are taken into consideration, New Mexico's revised
determination of NOX BART for the SJGS is reasonable. The
revised BART determination in the New Mexico RH SIP revision results in
substantial visibility benefits and energy and non-air quality
environmental benefits, and is highly cost-effective. The incremental
visibility benefit of the four-SCR scenario of the FIP over the State's
revised BART determination is small at most Class I areas, and New
Mexico reasonably concluded that this small additional visibility
benefit did not justify the increase in costs associated with
installation of SCR on all four units. EPA's review of the New Mexico
SIP revisions is discussed in detail in our May 12, 2014 document (see
79 FR 26909).
    EPA has made the determination that the New Mexico RH and
Visibility Transport SIP revisions are approvable because the plan's
provisions meet all applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA
implementing regulations. EPA is finalizing this action under section
110 and part C of the Act. The action to approve the SIP is in a
separate action contained in today's Federal Register. Upon the
effective date of the Federal Register documents, the requirements in
the approved SIP apply and the FIP requirements for the SJGS are
withdrawn.

III. Responses to Comments Received

    We received several comments on our proposed approval of the 2013
RH SIP revisions. Copies of the comments are available in the docket
for this rulemaking. A summary of the issues raised in the comment
letters and our responses to these comments is included in our notice
of final rulemaking concerning the approval of the New Mexico SIP
revisions and is reproduced below. (Please see Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2014-0214 in the regulations.gov Web site).
    Comment: A commenter, identified as a part owner of SJGS Unit 4,
requested a 12-month extension of the SIP's compliance period for
meeting the new NOX limits. The commenter referred to the
EPA proposal, ``Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing
Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units,'' subsequently
published at 79 FR 34829 (June 18, 2014), and asserted that an
extension would allow for adequate consideration of the impacts of the
proposal relative to the investment considerations of installing SNCRs
at the SJGS. The commenter stated that ownership of SJGS presently
includes utilities from five Western states, and the interstate nature
of ownership and emissions complicates a coordinated compliance
planning process. Another commenter, identified as a part owner of SJGS
Units 1 and 2, supported the costs, anticipated haze reduction, and
other environmental benefits associated with the 2013 RH SIP revision,
but similarly requested that EPA amend its approval and provide
additional time for installation of SNCR on the basis that more time is
needed to study the proposed standards for reducing carbon pollution at
existing EGUs.
    Response: EPA believes that CAA section 111(d) efforts and actions
will tend to contribute to overall air quality improvements and thus
should be complementary to criteria pollutant and regional haze SIP
efforts but do not provide a basis for delaying implementation of these
efforts. See 79 FR at 34931. The 111(d) proposal specifically mentions
the next 10-year SIP revision for regional haze that is due by July
2018 and covers the time period through 2028, explaining that the
timeframes proposed for submittal of the CAA section 111(d) state plans
will allow considerable time for coordination by states in the
development of their respective plans. The proposal does not suggest
that further delays are warranted for implementing the regional haze
requirements that were first due in December 2007. Indeed, states and
affected sources will be able to take into account requirements of
programs such as Regional Haze in considering the development of state
plans under section 111(d).
    More importantly here, EPA cannot alter an otherwise approvable SIP
revision to extend a compliance date. The 2013 RH SIP revision
submitted by New Mexico provides the compliance date. Moreover, the
compliance dates that New Mexico set are as ``expeditious as
practicable,'' as required by the CAA. See CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A),
(g)(2). Because the compliance dates meet CAA requirements, EPA cannot
establish different compliance dates when taking action on the SIP
revision. See CAA section 110(k)(3), (l).
    Comment: A commenter stated that unit retirements and
NOX controls at SJGS would reduce regional haze and provide
other significant environmental, economic, and health benefits, and
states that ``these additional benefits must be recognized.'' The
commenter requested, however, that EPA's approval contain a statement
reflecting EPA's willingness to consider eliminating the NOX
emission control requirements on Units 1 and 4 if, by December 31,
2016, there is a commitment to permanently retire Unit 1 and/or 4
within a reasonably short time-frame. PNM responded to this request in
its own comment (although it mistakenly cited the date of December 31,
2015 when paraphrasing the comment). PNM's comment stated that EPA
should reject the request for an EPA statement regarding the retirement
of additional capacity because the Agency lacks any analysis or basis
upon which to evaluate the efficacy or legality of the request.
    Response: We decline to endorse a proposal not before us, as
suggested by

the commenter. Because the 2013 RH SIP revision meets CAA requirements,
we are required to approve it. See CAA section 110(k)(3), (l).
    Comment: PNM submitted a comment supporting the proposed rule,
agreeing that the 2013 RH SIP revision is reasonable, even when EPA's
estimated SCR costs are used. PNM asserted, however, that its own
estimated SCR capital costs were confirmed by detailed bids from
engineering, procurement, and construction contractors, and that none
of the bids were in the range of EPA's estimated SCR costs. PNM
believed that these bids should satisfy any requirement for enhanced
documentation to support higher SCR costs, but acknowledged that their
cost estimates provide different treatment to items such as sorbent
injection, apportionment of balanced draft costs, and fees and
contingencies.
    Response: We appreciate PMN's comment supporting approval. As
identified by the comment, EPA's cost analysis for SCR was based on a
different design (e.g., no costs for sorbent injection) than the design
PNM used when soliciting bids from vendors. PNM's bids were not
submitted with the comment and, based on the available documentation,
we remain unable to conclude that certain line items in PNM's SCR cost
estimates are well supported. While the BART Guidelines explain that
data from vendor bids may be used in developing equipment cost
estimates, this does not mean that bottom-line figures can serve as a
substitute for a full cost analysis or that all costs included therein
would be appropriate for making an assessment of cost-effectiveness.
The expectation remains that the cost analysis maintain and improve
consistency through adherence to the OAQPS Control Cost Manual, where
possible. Moreover, the BART Guidelines state that documentation is
expected, and indeed especially important, where a state believes that
costs will be unreasonable even though other recent retrofits have
cost-effectiveness values that are within what has been considered a
reasonable range. As we established in our FIP, recent SCR retrofits at
coal-fired power plants have been found to be cost-effective, and this
cost effectiveness is generally validated by large emission reductions
even when there are large capital costs.
    Comment: NMED provided comments in support of approval and stated
that they generally concur with our description and evaluation of the
State Alternative for NOX BART.
    Response: We appreciate this comment.
    Comment: NMED commented that states cannot be required to take a
unit-specific (or unit-by-unit) approach to assessing the BART factors.
In American Corn Growers v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2002), a
reviewing court held that it was invalid to consider visibility impacts
on a multiple-source basis while employing a source-specific approach
to the other four BART factors. The commenter stated that requiring
states to assess visibility on a facility-wide basis while considering
the other factors on a unit-by-unit basis would be similarly
unsupported by the statute and would impermissibly constrain state
authority.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. In American Corn Growers,
the D.C. Circuit held that EPA could not adopt a ``group-BART
approach'' to the visibility factor because it could force states to
require BART controls at some sources without any empirical evidence of
a particular source's contribution to visibility impairment in a Class
I area. As a result, the Regional Haze Rule and BART Guidelines require
states to analyze the five statutory factors for each BART-eligible
source without reference to the benefits that BART will achieve at
other sources. Beyond this, however, the court did not opine on how the
BART factors should be analyzed or weighed by states, let alone
proscribe a unit-specific or prescribe a facility-wide approach to
BART.
    As we recently explained in our action on the Wyoming regional haze
SIP, see 79 FR 5031 (Jan. 30, 2014), the BART Guidelines prescribe that
states ``must conduct a visibility improvement determination for the
source(s) as part of the BART determination,'' \1\ and we interpret
this language as requiring states to consider the visibility
improvement from BART applied to the BART-eligible source as a whole.
We do not believe that either the CAA or the BART Guidelines mandate
either a unit-specific or a facility-wide approach to analyzing or
weighing the remaining BART factors. In most circumstances, however, we
believe that states should use a unit-specific approach to assessing
the technical feasibility and costs of controls options, as well as the
existing controls and remaining useful life of BART-eligible units.
This approach is clearly contemplated by the BART Guidelines and has
been used for decades in other CAA contexts, such as the evaluation of
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for new and modified major
stationary sources.\2\ A unit-specific approach to these factors is
appropriate because the age, type, size, location, and emission
characteristics of the various emission units at a source can differ
greatly, and many control options by design apply to a single unit.
However, in unique circumstances, such as in situations where a control
strategy can be implemented facility-wide or where the benefits of unit
shutdowns must be taken into account, then we believe that the CAA and
BART Guidelines provide states with the flexibility to analyze and
weigh the BART factors for the source as a whole, rather than for its
constituent emission units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR part 51, app. Y, section IV.D.5.
    \2\ See New Source Review Workshop Manual (Oct. 1990), available
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/nsr/gen/wkshpman.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: NMED responded to a statement in the proposal that
expressed some concern with the appropriateness of including
SO2 reductions from units 1 and 4 in one of the
NOX BART control options analyzed, rather than as part of
the facility's baseline emissions, by explaining that the
SO2 limit of 0.10 lbs/MMBtu is required by the 2013 RH SIP
revision alone and would not be required if the FIP continues to remain
in force.
    Response: While the inclusion of the SO2 reductions in
the SIP helps to further demonstrate non-interference with the
visibility protection programs of other states, in keeping with the
visibility transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
and helps in showing the overall visibility benefits of the 2013 RH SIP
revision, we had noted that those reductions do not specifically lend
support to a visibility improvement determination for NOX
BART through the application of NOX controls. However, no
commenters took issue with the inclusion of SO2 reductions
in the studied scenarios or insisted that refinements were necessary on
this point, and it remains our view that the inclusion of the
reductions did not meaningfully impact the evaluation of visibility
benefits due to NOX reductions at the facility.
    Comment: The Navajo Nation submitted a comment supporting the
proposal as the best scenario for meeting BART, endorsing it for having
reasonable costs of compliance and a realistic timeframe. The comment
also stated that the 2013 RH SIP revision addressed concerns regarding
potential job losses faced by Navajo work forces at the SJGS and San
Juan mine more effectively than EPA's FIP.
    Response: We appreciate this comment supporting approval.

    Comment: One commenter stated that the 2013 RH SIP revision appears
to be an alternative consistent with the intent of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)
and therefore needs to demonstrate greater reasonable progress than
EPA's BART determination. The fact that the 2013 RH SIP revision does
not demonstrate greater reasonable progress than EPA's BART
determination gave the commenter concern because the commenter
considered it a departure from rules and guidance. The commenter also
asserted that previous EPA decisions have required a source to
demonstrate its proposed alternative is better than EPA's BART
determination, citing actions for Idaho and the Four Corners Power
Plant.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The comment provided a citation to 79 FR 23273 (April 28,
2014) relating to the Tasco facility in Idaho, and one to ``78 FR
24112,'' which we interpret as having intended to refer to 78 FR
60700 (October 2, 2013) (bearing ``FR Doc. 2013-24112'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We disagree that the 2013 RH SIP revision appears to be a
BART alternative under Sec.  51.308(e)(2). New Mexico explicitly stated
that it was not evaluating a BART alternative when responding to
comments during the state process and again when submitting comments to
support our proposed approval. Therefore, New Mexico was not required
to make a demonstration of greater reasonable progress. Instead, New
Mexico evaluated a new, source-specific BART determination under Sec.
51.308(e)(1). To fully account for the source owner's proposed unit
shutdowns, New Mexico chose to weigh the BART factors in light of
source-wide considerations. As explained in our proposal and elsewhere
in our responses to comments, we believe that this approach is
permissible under the CAA and the BART Guidelines. The prior EPA
actions cited by the commenter are not relevant to our action on New
Mexico's NOX BART determination for SJGS. While both the
Four Corners and Idaho actions contained BART alternatives that
demonstrated greater reasonable progress, we are not evaluating a BART
alternative here. Moreover, while the Idaho action also involved two
new BART determinations that happened to be more stringent than the
state's original BART determinations, neither the CAA nor our
regulations require a new BART determination to be more stringent in
every instance in order to supersede a prior BART determination.
    Comment: One commenter argued that the CAA requires that any
alternative regional haze strategy must outperform the visibility gains
of the existing strategy or, in other words, be ``better than BART,''
and the 2013 RH SIP revision fails to accomplish this. Citing to CAA
section 7410(a) and (l), the commenter argued that the characterization
of the 2013 RH SIP revision as including a new BART determination is
plainly unlawful because the State has not undertaken the BART analysis
required by the CAA and BART Guidelines, and EPA did not provide any
explanation for why the SIP revision is approvable when the FIP had a
more stringent BART determination.
    Response: As explained above, the 2013 RH SIP revision was not
submitted to meet Sec.  51.308(e)(2) requirements, so it is not
required to be better than BART. As we stated in the proposal, the 2013
RH SIP revision contains a new, source-specific BART analysis that is
based on different underlying facts than those that were present when
we evaluated our FIP. Thus, the commenter's assertion that the state
failed to undertake a BART analysis is clearly incorrect. Finally,
contrary to the commenter's assertion, CAA section 110(l) does not
prohibit a state from submitting a SIP that is less stringent than a
FIP. Our proposal provided an analysis conducted under section 110(l),
which showed that the 2013 RH SIP revision would not interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or any other CAA requirement.
See 79 FR at 26920. Because New Mexico complied with the CAA's
visibility protection provisions, the Regional Haze Rule, and the BART
Guidelines, and made a reasonable control determination based on the
weighing of the five factors, EPA is required to approve the 2013 RH
SIP revision.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the 2013 RH SIP revision does
not comply with the mandatory unit-specific analytical approach
required by the CAA. The commenter argued that the BART Guidelines
require BART to be determined on a unit-specific basis because a BART
emission limit must be established for each affected emission unit. The
commenter also pointed out that the BART Guidelines provide an example
of a unit-specific approach where they state that ``control options
must be analyzed for Units B through H as well as Unit A.''
Consequently, the commenter concluded that New Mexico and EPA are
required to follow the unit-specific approach.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. The portion of the BART
Guidelines cited by the commenter explains how all BART units at the
subject to BART source must be included in the BART analysis. The 2013
SIP revision implements BART at each BART-subject unit by requiring
either shutdowns or controls. Also, while the BART Guidelines clearly
contemplate that states will analyze technical feasibility and cost-
effectiveness on a unit-specific basis, they do not explicitly require
such an approach, nor do they provide guidance for situations in which
a source proposes unit shutdowns as an emission-reduction strategy.
Moreover, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the CAA does not
mandate any specific analytical approach. Consequently, in situations
where a state is contemplating a novel control scenario not
contemplated by the BART Guidelines, such as one that involves unit
shutdowns, we believe that states have the flexibility to tailor their
BART analyses by evaluating and weighing the BART factors on a
facility-wide (i.e., ``source'') basis rather than on a unit-specific
basis in order to account for the emission reductions and benefits that
would directly result from the shutdowns. Moreover, while BART emission
limits are also typically established for each unit that comprises the
BART-eligible source, as New Mexico chose to do here, nothing in the
CAA or BART Guidelines prevents a state from setting an emission limit
that averages emissions across multiple units, so long as that limit is
``based on the degree of reduction achievable through the best system
of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant.'' See 40 CFR
51.301.
    Comment: One commenter stated that a facility-wide BART
determination is inconsistent with other EPA actions. The commenter
cited to EPA actions in Indiana and Montana to support this
contention.\4\ The commenter also pointed out that EPA used a unit-
specific approach to analyzing the first four factors when promulgating
its FIP for SJGS. The commenter called EPA's proposal an unexplained
departure from EPA's past practice in implementing its binding
guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Specifically, the commenter cited our Indiana regional haze
SIP action (77 FR 3975, 3982 (Jan. 26, 2012)) for its statement that
a source needs to ``implement BART at each BART-subject unit,'' and
the Montana regional haze FIP (77 FR 57864, Sept. 18, 2012) for
discussing statutory BART factors for units at a BART source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We disagree with this comment for the same reasons
explained above. EPA's actions in Indiana, Montana, and our FIP for
SJGS did not involve unit shutdowns and therefore are not determinative
of how the BART statutory factors should be considered and weighed in
this context. Also, contrary to the commenter's assertion, we explained
in our proposal why New Mexico's approach was

reasonable in light of the unique circumstances presented and, on that
basis, cannot validly be seen as any departure from past actions. As
was stated, the state's approach reasonably takes into account the
visibility, energy, and non-air quality environmental benefits
associated with unit shutdowns. See 79 FR 26918. Furthermore, the 2013
SIP revision implements BART at each BART-subject unit by requiring
either shutdowns or controls.
    Comment: A commenter stated that EPA's proposal arbitrarily
rejected SCR in favor of less effective pollution controls even though
EPA found that an emission limitation based on SCR was BART in the FIP.
The commenter explained that SCR provides the best visibility outcomes
and is cost-effective.
    Response: Under different factual circumstances, we determined that
SCR for the four SJGS units had reasonable average cost-effectiveness
values and would promote significant visibility improvements, thereby
supporting the basis for the emission limits set forth in the FIP. In
the 2013 RH SIP revision, New Mexico demonstrated that SNCR in tandem
with shutdowns has visibility benefits on par with those anticipated
from the FIP at much lower overall costs, while also reducing overall
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts. Although we continue
to believe that SCR is a cost-effective control and are not abandoning
the legal and technical basis for our FIP, we believe that when cost,
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and anticipated
visibility benefits are all taken into consideration, New Mexico's
determination that the State Alternative is BART is reasonable. While
SCR remains cost-effective on a $/ton basis, the incremental visibility
benefit of the four-SCR scenario of the FIP over the State Alternative
is small at most Class I areas, and New Mexico reasonably concluded
that this small additional visibility benefit, when considered with the
difference in the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, did
not justify the large increase in costs associated with the
installation of SCR on all four units.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the visibility impacts of the
State Alternative are significantly worse than the four-SCR scenario in
the FIP. The commenter explained that the difference in visibility
impacts between the two scenarios will be 0.47 dv at Mesa Verde, 0.24
dv at Canyonlands, and 0.13 dv at Weminuche. The sum of these
visibility differences is 0.84 dv, which is above the 0.5 dv threshold
that is used to determine ``significance.'' Also, the State Alternative
will result in five more days with impacts over 1 dv at Mesa Verde,
three more days at Arches, and two more days at both Canyonlands and La
Garita when compared to the four-SCR scenario in the FIP.
    Response: As we stated in the proposal when comparing the two
scenarios, while we have some concern with the modeled visibility
differences between the two control scenarios for Mesa Verde and
Canyonlands, we find that the State's decision to select the State
Alternative was ultimately reasonable, especially considering the costs
of compliance and the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts
of the two scenarios. We noted that the difference in visibility
impacts between the two scenarios are negligible at most of the Class I
areas examined. The average difference at the 13 other Class I areas
(other than Mesa Verde, Canyonlands, and Weminuche) is less than 0.1 dv
between the two control scenarios. In considering the number of days
impacted, eleven Class I areas show no difference in the number of days
with impacts over 1 dv. We also note that the typical application of
0.5 dv as a contribution threshold comes in the context of assessing
impacts at a single Class I area, not cumulative impacts across
multiple Class I areas.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the CAA requires EPA to either
improve the State Alternative or reject it altogether.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. As we explained earlier,
EPA is required to approve any SIP revision that meets CAA
requirements. See CAA section 110(k)(3), (l). EPA does not have
authority to improve a SIP revision that is otherwise approvable, and
the commenter has provided no basis for EPA to disapprove the 2013 RH
SIP revision.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA based its proposed approval
on a fundamentally flawed cost-benefit analysis that artificially
inflated the cost and artificially reduced the benefits of SCR. The
commenter also thought that New Mexico underestimated the costs of
SNCR. The commenter argued that EPA had no rational basis for
concluding that cost refinements would not change the result. The
commenter cited to Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 538 F.3d 1172, 1201-03 (9th Cir. 2008),
for the proposition that EPA must re-calculate a cost value that would
significantly alter the analysis. With cost corrections, the commenter
believed that New Mexico's capital cost assumptions for SCR would be
cut in half, demonstrating that SCR remains cost-effective at Units 1
and 4. The commenter provided an attachment that highlighted how New
Mexico's cost range for SCR at SJGS was well above the cost per
kilowatt for SCR demonstrated by other cost studies for comparable
retrofits.
    Response: We maintain our view that SCR has favorable and
reasonable average cost-effectiveness values at SJGS under the
technical record developed for the FIP, and we agree with the comment
that New Mexico's cost range for SCR is still high compared to other
cost studies. Even so, as discussed in response to comments from PNM
concerning cost, the state's BART selection in this case is reasonable.
New Mexico was advantaged with the full technical record that we
developed to promulgate the FIP, and the state declared that it would
favor the 2013 RH SIP revision even if it were to adopt and utilize the
lower costs for SCR that we had relied on in promulgating the FIP. In
addition, in our proposed action, we recalculated the annual cost and
incremental cost-effectiveness of the four-SCR option using the cost
estimates presented in the FIP. Thus, there is a significant record
basis for our finding that lower SCR costs would not change the result
of our action.
    As to the state's alleged underestimation of SNCR costs, the
comment does not provide any details to enable us to provide a
response. We also considered the Ninth Circuit's decision in Center for
Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
and do not see how it has any bearing on the issue of costs in this
case. In that case, the Ninth Circuit faulted NHTSA for its failure to
monetize the value of carbon emissions in setting fuel economy
standards. In addition to the fact that the case did not concern BART
determinations, the comment does not identify any particular line item
in the state's analysis of SCR costs that has not been monetized.
    Comment: One commenter stated that our proposal failed to consider
the prospect of installing SCR on Units 1 and 4, while still shutting
down Units 2 and 3. The commenter noted that such a scenario would lead
to even greater visibility benefits. The commenter provided modeled
visibility results and estimates of the level of emission reductions
that would result from this scenario and concluded that the State
Alternative was inferior.
    Response: While we acknowledge that a scenario at SJGS involving
two shutdowns and two SCRs would result in superior visibility benefits
than the State Alternative or even the FIP, the

state did not present this scenario to us in the 2013 RH SIP revision.
As we explained above, we are required to evaluate the SIP revision
that is before us. Moreover, in situations that involve the voluntary
retirement of units, states need the flexibility to analyze control
scenarios that have the support of the source owner. There is no
evidence in the record indicating that PNM would have volunteered to
retire two of its units if SCR were required on the remaining units.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the NMED's BART analysis
contains a flawed visibility analysis. The commenter argued that NMED
arbitrarily ignored fourteen Class I areas between 300 km and 440 km
from SJGS in its cumulative visibility analysis, which was an arbitrary
and unexplained departure from EPA's analytical approach that was
followed in analyzing the Big Stone and Colstrip power plants. The
commenter concluded that the failure to assess impacts at more distant
Class I areas masked the full visibility benefit of SCR. Finally, the
commenter referred to comments submitted by the National Park Service
to New Mexico on their proposed SIP revision, which stated that the
visibility modeling was not done according to the BART Guidelines.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. In regard to selecting a
model and developing a modeling protocol, the BART Guidelines refer to
our Guideline on Air Quality Models \5\ and the Interagency Workgroup
on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 report.\6\ The IWAQM report
reviewed model-performance evaluations of CALPUFF as a function of
distance from the source and recommended the use of CALPUFF for
transport distances of order 200 km and less. The report also
recommended that the use of CALPUFF for characterizing transport beyond
200 to 300 km should be done cautiously with an awareness of the likely
problems involved. Consistent with this recommendation, we believe that
it is reasonable to use CALPUFF to evaluate visibility impacts up to
300 km. While we agree with the commenter that emissions from SJGS may
impact Class I areas at distances greater than 300 km, the IWAQM report
cautions that CALPUFF results are less reliable at distances greater
than 300 km. Therefore, we do not think that it is arbitrary to exclude
more distant receptors from a visibility analysis or to base the
visibility assessment for a BART determination on visibility impacts
within 300 km from the source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 ``Guideline to Air Quality
Models'' states: ``It was concluded from these case studies that the
CALPUFF dispersion model had performed in a reasonable manner, and
had no apparent bias toward over or under prediction, so long as the
transport distance was limited to less than 300 km.''
    \6\ Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Interagency Workgroup
on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and
Recommendations for Modeling Long-Range Transport Impacts.
Publication No. EPA-454/R-98-019. Office of Air Quality Planning &
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. (NTIS No. PB 99-121089)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to the commenter's suggestion, this was the same approach
followed when modeling the visibility benefits associated with various
control scenarios at the Colstrip power plant. See 77 FR 57867-68. In
regard to the Big Stone power plant, South Dakota performed modeling
for Class I areas beyond 300 km only because there were no Class I
areas within 300 km of the source. As a result, South Dakota worked
with EPA to develop a special modeling protocol that incorporated
CALPUFF's puff-splitting option despite the IWAQM report's conceptual
concerns with that feature. Moreover, South Dakota expressly
acknowledged that it was departing from EPA's guidance. Consequently,
we believe that Big Stone presented an exception to the general rule
that CALPUFF be applied to assess visibility impacts only on those
Class I areas within 300 km of the source. Finally, in regard to NPS's
comments concerning the visibility analysis during the state process,
we agree with the response provided at the time by NMED \7\ and note
that NPS did not raise these concerns again in their comments on our
proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Available as NMED Ex. 14 of the 2013 RH SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter stated that the proposed 0.23 lb/MMBtu limit
does not apply to each unit due to a cross-unit averaging provision, so
the emissions from a given unit could be higher than 0.23 lb/MMbtu.
    Response: In this case, it is appropriate for the 2013 RH SIP
revision to allow SJGS to average emissions across its BART-eligible
emission units within the fence line. The BART Guidelines allow this
approach when, as here, the reductions would be equal to those
reductions that would be obtained by simply controlling each of the
BART-eligible units that constitute the BART source. Because SJGS is
required to demonstrate continuous compliance over a reasonable
averaging time, the reductions associated with the assigned limit are
assured. As part of its five-factor analysis, New Mexico evaluated the
control effectiveness of SNCR and determined that SNCR could achieve an
emission rate of 0.23 lb/MMBtu on each unit based on tests and an
updated performance guarantee from the vendor.\8\ Consistent with the
BART Guidelines, the permit conditions at A112C specify the averaging
time and calculation methodology for the enforceable emission limit,
which must be calculated on a 30-boiler-operating-day basis, averaged
across the two units. While we agree with the commenter that emissions
from either unit may exceed 0.23 lb/MMBtu on a given day, the combined
emissions from both units cannot exceed 0.23 lb/MMBtu over the course
of the averaging period, so total emission reductions will be equal to
those that would be obtained under two separate limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Public Service Company of New Mexico, San Juan Generating
Station, Revised SNCR Analysis, February 11, 2011 (2011 NM RH SIP,
NMED Ex. 7t)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter alleged that our proposal implied that PNM's
decision to retire Units 2 and 3 was solely taken for the purpose of
meeting BART. The commenter suggested that EPA should explicitly state
whether this was the case for the record or discuss whether independent
reasons would require or motivate the shutdown of the units.
    Response: We fail to see how this comment is relevant to our
evaluation of the 2013 RH SIP revision. Nevertheless, we note that,
when developing the FIP, we assumed that the remaining useful life of
all four units at SJGS exceeded 30 years, and the 2013 RH SIP revision
provides no information that would change that assumption. Nor does the
SIP revision provide any information to suggest that PNM had
motivations other than creating a more cost-effective BART-compliance
scenario when volunteering to shut down Units 2 and 3.
    Comment: A commenter stated that, while our proposal implied that
there will be no capacity increase elsewhere or at the SJGS to replace
the lost capacity from Units 2 and 3, the final rule should make this
explicit to properly give weight to the benefits from their retirement.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. As an initial matter, our
proposal did not imply that the retirement of Units 2 and 3 could be
undertaken without the possible need to address lost capacity. Most
likely, the lost capacity will be replaced through some combination of
conservation, efficiency, and new capacity. More importantly, however,
the CAA does not require an analysis of the statutory factors to
include the consideration of hypothetical emissions increases at

other facilities or even at the same facility due to lost capacity. We
also note that any emissions units that might be constructed at SJGS in
the future would likely be subject to both BACT and any applicable new
source performance standards. Moreover, all emission units would be
subject to analysis under the regional haze requirements for reasonable
progress in future planning periods.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that our proposal failed to explain
how New Mexico could permissibly reach a conclusion that directly
opposes EPA's conclusion in the FIP. The commenter stated that the
voluntary retirement of Units 2 and 3 did not change the fact that SCR
remains cost-effective at the Units 1 and 4.
    Response: We disagree that the 2013 RH SIP reached a conclusion
that directly opposes the conclusion we made in promulgating the FIP.
Under different factual circumstances, we determined that SCR for the
four SJGS units had reasonable average cost-effectiveness values and
would promote significant visibility improvements, thereby supporting
the basis for the emission limits set forth in the FIP. As we stated in
the proposal, the 2013 RH SIP revision contains a new, source-specific
BART analysis that is based on different underlying facts than those
that were present when we evaluated our FIP. We were not presented with
the retirement of Units 2 and 3 when we promulgated the FIP. With this
information in hand, New Mexico permissibly conducted a new BART
analysis using a facility-wide approach that allowed the full range of
visibility, energy, and non-air quality environmental benefits
associated with the shutdowns to be taken into account. While the
average cost-effectiveness of SCR on Units 1 and 4 remains reasonable,
New Mexico demonstrated that the incremental cost-effectiveness of the
four-SCR scenario in our FIP over the State Alternative was high when
compared against the additional visibility improvements from the
former, while also considering the energy, and non-air quality
environmental benefits associated with the State Alternative.
    Comment: One commenter thought that the timeline for the
installation of SNCR was too long because SNCR is a simpler technology
to install than SCR.
    Response: We agree that SNCR is a simpler technology to install
than SCR and requires less time for installation. New Mexico
determined, and we agree, that the compliance timeframe in the 2013 RH
SIP revision is as expeditious as practicable, as required under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv).
    Comment: One commenter thought that the 0.05 lb/MMBtu rate used for
the study of SCR as a BART control option was likely too high. The
commenter suggested that many units, such as those in Dry Fork, WY and
Morgantown, MD, are routinely achieving emission rates in the range of
0.02-0.04 lb/MMBtu. Reducing the studied emission limit for SCR to 0.04
lb/MMBtu would show the option to be even more cost-effective.
    Response: We disagree that lower control rates needed to be
evaluated for SCR. We evaluated the monthly emission data from these
two facilities for the past several years (available at EPA's Air
Market Program data Web site: www.epa.gov/ampd). All three units have
monthly emission rates that sometimes exceed 0.04 lb/MMBtu. Indeed, the
Morgantown units have months where the monthly emission rate is 0.05
lb/MMBtu or higher. In promulgating the FIP, we evaluated the
performance of both new and retrofit SCRs and determined that 0.05 lb/
MMBtu on a 30-boiler-operating-day average was the appropriate emission
limit for SCR at the SJGS units. See 76 FR 491 and 76 FR 52388. New
Mexico appropriately used this same rate in their cost and visibility
analyses for the four-SCR scenario as part of its BART evaluation.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This type of action is exempt from review under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This FIP withdrawal action does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. because this FIP amendment under section 110 and
part C of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens. Because this final action does not
impose an information collection burden, the Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    This rule withdraws the FIP for PNM's San Juan Generating Station,
which is not a small entity, and does not create any new requirements.
After considering the economic impact of this rule on small entities, I
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not impose
any requirements on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This FIP withdrawal action contains no Federal mandates under the
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore,
this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205
of the UMRA.
    This FIP withdrawal action is also not subject to the requirements
of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This
action removes a Federal plan for PNM's San Juan Generating Station.
Small governments are not impacted.

E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This FIP withdrawal action does not have federalism implications.
It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes
the scheme whereby states take the lead in developing SIPs including
SIPs to attain the NAAQS and to meet other applicable CAA requirements
including the Best

Available Retrofit requirements in CAA section 169(b)(2)(A) and the
Visibility Impairment requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
This action will not modify this relationship. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action.

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

    This FIP withdrawal action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). In
this action, EPA is not addressing any Tribal Implementation Plans.
This action is limited to the withdrawal of the New Mexico RH and IT
FIP for PNM's San Juan Generating Station. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA offered
consultation to tribes regarding this rulemaking action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the executive order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to EO 13045 because EPA in withdrawing the New
Mexico RH and IT FIP for PNM's San Juan Generating Station, as
authorized by the CAA, EPA considers visibility and not health or
safety risks.

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

    This FIP withdrawal action is not subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104--113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This FIP
withdrawal action for PNM's San Juan Generating Station does not
involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of
any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    This final rule 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).

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 8, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, and Visibility.

    Dated: September 26, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Sec.  52.1628  [Removed and Reserved]

0
2. Section 52.1628 is removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. 2014-23905 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21094-21095]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07210]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0034; Airspace Docket No. 23-AGL-3]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Watertown, SD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace at Watertown, SD. This
action is due to an airspace review conducted as part of the
decommissioning of the Watertown very high frequency omnidirectional
range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimum Operating Network (MON) Program.
The name and geographic coordinates of the airport are also being
updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 15, 2023. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for this Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E surface airspace and the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Watertown Regional
Airport, Watertown, SD, to support instrument flight rule operations at
this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2023-0034 in the Federal Register (88 FR 3932; January 23, 2023)
amending the Class E airspace at Watertown, SD. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002 and
6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual
basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA
Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15,
2022. FAA Order Jo 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published
in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:
    Modifies the Class E surface airspace at Watertown Regional
Airport, Watertown, SD, by updating the name (previously Watertown
Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
    And modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Watertown Regional Airport by removing the
Watertown VOR/tactical air navigation (VORTAC) and the associated
extension to the north of the airport; removing the extension south of
the airport as it is no

longer required; removing the airspace extending 1,200 feet above the
surface from the airspace legal description as it is redundant with the
airspace extending 1,200 feet above the surface over the State of South
Dakota and State of Minnesota; and updating the name (previously
Watertown Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport
to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Area Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AGL SD E2 Watertown, SD [Amended]

Watertown Regional Airport, SD
    (Lat. 44[deg]54'50'' N, long. 97[deg]09'17'' W)

    Within a 4.3-mile radius of Watertown Regional Airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL SD E5 Watertown, SD [Amended]

Watertown Regional Airport, SD
    (Lat. 44[deg]54'50'' N, long. 97[deg]09'17'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Watertown Regional Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 3, 2023.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-07210 Filed 4-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63834-63836]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20063]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0663; Project Identifier AD-2023-00020-E;
Amendment 39-22534; AD 2023-17-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain General Electric Company (GE) Model GEnx-1B and GEnx-2B
engines. This AD was prompted by a manufacturer investigation that
revealed that certain stages 6-10 compressor rotor spools and forward
seals were manufactured from powder metal material suspected to contain
iron inclusion. This AD requires the replacement of the affected stages
6-10 compressor rotor spools and forward seals. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 23, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 23,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2023-0663; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For GE service information identified in this final rule,
contact General Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]; website:
geaviation.com/support.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available at regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2023-0663.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexei Marqueen, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone:
(781) 238-7178; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain GE Model GEnx-
1B64/P2, GEnx-1B67/P2, GEnx-1B70/75/P2, GEnx-1B70/P2, GEnx-1B70C/P2,
GEnx-1B74/75/P2, GEnx-1B76/P2, GEnx-1B76A/P2, and GEnx-2B67/P engines.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2023 (88 FR
22383). The NPRM was prompted by a report from the manufacturer of the
detection of iron inclusion in a high-pressure turbine stage 2 disk
manufactured from the same powder metal material used to manufacture
certain stages 6-10 compressor rotor spools and forward seals. A
manufacturer investigation determined that the iron inclusion was
introduced during the manufacturing process from raw material filtering
screens that had degraded, and certain stages 6-10 compressor rotor
spools and forward seals manufactured using the same process may have
reduced material properties and a lower fatigue life capability due to
the iron inclusion. Further investigation by the manufacturer
identified additional degraded filtering screens which had the
potential to increase the population of parts that were subjected to
iron inclusion during manufacturing. As a result of its investigation,
GE published service information that specifies procedures for the
removal and replacement of certain stages 6-10 compressor rotor spools
and forward seals. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require removal of
the affected stages 6-10 compressor rotor spools and forward seals and
replacement with a part eligible for installation. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from three commenters. The commenters
were the Airline Pilots Association, International (ALPA), American
Airlines (AA), and United Airlines. AA requested changes to the NPRM.
ALPA supported the NPRM without change. United Airlines reviewed the
NPRM but did not include any additional comments. The following
presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to
each comment.

Request for Guidance on Thrust Limit

    AA requested that the FAA provide guidance on which thrust limit to
apply for engines with multiple thrust ratings. AA also asked if the
FAA's intention is to set the thrust limit based on the thrust rating
at removal, or if the expectation is to apply the lowest limit that the
engine operated under. AA noted that it has a spool operating where the
proposed AD limit would be 6,200 cycles, but it previously operated at
a higher thrust rating such that the limit was 1,000 cycles less.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. The intention of the thrust limit is for
operators to remove the affected stages 6-10 compressor rotor spool or
affected forward seal from service at the next piece-part exposure, or
no later than the cyclic thresholds listed in the applicable service
bulletins that are incorporated by reference. The FAA notes that since
multiple thrust ratings are listed in the service bulletins, the intent
is to set the cyclic removal threshold based on the thrust rating that
is applicable at the time the AD is issued, not at the lowest thrust
rating that a part has ever operated under. The FAA did not change this
AD as a result of this comment.

Request To Update Service Bulletin Shorthand

    AA requested that the FAA add the revision levels to the shorthand
reference of each service bulletin in paragraph (g) and (h) of this AD.
AA noted that -1B operators do not have access to -2B bulletins, and
vice versa, so -1B operators will not be notified if the -2B service
bulletin is revised, and

will not be able to confirm that the information between the two
service bulletins continues to match.
    The FAA agrees and has revised the shorthand reference for each
applicable service bulletin to include the revision level in paragraphs
(c), (g) and (h) of this AD.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and
any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed
in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on
any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin 72-0515, R00, dated
January 31, 2023. The FAA also reviewed GE GEnx-2B Service Bulletin 72-
0452, R00, dated January 31, 2023. This service information specifies
procedures for removal and replacement of the stages 6-10 compressor
rotor spool and forward seal. These documents are distinct since they
apply to different engine models. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. If final action
is later identified, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 13 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that 9 of the 13 engines
will require replacing the stages 6-10 compressor rotor spool and 4 of
the 13 engines will require replacing the forward seal.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace stages 6-10 compressor       8 work-hours x $85 per hour        $841,088        $841,768      $7,575,912
 rotor spool.                         = $680.
Replace forward seal...............  8 work-hours x $85 per hour         389,976         390,656       1,562,624
                                      = $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2023-17-08 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-22534; Docket No.
FAA-2023-0663; Project Identifier AD-2023-00020-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 23, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) Model GEnx-
1B64/P2, GEnx-1B67/P2, GEnx-1B70/75/P2, GEnx-1B70/P2, GEnx-1B70C/P2,
GEnx-1B74/75/P2, GEnx-1B76/P2, GEnx-1B76A/P2, and GEnx-2B67/P
engines with an installed:
    (1) Stages 6-10 compressor rotor spool having a part number (P/
N) and serial number (S/N) listed in paragraph 4, Appendix--A, Table
1 of GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin 72-0515, R00, dated January 31,
2023 (GEnx-1B 72-0515 R00); or
    (2) Forward seal having a P/N and S/N listed in paragraph 4,
Appendix--A, Table 2 of GEnx-1B 72-0515 R00; or
    (3) Stages 6-10 compressor rotor spool having a P/N and S/N
listed in paragraph 4, Appendix--A, Table 1 of GE GEnx-2B Service
Bulletin 72-0452, R00, dated January 31, 2023. (GEnx-2B 72-0452
R00); or
    (4) Forward seal having a P/N and S/N listed in paragraph 4,
Appendix--A, Table 2 of GEnx-2B 72-0452 R00.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section; 7250, Turbine Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a manufacturer investigation that
revealed certain stages 6-10 compressor rotor spools and forward
seals were subject to iron inclusion introduced during the
manufacturing process. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent
fracture and potential uncontained failure of certain stages 6-10
compressor rotor spools and forward seals. The unsafe condition, if
not addressed, could result in uncontained debris release, damage to
the engine, and damage to the aircraft.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For affected Model GEnx-1B engines, at the next piece-part
exposure after the effective date of this AD, or before the affected
stages 6-10 compressor rotor spool reaches the cyclic removal
threshold listed in paragraph 4., Appendix--A, Table 1 of GEnx-1B
72-0515 R00, whichever occurs first, remove the affected stages 6-10
compressor rotor spool from service and replace with a part eligible
for installation.
    (2) For affected Model GEnx-1B engines, at the next piece-part
exposure after the effective date of this AD, or before the affected
forward seal exceeds the cyclic removal threshold listed in
paragraph 4., Appendix--A, Table 2 of GEnx-1B 72-0515 R00, whichever
occurs first, remove the affected forward seal from service and
replace with a part eligible for installation.
    (3) For affected Model GEnx-2B engines, at the next piece-part
exposure after the effective date of this AD, or before the affected
stages 6-10 compressor rotor spool exceeds the cyclic removal
threshold listed in paragraph 4., Appendix--A, Table 1 of GEnx-2B
72-0452 R00, whichever occurs first, remove the affected stages 6-10
compressor rotor spool from service and replace with a part eligible
for installation.
    (4) For affected Model GEnx-2B engines, at the next piece-part
exposure after the effective date of this AD, or before the affected
forward seal exceeds the cyclic removal threshold listed in
paragraph 4., Appendix--A, Table 2 of GEnx-2B 72-0452 R00, whichever
occurs first, remove the affected forward seal from service and
replace with a part eligible for installation.

(h) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, a ``part eligible for
installation'' is any stages 6-10 compressor rotor spool or forward
seal with a P/N and S/N not listed in paragraph 4, Appendix--A,
Table 1 or paragraph 4, Appendix--A, Table 2 of GEnx-1B 72-0515 R00
or GEnx-2B 72-0452 R00.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, ``piece-part exposure'' is when
the affected part is removed from the engine.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the certification office,
send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)
of this AD and email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Alexei Marqueen,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines,
WA 98198; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B Service Bulletin 72-
0515, R00, dated January 31, 2023.
    (ii) GE GEnx-2B Service Bulletin 72-0452, R00, dated January 31,
2023.
    (3) For GE service information identified in this AD, contact
General Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]; website:
geaviation.com/support.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 24, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-20063 Filed 9-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P