Wyoming's NOX Reasonable Progress Determination
    Unit 1 and Unit 2 are currently uncontrolled for NOX
emissions. The State determined that LNBs, LNBs with OFA, SNCR, and SCR
were technically feasible for controlling NOX emissions. The
State did not identify any technically infeasible control options.
    The State did not identify any energy or non-air quality
environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of any of the
controls evaluated, and there are no remaining-useful-life issues for
this source. A summary of the State's NOX reasonable
progress analyses for Unit 1 and Unit 2, along with our visibility
modeling results, is provided in Tables 34 and 35 below. Baseline
NOX emissions are 2,256 tpy for Unit 1 and 2,174 tpy for
Unit 2 based on 2002 actual emissions. Wyoming did not provide
controlled emission rates in their reasonable progress analysis. EPA
calculated the controlled emission rates shown here.

                                       Table 34--Summary of Dave Johnston Unit 1 NOX Reasonable Progress Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Visibility
                                                                                Improvement
                                                                                (Delta dv for
                                                              Control      Emission Rate     Emission                      Average cost     the Maximum
                   Control Technology                       Efficiency    (lb/MMBtu) (30-    Reduction      Annualized     Effectiveness       98th
                                                                (%)         day Rolling        (tpy)           Costs          ($/ton)       Percentile
                                                                             Average)                                                     Impact at Wind
                                                                                Cave National
                                                                                Park)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNBs....................................................              51            0.28           1,150        $631,000            $528            0.37
LNBs with OFA...........................................              65            0.20           1,466         962,000             632            0.49
SNCR....................................................              40            0.35             902       2,490,000           2,659            0.26
SCR.....................................................              80            0.12           1,804       3,390,000           1,810            0.58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                       Table 35--Summary of Dave Johnston Unit 2 NOX Reasonable Progress Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Visibility
                                                                                Improvement
                                                                                (Delta dv for
                                                              Control      Emission Rate     Emission                      Average Cost     the Maximum
                   Control Technology                       Efficiency    (lb/MMBtu) (30-    Reduction      Annualized     Effectiveness       98th
                                                                (%)         day Rolling        (tpy)           Costs          ($/ton)       Percentile
                                                                             Average)                                                     Impact at Wind
                                                                                Cave National
                                                                                Park)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNBs....................................................              51            0.28           1,108        $631,000            $538            0.38
LNBs with OFA...........................................              65            0.20           1,413         962,000             644            0.49
SNCR....................................................              40            0.35             869       2,490,000           2,709            0.28
SCR.....................................................              80            0.12           1,739       3,390,000           1,844            0.58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State estimated that it would take nearly five and a half years
for NOX reduction strategies to become effective. The State
determined that roughly two years would be necessary for the State to
develop the necessary regulations to implement the selected control
measures. The State estimated that it would take up to a year for the
source to secure the capital necessary to purchase emission control
devices and approximately 18 months would be required for the company
to design, fabricate, and install SCR or SNCR technology. Since there
are two boilers being evaluated at Dave Johnston, the State determined
an additional year may be required for staging the installation
process.
    The State determined that no controls were reasonable for this
planning period. The State cited that the four-factor analysis was
limited, in that no guidance was provided by EPA for identifying
significant sources and EPA did not establish contribution to
visibility impairment thresholds (a potential fifth factor for
reasonable progress determinations).\41\ The State further claims that
the State cannot, per Wyoming Statute 35-11-202, establish emission
control requirements except through State rule or regulation.
Furthermore, the Wyoming statute requires the State to consider the
character and degree of injury of the emissions involved. In this case,
the State claims it would need to have visibility modeling that
assessed the degree of injury caused by the emissions, which the State
does not have. The State believes it has taken a strong and reasonable
first step in identifying potential contributors to visibility
impairment, and that the next step of creating an appropriate rule or
regulation will be accomplished in the next SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ States must consider the four factors as listed above but
can also take into account other relevant factors for the reasonable
progress sources identified (see EPA's Guidance for Setting
Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, (``EPA's
Reasonable Progress Guidance''), p. 2-3, July 1, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA's Conclusions on Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 NOX
Reasonable Progress Determination and FIP for NOX Reasonable
Progress Controls
    We disagree with the State's reasoning for not adopting reasonable
progress controls for Dave Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2. If the State
determined that it needed to adopt a rule or perform modeling to
adequately assess and, if warranted, require reasonable progress
controls, the State should have completed these steps before it
submitted its regional haze SIP. The RHR does not allow for commitments
to potentially implement strategies at some later date that are
identified under reasonable progress or for the State to take credit
for such commitments.
    In addition, the cost effectiveness values for LNBs with OFA at
each unit are $632 and $644 per ton. These values are very reasonable
and far less than some of the cost effectiveness values the State found
reasonable in making its BART determinations. Given predicted
NOX reductions of approximately 1,400 tpy per unit,
visibility improvement of

approximately 0.5 deciviews per unit, and the fact that Wyoming's
reasonable progress goals will not meet the URP, we find that it was
unreasonable for the State to reject these very inexpensive controls.
Thus, we are proposing to disapprove the State's NOX
reasonable progress determination for Dave Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2
and proposing a FIP for NOX reasonable progress controls as
explained below.
    Based on our examination of the State's costs estimates, emission
reductions, and the predicted visibility improvement, we propose to
find that LNBs with OFA at an emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average) is reasonable for NOX reasonable progress
controls for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. We are proposing that the FIP
NOX reasonable progress emission limit for PacifiCorp Dave
Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2 is 0.20 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
    We have eliminated higher performing options from consideration--
LNBs with OFA plus SCR--because the cost effectiveness values are
significantly higher than LNBs with OFA and there is a comparatively
small incremental visibility improvement over LNBs with OFA.
    We propose that PacifiCorp meet our proposed emission limit at Dave
Johnston Units 1 and 2 as expeditiously as possible, but no later than
July 31, 2018. This is consistent with the requirement that the SIP
cover an initial planning period that ends July 31, 2018.

C. Reasonable Progress Goals

    We are proposing to impose reasonable progress controls on Dave
Johnston Units 1 and 2, as well as more stringent NOX BART
controls on PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3, PacifiCorp Jim Bridger
Units 1 and 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie
River Units 1, 2, and 3, than WRAP assumed in modeling Wyoming's RPGs.
    We could not re-run the WRAP modeling due to time and resource
constraints, but anticipate that the additional controls would result
in an increase in visibility improvement during the 20% worst days. As
noted in our analyses, many of our proposed controls would result in
significant incremental visibility benefits when modeled against
natural background. We anticipate that this would translate into some
measurable improvement if modeled on the 20% best days as well. While
we expect our proposed controls will result in additional visibility
improvement, we do not expect that these improvements will result in
the State achieving the URP. For the reasons discussed in section
VI.D.3, we find it reasonable for the State to not achieve the URP
during this planning period. We expect the State to quantify the
visibility improvement in its next regional haze SIP revision.
    For purposes of this action, we are proposing RPGs that are
consistent with the additional controls we are proposing. While we
would prefer to quantify the RPGs, we note that the RPGs themselves are
not enforceable values. The more critical elements for our FIP are the
emissions limits we are proposing to impose, which will be enforceable.

D. Federal Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

    The CAA requires that SIPs, including the regional haze SIP,
contain elements sufficient to ensure emission limits are practically
enforceable.\42\ Other applicable regulatory provisions are contained
in Appendix V to Part 51--Criteria for Determining the Completeness of
Plan Submissions.\43\ We are proposing to find that the State's
regional haze SIP does not contain adequate monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements. Chapter 6.4, Section V of the SIP contains
monitoring and reporting requirements that we find inadequate for
numerous reasons, summarized as follows: (1) The State's language
includes references to WAQSR Chapters that EPA has not approved as part
of the SIP and are thus not federally enforceable. These references
should be to the appropriate sections in the CFR; (2) Definitions have
not been included; (3) The State's language allows for data
substitution pursuant to 40 CFR part 75. The data substitution
procedures of 40 CFR part 75 were never intended to apply to BART
sources; (4) There are numerous language clarifications and rewordings
needed; and (5) The State did not include appropriate recordkeeping
language.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ CAA Section 110(a)(2) states that SIPs ``shall (A) include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means,
or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees,
marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as
schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter; (C)
include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures
described in subparagraph (A), and regulation of the modification
and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered
by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality
standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in
parts C and D of this subchapter; (F) require, as may be prescribed
by the Administrator--(i) the installation, maintenance, and
replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary
steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor
emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and
amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources,
and (iii) correlation of such reports by the State agency with any
emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this
chapter, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for
public inspection''
    \43\ Appendix V part 51 states in section 2.2 that complete SIPs
contain: ``(g) Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations,
work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements,
where necessary, to ensure emission levels''; and ``(h) Compliance/
enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined
in practice.''
    \44\ On July 6, 2011, EPA sent an email to the State with
detailed comments (that are summarized above) on the State's
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Chapter
6.4, Section V of the SIP. The July 6, 2011 email from Laurel
Dygowski, EPA Region 8, to Tina Anderson, State of Wyoming, is
included in the Supporting and Related Materials section of the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to disapprove the State's monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Chapter 6.4 of the SIP.
EPA is proposing regulatory language as part of our FIP that specifies
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for all BART and
reasonable progress sources. For purposes of consistency, EPA is
proposing to adopt language that is the same we have adopted for other
states in Region 8.

E. Federal Implementation Plan for the Long-Term Strategy

    We are proposing regulatory language as part of our FIP that
specifies NOX emission limits and compliance schedules for
the following sources: PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1-3, PacifiCorp
Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric
Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3. We are also proposing monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for all BART SIP and FIP
sources and for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. We are proposing this
regulatory language to fill the gap in the LTS that would be left by
our proposed partial disapproval of the LTS.

F. Federal Implementation Plan for Coordination of RAVI and Regional
Haze Long-Term Strategy

    In response to EPA's RAVI rules, Wyoming adopted WAQSR Chapter 9,
Section 2. EPA approved WAQSR Chapter 9, Section 2 as part of the SIP
on July 28, 2004 (69 FR 44965). As discussed above, the State is
required to coordinate the review of its RAVI and regional haze LTS and
conduct the reviews together. WAQSR Chapter 9, Section 2(f) requires
the State to review its RAVI LTS every three years, which does not
coordinate with the five-year review for the State's regional haze LTS.

Thus, we are proposing to disapprove the State's SIP because it does
not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.306(c). We are proposing a FIP
in which EPA commits to coordinating the State's RAVI LTS review with
the regional haze LTS review. Thus, EPA is committing to provide a
review of the State's RAVI LTS every five years in coordination with
the State's regional haze LTS review. EPA is proposing that our review
of the State's RAVI LTS will follow those items as indicated by 40 CFR
51.306(c).

VIII. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove a
regional haze SIP revision submitted by the State of Wyoming on January
12, 2011. Specifically, we are proposing to disapprove the following:
     The State's NOX BART determinations for
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3, PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2,
PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2,
and, 3.
     The State's NOX reasonable progress
determination for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2.
     Wyoming's Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
     The State's monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in
Chapter 6.4 of the SIP.
     Portions of the State's long-term strategy (LTS) that rely
on or reflect other aspects of the regional haze SIP we are proposing
to disapprove.
     The State's SIP because it does not contain the necessary
provisions to meet the requirements for the coordination of the review
of the reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) and the
regional haze long-term strategy (LTS).
    We are proposing to approve the remaining aspects of the State's
January 12, 2011, SIP submittal. We are also seeking comment on two
alternative proposals related to the State's NOX BART
determination for PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2.
    We are proposing the promulgation of a FIP to address the
deficiencies in the Wyoming regional haze SIP that we have identified
in this proposal. The proposed FIP includes the following elements:
     NOX BART determinations and limits for
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3, PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2,
PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2,
and 3.
     NOX reasonable progress determination and
limits for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2.
     RPGs consistent with the SIP limits proposed for approval
and the proposed FIP limits.
     Monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting requirements
applicable to all BART and reasonable progress sources for which there
is a SIP or FIP emissions limit.
     LTS elements pertaining to emission limits and compliance
schedules for the proposed BART and reasonable progress FIP limits.
     Provisions to ensure the coordination of the RAVI and
regional haze LTS.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As discussed in section C below, the
proposed FIP applies to only four facilities. It is therefore not a
rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the proposed FIP applies
to just four facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.
See 5 CFR 1320(c).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed 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.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Regional
Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for purposes of the regional haze
program consists of imposing federal controls to meet the BART
requirement for NOX emissions on specific units at four
sources in Wyoming, and imposing controls to meet the reasonable
progress requirement for NOX emissions at one additional
source in Wyoming. The net result of this FIP action is that EPA is
proposing direct emission controls on selected units at only four
sources. The sources in question are each large electric generating
plants that are not owned by small entities, and therefore are not
small entities. The proposed partial approval of the SIP, if finalized,
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. See Mid-
Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA
rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 of UMRA do not apply when
they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 of
UMRA allows

EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this proposed rule
does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures that
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any one year. In
addition, this proposed rule does not contain a significant federal
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA nor does
it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule 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, because it
merely addresses the State not fully meeting its obligation to prohibit
emissions from interfering with other states measures to protect
visibility established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from state and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    EPA interprets EO 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 EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it implements specific standards established by Congress
in statutes. However, to the extent this proposed rule will limit
emissions of NOx, SO2, and PM, the rule will have
a beneficial effect on children's health by reducing air pollution.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
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 No. 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 proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this proposed action, if finalized, will
not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it
increases the level of environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on any population, including any
minority or low-income population. This proposed rule limits emissions
of NOX from four facilities in Wyoming.

The partial approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves state
law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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, does not
apply because this action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 15, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart ZZ--Wyoming

    2. Add section 52.2636 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2636  Federal implementation plan for regional haze.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to each owner and operator
of the following emissions units in the State of Wyoming for which EPA
proposes to approve the State's BART determination:
    FMC Westvaco Trona Plant Units NS-1A and NS-1B (PM and
NOX);
    TATA Chemicals Partners (previously General Chemical) Boilers C and
D (PM and NOX);
    Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station Units 1, 2,
and 3 (PM);
    Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Unit 3 (PM);
    Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Unit 4 (PM and
NOX);
    Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant Units 1 and 2 (PM);
    Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant Units 3 and 4 (PM and
NOX);
    Pacificorp Naughton Power Plant Units 1, 2, and 3 (PM and
NOX); and
    Pacificorp Wyodak Power Plant Unit 1 (PM).
    This section also applies to each owner and operator of the
following emissions units in the State of Wyoming for which EPA
proposes to disapprove the State's BART determination and issue a
NOX BART Federal Implementation Plan:
    Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station Units 1, 2,
and 3;
    Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Unit 3;
    Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant Units 1 and 2; and
    Pacificorp Wyodak Power Plant Unit 1.
    This section also applies to each owner and operator of the
following emissions units in the State of Wyoming for which EPA
proposes to disapprove the State's reasonable progress determinations
and issue a reasonable progress determination NOX Federal
Implementation Plan: Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Units 1 and
2.
    (b) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning
given them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing the
Clean Air Act. For purposes of this section:
    (1) BART means Best Available Retrofit Technology.
    (2) BART unit means any unit subject to a Regional Haze emission
limit in Table 1 and Table 2 of this section.
    (3) CAM means Compliance Assurance Monitoring as required by 40 CFR
part 64.
    (4) Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the
equipment required by this section to sample, analyze, measure, and
provide, by means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes
(using an automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS)), a
permanent record of NOX emissions, diluent, or stack gas
volumetric flow rate.
    (5) FIP means Federal Implementation Plan.
    (6) Lb/hr means pounds per hour.
    (7) Lb/MMBtu means pounds per million British thermal units of heat
input to the fuel-burning unit.
    (8) NOX means nitrogen oxides.
    (9) Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and
the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time
in the BART or RP unit. It is not necessary for fuel to be combusted
for the entire 24-hour period.
    (10) The owner/operator means any person who owns or who operates,
controls, or supervises a unit identified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
    (11) PM means filterable total particulate matter.
    (12) RP unit means any Reasonable Progress unit subject to a
Regional Haze emission limit in Table 3 of this section.
    (13) Unit means any of the units identified in paragraph (a) of
this section.
    (c) Emissions limitations.
    (1) The owners/operators of emissions units subject to this section
shall not emit, or cause to be emitted, PM or NOX in excess
of the following limitations:

    Table 1--Emission Limits for BART Units for Which EPA Proposes to Approve the State's BART Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          PM Emission Limits                      NOX Emission Limits
     Source Name/BART Unit     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 lb/MMBtu     lb/hr    Tons per year     lb/MMBtu      lb/hr      Tons per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Westvaco Trona Plant/Unit        0.05       45              197           0.35          284           1244
 NS-1A........................
FMC Westvaco Trona Plant/Unit        0.05       45              197           0.35          284           1244
 NS-1B........................
TATA Chemicals Partners              0.09       50              219           0.28        149.5            654.9
 (General Chemical) Green
 River Trona Plant/Boiler C...
TATA Chemicals Partners              0.09       80              350.4         0.28        246.4          1,079.2
 (General Chemical) Green
 River Trona Plant/Boiler D...
Basin Electric Power                 0.03      193              844            N/A          N/A            N/A
 Cooperative Laramie River
 Station/Unit 1...............
Basin Electric Power                 0.03      193              844            N/A          N/A            N/A
 Cooperative Laramie River
 Station/Unit 2...............
Basin Electric Power                 0.03      198              867            N/A          N/A            N/A
 Cooperative Laramie River
 Station/Unit 3...............
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power       0.015      42.1            184            N/A          N/A            N/A
 Plant/Unit 3.................
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power       0.015      61.5            269           0.15          615          2,694
 Plant/Unit 4.................

Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power         0.03      180              788            N/A          N/A            N/A
 Plant/Unit 1.................
Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power         0.03      180              788            N/A          N/A            N/A
 Plant/Unit 2.................
Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power         0.03      180              788           0.07          N/A            N/A
 Plant/Unit 3.................
Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power         0.03      180              788           0.07          N/A            N/A
 Plant/Unit 4.................
Pacificorp Naughton Power            0.04       74              324           0.26          481          2,107
 Plant/Unit 1.................
Pacificorp Naughton Power            0.04       96              421           0.26          624          2,733
 Plant/Unit 2.................
Pacificorp Naughton Power            0.015      56              243           0.07          259          1,134
 Plant/Unit 3.................
Pacificorp Wyodak Power Plant/       0.015      71              308.8          N/A          N/A            N/A
 Unit 1.......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2--Emission Limits for BART Units for Which EPA Proposes To
      Disapprove the State's BART Determination and Implement a FIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NOX Emission
                  Source Name/BART Unit                     Limit  (lb/
                                                              MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/             0.12
 Unit 1.................................................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/             0.12
 Unit 2.................................................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/             0.12
 Unit 3.................................................
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 3.............            0.19
Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 1...............            0.07
Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 2...............            0.07
Pacificorp Wyodak Power Plant/Unit 1....................            0.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table 3--Emission Limits for RP Units for Which EPA Proposes To
       Disapprove the State's RP Determination and Implement a FIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NOX Emission
                   Source Name/RP Unit                      Limit  (lb/
                                                              MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 1.............            0.20
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 2.............            0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) These emission limitations shall apply at all times, including
startups, shutdowns, emergencies, and malfunctions.
    (d) Compliance date. The owners and operators of the BART and RP
sources subject to this section shall comply with the emissions
limitations and other requirements of this section within five years of
the effective date of this rule
    (e) Compliance determinations for NOX.
    (1) For all BART and RP units other than Trona Plant units:
    (i) CEMS. At all times after the compliance date specified in
paragraph (d) of this section, the owner/operator of each unit shall
maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the
requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to accurately measure
NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow rate from each
unit. The CEMS shall be used to determine compliance with the emission
limitations in paragraph (c) of this section for each unit.
    (ii) Method.
    (a) For any hour in which fuel is combusted in a unit, the owner/
operator of each unit shall calculate the hourly average NOX
concentration in lb/MMBtu and lb/hr at the CEMS in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 75. At the end of each operating day, the
owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 30-day rolling average
emission rate in lb/MMBtu and lb/hr from the arithmetic average of all
valid hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current operating day
and the previous 29 successive operating days.
    (b) An hourly average NOX emission rate in lb/MMBtu or
lb/hr is valid only if the minimum number of data points, as specified
in 40 CFR part 75, is acquired by both the pollutant concentration
monitor (NOX) and the diluent monitor (O2 or
CO2).
    (c) Compliance with tons-per-year emission limits shall be
calculated on a rolling 12-month basis. At the end of each calendar
month, the owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 12-month
rolling average emission rate from the arithmetic average of all valid
hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current month and the
previous 11 months and the report the result in tons.
    (d) Data reported to meet the requirements of this section shall
not include data substituted using the missing data substitution
procedures of subpart D of 40 CFR part 75, nor shall the data have been
bias adjusted according to the procedures of 40 CFR part 75.
    (2) For all Trona Plant BART units:
    (i) CEMS. At all times after the compliance date specified in
paragraph (d) of this section, the owner/operator of each unit shall
maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the
requirements found at 40 CFR part 60, to accurately measure
NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow rate from each
unit, including the CEMS quality assurance requirements in appendix F
of 40 CFR part 60. The CEMS shall be used to determine compliance with
the emission limitations in paragraph (c) of this section for each
unit.
    (ii) Method.
    (a) For any hour in which fuel is combusted in a unit, the owner/
operator of each unit shall calculate the hourly average NOX
concentration in lb/MMBtu and lb/hr at the CEMS in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 60. At the end of each operating day, the
owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 30-day rolling average
emission rate in lb/MMBtu and lb/hr from the arithmetic average of all
valid hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current operating day
and the previous 29 successive operating days.
    (b) An hourly average NOX emission rate in lb/MMBtu or
lb/hr is valid only if the minimum number of data points, as specified
in 40 CFR part 60, is acquired by both the pollutant concentration
monitor (NOX) and the diluent monitor (O2 or
CO2).
    (c) Compliance with tons-per-year emission limits shall be
calculated on a rolling 12-month basis. At the end of each calendar
month, the owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 12-month
rolling average emission rate from the arithmetic average of all valid
hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current month and the
previous 11 months and report results in tons.
    (f) Compliance determinations for particulate matter.

    Compliance with the particulate matter emission limit for each BART
and RP unit shall be determined from annual performance stack tests.
Within 60 days of the compliance deadline specified in section (d), and
on at least an annual basis thereafter, the owner/operator of each unit
shall conduct a stack test on each unit to measure particulate
emissions using EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D, or 17, as appropriate, in 40 CFR
part 60, Appendix A. A test shall consist of three runs, with each run
at least 120 minutes in duration and each run collecting a minimum
sample of 60 dry standard cubic feet. Results shall be reported in lb/
MMBtu and lb/hr. In addition to annual stack tests, the owner/operator
shall monitor particulate emissions for compliance with the BART
emission limits in accordance with the applicable Compliance Assurance
Monitoring (CAM) plan developed and approved by the State in accordance
with 40 CFR part 64.
    (g) Recordkeeping. The owner/operator shall maintain the following
records for at least five years:
    (1) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling
or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.
    (2) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for
emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any records
required by 40 CFR part 75. Or, for Trona Plant units, records of
quality assurance and quality control activities for emissions
measuring systems including, but not limited to appendix F of 40 CFR
part 60.
    (3) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on
emission units, air pollution control equipment, and CEMS.
    (4) Any other CEMS records required by 40 CFR part 75. Or, for
Trona Plant units, any other CEMs records required by 40 CFR part 60.
    (5) Records of all particulate stack test results.
    (6) All data collected pursuant to the CAM plan.
    (h) Reporting. All reports under this section shall be submitted to
the Director, Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental
Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code
8ENF-AT, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
    (1) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit quarterly excess
emissions reports for NOX BART and RP units no later than
the 30th day following the end of each calendar quarter. Excess
emissions means emissions that exceed the emissions limits specified in
paragraph (c) of this section. The reports shall include the magnitude,
date(s), and duration of each period of excess emissions, specific
identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs during
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the unit, the nature and cause
of any malfunction (if known), and the corrective action taken or
preventative measures adopted. The owner/operator shall also submit
reports of any exceedances of tons-per-year emission limits.
    (2) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit quarterly CEMS
performance reports, to include dates and duration of each period
during which the CEMS was inoperative (except for zero and span
adjustments and calibration checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was
inoperative and steps taken to prevent recurrence, and any CEMS repairs
or adjustments. The owner/operator of each unit shall also submit
results of any CEMS performance tests required by 40 CFR part 75. Or,
for Trona Plant units, the owner/operator of each unit shall also
submit results of any CEMs performance test required appendix F of 40
CFR part 60 (Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits,
and Cylinder Gas Audits).
    (3) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not been
inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, such
information shall be stated in the quarterly reports required by
sections (h)(1) and (2) above.
    (4) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit results of any
particulate matter stack tests conducted for demonstrating compliance
with the particulate matter BART limits in section (c) above, within 60
calendar days after completion of the test.
    (5) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit semi-annual
reports of any excursions under the approved CAM plan in accordance
with the schedule specified in the source's title V permit.
    (i) Notifications.
    (1) The owner/operator shall submit notification of commencement of
construction of any equipment which is being constructed to comply with
the NOX emission limits in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) The owner/operator shall submit semi-annual progress reports on
construction of any such equipment.
    (3) The owner/operator shall submit notification of initial startup
of any such equipment.
    (j) Equipment operation. At all times, the owner/operator shall
maintain each unit, including associated air pollution control
equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions.
    (k) Credible Evidence. Nothing in this section shall preclude the
use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or
information, relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance
with requirements of this section if the appropriate performance or
compliance test procedures or method had been performed.
    3. Add section 52.2637 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2637  Federal implementation plan for reasonable attributable
visibility impairment long-term strategy.

    As required by 40 CFR 41.306(c), EPA will ensure that the review of
the State's reasonably attributable visibility impairment long-term
strategy is coordinated with the regional haze long-term strategy under
40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA's review will be in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.306(c).

[FR Doc. 2012-12923 Filed 6-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

                  	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

         			          ANN ARBOR, MI 48105

										OFFICE OF

									               AIR AND RADIATION

July 28, 2016

Oliver A. Potts, Director

Office of the Federal Register

National Archives and Records Administration

8601 Adelphi Road

College Park, MD 20740-6001

Dear Mr. Potts:

In accordance with 1 CFR part 51, I request that you approve the
incorporation by reference of the material identified below into title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

ANSI

CSA IR-1-15, Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) High Flow Fueling
Connection Devices, Supplement to NGV 1-2006, ANSI approved August 26,
2015; into §§ 86.1(c)(2) and 86.1813-17(f)(1).

ASTM

ASTM D4809-13 Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid
Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method), approved May
1, 2013; into §§ 1036.530(b)(1)(i) and 1036.810(b)(1).

ε1 [insert title and approved date]; into §§1065.266(b),
1065.275(b)(2), and 1065.1010(b)(41).

ASTM D4629, ASTM D5291, ASTM D5599, and ASTM 5762 are already approved
for §1065.655; we are simply reorganizing the section and moving the
references from paragraph (d) to paragraph (e) and updating §1065.1010.

EPA

Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) Phase 2, Version 3.0, July 2016;
into §§ 1037.520 introductory text, 1037.801, and 1037.810(c)(2).

IMO

MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from
Ships, Third Edition, 2013, and NOx Technical Code 2008, consisting of:

Revised MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships, Third Edition, 2013 ("2008 Annex VI"); into §§ 1042.901
and 1042.910(b)(1)(i).

NOx Technical Code 2008, Technical Code on Control of Emission of
Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel Engines, 2013 Edition, ("NOx
Technical Code"); into §§ 1042.104(g), 1042.230(d), 1042.302(c) and
(e), 1042.501(g), 1042.901, and 1042.910(b)(1)(ii).

Annex 12, Resolution MEPC.251(66) from the Report of the Marine
Environment Protection Committee on its Sixty-Sixth Session, April 25,
2014.  This document describes new and revised provisions that are
considered to be part of Annex VI and NOx Technical Code 2008 as
referenced in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section; into §§
1042.104(g), 1042.230(d), 1042.302(c) and (e), 1042.501(g), 1042.901,
and 1042.910(b)(1)(i) and (ii).

These standards were recently approved for part 1043, so we have not
included copies of the standards with this request.

NIST

NIST Special Publication 811, Guide for the Use of the International
System of Units (SI), 2008 Edition, March 2008; into §§ 1036.805
introductory text, 1036.810(c)(1), 1037.805 introductory text, and
1037.810(d)(1).  This is already IBRed into 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066,
so we have not included a copy of the standard with this request.

SAE:

SAE J1025, Test Procedures for Measuring Truck Tire Revolutions Per
Kilometer/Mile, Stabilized August 2012; into §§ 1037.520(c)(1) and
1037.810(e)(1).

SAE J1252, SAE Wind Tunnel Test Procedure for Trucks and Buses, Revised
July 2012; into §§ 1037.525(b)(3), (c)(1)(i), and (c)(2)(v),
1037.530(a) intro and (a)(1), and 1037.810(e)(2).

SAE J1263 Road Load Measurement and Dynamometer Simulation Using
Coastdown Techniques, Revised March 2010; into §§ 1037.528
introductory text, (a), (b)(3)(ii), (c) introductory text, (c)(2), (e)
introductory text, and (h) introductory text, 1037.665(a)(2),
1037.810(e)(3), and 1066.305(a)(2).

SAE J1594, Vehicle Aerodynamics Terminology, Revised July 2010; into
§§ 1037.530(d) introductory text and 1037.810(e)(4).

SAE J1930, Electrical/Electronic Systems Diagnostic Terms, Definitions,
Abbreviations, and Acronyms, Revised October 2008; into §§ 1068.45(f)
and 1068.95(b)(1).

SAE J2071, Aerodynamic Testing of Road Vehicles - Open Throat Wind
Tunnel Adjustment, Revised June 1994; into §§ 1037.530(b) and
1037.810(e)(5).

SAE J2263, Road Load Measurement Using Onboard Anemometry And Coastdown
Techniques, Revised December 2008; into §§ 1037.528 introductory text,
(a), (b)(3)(v), (d)(2), and (f) , 1037.665(a)(2), and 1037.810(e)(6).

SAE J2343, Recommended Practice for LNG Medium and Heavy-Duty Powered
Vehicles, Revised July 2008; into §§ 1037.103(e) introductory text and
1037.810(e)(7).

SAE J2452, Stepwise Coastdown Methodology for Measuring Tire Rolling
Resistance, Revised June 1999; into §§ 1037.528(h)(6)(i) and
1037.810(e)(8).

SAE J2966, Guidelines for Aerodynamic Assessment of Medium and Heavy
Commercial Ground Vehicles Using Computational Fluid Dynamics, Issued
September 2013; into §§ 1037.532(a) introductory text and
1037.810(e)(9).

Note: SAE J1711 is already approved for §§ 600.011 and 600.116-12; we
are just redesignating lower-level paragraphs in § 600.116-12.  We also
reference SAE J1526 in § 1037.610(c) introductory text as a recommended
practice for measuring in-use fuel consumption.

We are taking the opportunity to revise §§ 1043.100 and 1068.95 to
conform to the IBR guidance for centralized IBR sections.

Removed Standards

ASTM E29-67 from §§ 86.419-78, 86.1112-87, and 86.1113-87(a)(6) (there
is no reference to ASTM E29-67 in 40 CFR 86.1)

ASTM E29-93a from §§ 86.419-2006(a)(1), 86.544-90(a), and
86.1817-05(c), and 86.1820-01(b)(7)(i)(A) (there is no record of the
approval for this last section in 40 CFR 86.1)

ASTM D240-09 and ASTM D5291-10 from §§ 1036.530(b)(1) and 1036.810(b)

SAE J1252, SAE J1594, and SAE J2071 from §1037.521

SAE J1877 from § 86.095-35 (we continue to cite SAE J1877 at 40 CFR
86.1807-01(f))

SAE J1892 from §§ 86.1 and 86.095-35

„

…

†

³

µ

"

X

h

#Note that I will be out of the office from July 7 through July 15, but
will be ready to make any necessary adjustments before or after my time
away.

	Sincerely,

						Alan Stout

						Assessment and Standards Division


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN 4487 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. Environmental Protection Agency  Region 10 2. OMB control number b.

None 2060 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a.

New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a.

Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes

No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a.

Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Federal Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington ( 40CFR part 49, subpart M) ( Final Rule)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 2020.02 9. Keywords Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection, Indians tribal government, Air pollution control 10. Abstract The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) has developed Federal Implementation Plans ( FIPs) under the Clean Air Act for Indian reservations located in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The FIPs include basic air quality regulations for the protection of communities within and adjacent to Indian reservations. These rules will be implemented by EPA until replaced by Tribal Implementation Plans. The respondents are the air pollution sources located on Indian reservations in these three States.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 434 b. Total annual responses 1,561 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 2,777 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 2,777 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2,777 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c.

Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6.

Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe) 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes

No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Debra Suzuki Phone: ( 206) 553 0985 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Richard Albright, Director Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, Region 10 Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register: July 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 144)]
[Notices]
[Page 42689-42690]
[DOCID:fr27jy06-86]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Release No. 34-54183; File No. SR-Amex-2006-68]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Applying the Allocation Algorithm in Rule 935(a)(4)--ANTE to
Supplemental Registered Options Traders

July 20, 2006.
    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 July 13, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Amex. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Amex seeks to apply the allocation algorithm in Amex Rule
935(a)(4)--ANTE to a Supplemental Registered Options Trader (``SROT'')
interacting with its own firm's orders. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on Amex's Web site (http://www.amex.com), at Amex's

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

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

1. Purpose
    On March 14, 2006, the Exchange submitted a proposal to amend Amex
Rule 935--ANTE to revise the manner in which executed contracts are
allocated when more than one market participant is either quoting, or
has orders, at the Amex best bid or offer at the time the execution
occurs. However, by the time this filing was approved on May 12,
2006,\5\ other changes to Amex Rule 935--ANTE were approved.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53798 (May 12,
2006), 71 FR 29193 (May 19, 2006) (SR-Amex-2006-25).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53635 (April 12,
2006), 71 FR 20144 (April 19, 2006) (SR-Amex-2005-075) (establishing
a new class of registered options trader called an SROT) and 53652
(April 13, 2006), 71 FR 20422 (April 20, 2006) (SR-Amex-2005-100)
(establishing a new class of registered options trader called a
Remote Registered Options Trader (``RROT'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange seeks to apply the allocation algorithm set forth in
Amex Rule 935--ANTE to an SROT interacting with its own firm's orders.
The Exchange proposes that after non-broker dealer customer orders are
executed, the ANTE system would allocate to SROTs the greater of either
40% of the contracts, or the amount the SROT would be entitled to
receive pursuant to the allocation algorithm set forth in Amex Rule
935(a)(4)--ANTE. The balance of the contracts would be allocated to the
specialist, registered options traders, RROTs, or other SROTs, pursuant
to Amex Rule 935(a)(4)--ANTE.
    If the SROT receives contracts pursuant to proposed paragraph
(a)(7)(i) of Amex Rule 935--ANTE, then the specialist, registered
options trader, RROT, or any other SROT would receive contracts
pursuant to the allocation algorithm in Amex Rule 935(a)(4)--ANTE. In
particular, whenever an SROT interacts with its own firm's orders, the
specialist would not be entitled to the specialist guarantee set forth
in Amex Rule 935(a)(5)--ANTE.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest;
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will impose no
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received by the
Exchange on this proposal.

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)(iii) of the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
\10\ thereunder because it does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate; and the Exchange has given the Commission
written notice of its intention to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to filing. At any time within 60 days of
the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,\11\ the proposal does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. Amex has requested that the
Commission waive the five-day pre-filing requirement \12\ and the 30-
day operative delay to allow for the expeditious and accurate
publication of the rule change. The Commission believes that because
the proposal would extend the current allocation algorithm to the
Exchange's new class of market participants, SROTs, the proposal raises
no new regulatory concerns. Therefore, the Commission, consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, has determined to
waive the five-day pre-filing requirement and the 30-day operative date
so that the proposal may take effect upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Amex provided the Commission with written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change three days prior to the
filing date.
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2006-68 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-68. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Amex. 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-Amex-2006-68 and should be submitted on or before August
17, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-11988 Filed 7-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 4461]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01495]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC14-42-000.
    Applicants: Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action of
Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140115-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/5/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2848-002; ER11-1939-004; ER11-2754-004; ER12-
999-002; ER12-1002-002; ER12-1005-002; ER12-1006-002; ER12-1007-003.
    Applicants: AP Holdings, LLC, AP Gas & Electric (IL), LLC, AP Gas &
Electric (PA), LLC, AP Gas & Electric (TX), LLC, AP Gas & Electric
(MD), LLC, AP Gas & Electric (NJ), LLC, AP Gas & Electric (OH), LLC, AP
Gas & Electric (NY), LLC.
    Description: Second Supplement to June 28, 2013 Updated Market
Power Analysis for the Southwest Region of AP Holdings Subsidiaries.
    Filed Date: 1/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140114-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-83-004.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
    Description: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al. submits Order No.
1000 Regional Compliance Filing Under Protest.
    Filed Date: 1/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140114-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-908-002.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Alabama Power Company submits Order No. 1000 Second
Regional Compliance Filing-FILING SUBMITTED UNDER PROTEST to be
effective 6/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 1/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140114-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-913-002.
    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.
    Description: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation submits Order No.
1000 Regional Compliance Filing to be effective 6/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 1/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140114-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-81-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Balancing Account Revisions 2014 Deficiency Filing to
be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 1/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140115-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/5/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-689-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
2014-01-13 Entergy IA Succession Withdrawal Amendment to be effective
12/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140115-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/5/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-998-000.
    Applicants: Richland-Stryker Generation LLC.
    Description: Normal to be effective 1/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 1/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140115-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/5/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-999-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc., Compliance Filing to be
effective 1/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 1/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140115-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/5/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1000-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: GIA & Distr Serv Agmt for Portal Ridge Solar Project
Related to EKWRA Project to be effective 12/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140115-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/5/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1001-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: LGIA and Distrib Service Agmt with Coram California
Development, L.P. to be effective 12/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140115-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/5/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1002-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits Bylaws Revisions--
Affiliate Voting Rules and NEL Definition to be effective 3/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 1/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140115-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/5/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA13-4-000.
    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy II LLC, Cordova Energy Company LLC,
MidAmerican Energy Company, Saranac Power Partners, L.P.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the MidAmerican
Parties.
    Filed Date: 1/14/14.
    Accession Number: 20140114-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/4/14.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 15, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01495 Filed 1-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24496-24497]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07839]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0913; Airspace Docket No. 23-AGL-9]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Hastings, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace at
Hastings, MI. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an
airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Grand Rapids very
high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimum
Operating Network (MON) Program. The name and geographic coordinates of
the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0913 and
Airspace Docket No. 23-AGL-9 using any of the following methods:
    * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instruction for sending your comments electronically.
    * Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    * Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    * Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    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 would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Hastings Airport, Hastings, MI, to support
instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or
commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments
are filed in writing.

    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or dely. The FAA may change this proposal in light of
the comments it receives.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5USC 553(c), DOT solicits comments from
the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT post these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and
hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during
normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air
Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group,
10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E airspace is published in paragraph 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 proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order
JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022.
These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA
Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by modifying
the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
to within an 8.2-mile (increased from an 6.4-mile) radius of Hastings
Airport, Hastings, MI; removing the Grand Rapids VOR/DME and the
associated extension from the airspace legal description; removing the
exclusion area as it is not required; adding an extension within 2
miles each side of the 123[deg] bearing from the airport extending from
the 8.2-mile radius to 11.3 miles southeast of the airport; adding an
extension within 2 miles each side of the 303[deg] bearing from the
airport extending from the 8.2-mile radius to 9.9 miles northwest of
the airport; and updating the name (previously Hastings Municipal
Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database.
    This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Grand Rapids VOR, which provided navigational
information to this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program to support
instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed 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
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 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 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL MI E5 Hastings, MI [Amended]

Hastings Airport, MI
    (Lat 42[deg]39'48'' N, long 85[deg]20'45'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8.2-mile radius of Hastings Airport; and within 2 miles
each side of the 123[deg] bearing from the airport extending from
the 8.2-mile radius of the airport to 11.3 miles southeast of the
airport; and within 2 miles each side of the 303[deg] bearing of the
airport extending from the 8.2-mile radius of the airport to 9.9
miles northwest of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 10, 2023.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-07839 Filed 4-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P