[Federal Register: December 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 250)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69272-69279]
[DOCID:fr31de09-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 93

[Docket No.: FAA-2008-1087; Amendment No. 93-95]
RIN 2120-AJ29

Establishment of a Special Air Traffic Rule in the Vicinity of
Luke Air Force Base (AFB), AZ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes a Special Air Traffic Rule (SATR) in the
vicinity of Luke Air Force Base (Luke) which requires aircraft
operating under visual flight rules (VFR) to establish two-way radio
communication with the Luke Radar Approach Control (RAPCON) prior to
entering the SATR area and maintain communication while operating in
the area. The SATR is active during official daylight hours Monday
through Friday while Luke pilot flight training is underway, as
broadcast on the local Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS),
and other times by Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). This action is necessary
to address reported near midair collisions (NMACs) in the area around
Luke and will help reduce the potential for midair collisions in the
vicinity of Luke.

DATES: This amendment is effective May 6, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules Group,
Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, AJR-33 Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal
questions concerning this final rule contact the Office of Chief
Counsel, Regulations Division, Air Traffic & Certification of Airman
Law Branch, AGC-240 Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 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, including the
authority to issue, rescind, and revise regulations. 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, chapter 401, section 40103(b), which
allows the Administrator to regulate the use of the navigable airspace
necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. Moreover, subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, chapter 447,
section 44701(c) authorizes the Administrator to regulate air commerce
in a way that helps to reduce or eliminate the possibility or
recurrence of accidents in air transportation. This change is within
the scope of our authority and is a reasonable and necessary exercise
of our statutory obligations.

Background

    Luke Air Force Base (Luke) is home to the 56th Fighter Wing, the
United States Air Force's (USAF's) largest fighter wing. Since 1941,
Luke has trained pilots and other aircrew members for America's
frontline fighter aircraft. Today, over 200 F-16s conduct more than
201,000 annual operations, and most of these operations are for student
training.
    Situated beneath the Phoenix Class B Airspace Area, the Luke
terminal area consists of Class D airspace. The Phoenix Deer Valley
Airport (DVT), (the nation's third busiest general aviation (GA)
airport in 2004 and second busiest in 2008), is within 5 nautical miles
of the Luke terminal airspace. There are two flight schools and two
fixed base operators located at DVT, and the flight schools conduct
training in the vicinity of Luke.
    Alert Area A-231 is located adjacent to, and west of, Luke. Pilots
conduct a large volume of jet training operations in Alert Area A-231.
The USAF requires military pilots to establish communication with the
Luke Radar Approach Control (RAPCON) and to be alert when flying in
Alert Area A-231. Pilots of civil aircraft are not required to
establish communication with the Luke RAPCON during transit. The USAF
Flight Safety Office at Luke points out that reported NMACs are
approximately 3 per quarter of a year, and each occurrence affects
multiple aircraft in the same formation. The significant number of
NMACs between Luke F-16s and VFR aircraft indicates VFR pilots are not
avoiding this area of concentrated student jet transition training.
    Operational problems affecting safety in the Luke terminal airspace
area are acute and include complex and voluminous traffic, aircraft
congestion, terrain that constrains aircraft operations, and the
uncontrolled mix of instrument flight rules (IFR) and VFR traffic. Luke
RAPCON traffic counts show a mix of military F-16 aircraft operations,
GA traffic operations, and some civil air carrier operations. F-16
aircraft operate at significantly higher airspeeds than civil GA
traffic, normally 200+ knots faster on arrival and 250+ knots faster on
departure. This difference in airspeed creates extreme closure rates
between converging F-16 and GA aircraft. In addition, complexity is
increased because GA pilots often do not detect all the aircraft in a
military flight formation. Student pilot training in the F-16 aircraft,
combined with student flight training in GA aircraft, also increases
the potential for a near midair collision.
    The average number of conflicts between controlled and uncontrolled
aircraft has increased since 2000. In the five year period from 2000 to
2005, there were 76 NMACs reported. In the two year period from 2006 to
2008, 58 NMACs were reported. Aircraft track data modeling tools
indicate a significant volume of GA traffic crossing Luke's primary
instrument final approach course. This data indicates a direct
correlation between NMAC events and the proximity/flight patterns of GA
traffic operating out of DVT. Data track analysis also shows GA traffic
from Goodyear Airport (GYR) and Glendale Airport (GEU) crossing the
final approach course and departure path for Runway 21 at Luke. For
additional information regarding the Luke data track analysis go to:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/
service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/airspace_rules/.
    There are a number of prominent landmarks the GA community uses
when operating VFR. Two of these landmarks are the Glendale Arrowhead
Mall and the Peoria Power Plant/Substation, which are close to the Luke
Runway 21 final approach course. Luke F-16s use the Peoria Power plant
as a visual aid for turning to the final approach course when
conducting formation landings. Also, many of the flight schools use the
Proving Grounds, located approximately 5 miles north of the Luke
Auxiliary Field, for conducting

practice aircraft operations. Aircraft operations in the vicinity of
the Proving Grounds can conflict with the radar pattern for the Luke
Auxiliary Field. Use of these prominent VFR landmarks by GA traffic and
others results in conflicts with the IFR and VFR patterns of Luke F-
16s.
    Over the years, the USAF has been educating the local aviation
community about serious operational problems, including air traffic
congestion, and the uncontrolled mix of IFR and VFR traffic, which
impact safety around Luke. At first, the USAF addressed these problems
by making pilots at local airports and flight schools aware of the
issue and urging aircraft operators to use various traffic services
that could make operations in the area safer. Although the ongoing
educational efforts had a temporary impact on the number of NMACs and
led to a slight reduction of near misses, there continues to be an
average of one reported NMAC per month. The USAF finally concluded that
safety problems at Luke were so acute they sought a rulemaking
solution.
    Prior to filing a petition with the FAA, the USAF provided its
rulemaking petition to interested airspace user groups, elected
officials, and others. The USAF submitted its petition for rulemaking
to the FAA on July 21, 2006, along with the comments it received and
USAF responses. The USAF petitioned the FAA to establish a SATR in the
vicinity of Luke which would require pilots, among other things, to
obtain an air traffic clearance to operate in the area (FAA-2006-25459-
1). The USAF believed the growing amount of VFR traffic combined with a
high volume of military air traffic, as well as the number of NMACs
occurring in the Phoenix West Valley, fully justified such an action.
Local mayors, Members of Congress, and U.S. Senators, as well as many
aviation organizations, such as Pan Am International Flight Academy,
Westwind School of Aeronautics, Oxford Airline Training Center, Airline
Training Center Arizona, Inc., and WESTMARC (a regional coalition of
business, government, education and community organizations), endorsed
the petition and strongly supported the action.
    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and local pilot
associations, including the Deer Valley Pilots Association (DVPA) and
the Arizona Pilots Association (APA), responded to the USAF by opposing
any action that would require air traffic clearances to operate in the
area. The associations maintained the near midair problem could be
solved through more education and more robust charting notations about
avoiding the Luke area during its peak operational hours.
    After analyzing the petition and the initial response of the
aviation community it generated, the FAA determined that proposing a
SATR in the area had the potential to significantly reduce safety
problems in the vicinity of Luke. However, instead of requiring an air
traffic clearance to operate in the area, the FAA assessed that a
simple two-way radio communication requirement for pilots operating
around Luke would reduce the NMAC risk.

Summary of the NPRM

    On September 26, 2008, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was
published (73 FR 55788) which proposed establishment of a Special Air
Traffic Rule, in the vicinity of Luke Air Force Base (AFB), AZ. A
technical correction was issued (73 FR 60996) October 15, 2008, to
correct the docket number and extend the comment period. The FAA
proposed that operators conducting VFR operations establish two-way
radio communication with the Luke RAPCON prior to entering the Luke
SATR area, and maintain communication while operating in the area, at
certain times, and otherwise by NOTAM. The FAA sought to address
reported NMACs in the area around Luke and to reduce the potential for
NMACs. Interested parties were invited to participate in the rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal, and the comment
period closed December 15, 2008. An analysis of the comments and the
FAA's response are in the ``Discussion of the Final Rule'' section.

Summary of the Final Rule

    This action establishes a Special Air Traffic Rule in the vicinity
of Luke mandating a two-way communication requirement for VFR operators
effective upon publication of the Phoenix (PHX) Terminal Area Chart and
the PHX VFR Sectional Aeronautical Charts scheduled for May 6, 2010.
The FAA has determined that additional safeguards for flight operations
are necessary in the vicinity of Luke and this rule is necessary to
reduce the potential for midair collisions between military and
civilian pilots operating under VFR.
    The final rule and the proposed rule are similar except the FAA
will move the east boundary of the Luke Terminal area approximately one
mile to the west in the vicinity of the Arrowhead Mall to accommodate
straight in arrivals for runway 19 at GEU. The FAA is clarifying that
only operators of aircraft not equipped with an operational radio may
make advance transit arrangements with the air traffic control (ATC)
facility at Luke AFB, which is consistent with the NPRM. When
discussing the ATIS, and in section 93.176 of this final rule, the FAA
has substituted the word ``broadcast'' for ``advertised.'' When the
Luke NPRM was published (73 FR 55792, September 26, 2008) the FAA
proposed to codify it as subpart N to part 93. Subsequently, another
final rule was published (73 FR 60544, October 10, 2008) that used
Subpart N. Therefore, the Luke subpart is now designated as Subpart O
to part 93.

Discussion of the Final Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 93 to establish a SATR in the vicinity of Luke that requires
aircraft operating under VFR to establish two-way radio communication
with the Luke RAPCON prior to entering the SATR area and maintain
communication while operating in the area.
    A direct communication requirement is a cost-effective solution and
does not impose a significant burden on aircraft operating in, or
transiting, the airspace around Luke. It allows the GA community
unrestricted access to the area for student pilots enrolled at GA
flight schools in the vicinity of Luke. The alternative is to continue
to rely on the Air Force's educational and awareness program, which has
not resulted in a significant reduction in the number of conflicts and
NMACs.
    Currently the Luke RAPCON provides radar advisory services to GA
aircraft on request, but safety can be significantly heightened with
the full participation of all aircraft operating within the vicinity of
the Luke terminal area in a communication requirement. A communication
requirement provides an additional safety margin and increases the
protection of both military and GA operations by providing Luke
controllers advance notice of VFR aircraft transiting or operating
within the designated area. When pilots operating VFR take advantage of
the available advisory services, they are issued timely traffic
advisories and assistance while in the area.
    Luke will provide continuous information on the status of the SATR
for flight crews both in flight and on the ground via landline and
ATIS. This rule allows pilots flying VFR to access the active SATR area
once communication is established with Luke RAPCON. A clearance is not
required. The acceptance of flight following services by VFR aircraft
is recommended, but not required. Aircraft not equipped with an

operational radio can make alternate arrangements by contacting the ATC
facility at Luke AFB in advance of the proposed operation.
    The FAA received 95 comments in response to the NPRM. Of the 95
comments received, 78 did not identify any specific issue, but were
critical of the NPRM in general. Some commenters had concerns regarding
additional airspace complexity, while others felt the SATR created
proficiency-training issues and added frequency change requirements.
Seventeen commenters, including Members of Congress and local mayors
support the proposal as a necessary tool to reduce the potential for
NMACs. Below is a more detailed discussion of the rule broken down into
issue areas addressed by commenters. It reflects the comments we
received and the FAA's response.

Data and Nonrulemaking Solutions

    The Aircraft Owners and Pilot's Association (AOPA) questioned the
currency of the USAF NMAC information. AOPA asserted that the ``USAF
data was obsolete and stale, and was measured before industry efforts
to alleviate the problem.''
    The FAA does not agree. Between 2000 and 2005 the aviation
community and the USAF were working to alleviate the NMAC problems in
the vicinity of Luke and there were 76 reported NMACs. Of these NMACs,
84% of the documented occurrences were between F-16 and GA aircraft and
none of the GA aircraft were in communication with the Luke RAPCON. In
December 2008, the FAA and the USAF initiated a review of 58 NMAC
reports on file at the Luke safety office which occurred during 2006 to
2008. The review disclosed 10 NMACs in 2006, 25 in 2007, and 23 in
2008; 90%, 76% and 86% respectively were between F-16 and GA aircraft.
Because of the significant number of NMACs and the high concentration
of mixed high performance military and GA aircraft in the same area,
the FAA continues to have a safety concern.
    AOPA, pilots associations, and others continue to oppose a
rulemaking solution and maintain that education, more working groups
and additional study should be used. Commenters suggested the FAA form
working groups comprised of representatives from government as well as
aviation communities, to study problems that the proposed SATR is
expected to solve. Most of these commenters believe this group should
be actively involved in the development of workable solutions. One
aviation organization thought the user forums would pay specific
attention to user comments in developing the SATR, better serving the
requirements and safety needs of all airspace users.
    The FAA does not agree. The FAA reviewed and considered all
comments and recommendations in the preparation of the NPRM and this
final rule. While developing the proposal, the FAA specifically
considered input from AOPA, and other local pilot associations, such as
the DVPA and the APA. These organizations stressed pilot education, and
more robust charting, with no clearance or flight plan requirements.
The FAA agreed that a clearance requirement was too restrictive, and
determined that a communication requirement would provide the adequate
level of additional safety to increase protection of both military and
GA aircraft.
    The FAA determined that reliance on nonrulemaking alternatives to
provide an acceptable level of safety is no longer appropriate. The FAA
does not agree that additional education, outreach, working groups and
more robust charting would provide an adequate level of additional
safety. As discussed in the NPRM and the background section of this
final rule, the USAF has conducted education and outreach activities
with the affected aviation users over the years. In the last three
years, the USAF has held numerous meetings in the Phoenix Valley
informing the public of its growing safety concerns. These concerns
center around potential conflicts between military and GA VFR traffic
transiting the Luke area and conflicts between aircraft turning on
final approach to Runway 21. As discussed previously, the FAA assessed
that a rulemaking solution was required to address the number of NMACs,
the high volume of military and GA activity in the area, and to reduce
the NMAC risk.

Size, Boundaries and Classification

    The FAA received comments addressing the Luke SATR area. AOPA and
the Aviation Safety Advisory Group of Arizona stated that the Luke SATR
closely resembles Class C airspace communication requirements for VFR
aircraft entry, but may not meet the established criteria to create
Class C airspace. Others stated that the airspace is nonstandard or a
new category of airspace. One commenter stated that the FAA was
creating, in effect, sterile or restricted airspace.
    The FAA does not agree. Luke does not meet the enplaned or
instrument approach requirements for Class C airspace. The only
similarity between the SATR and Class C airspace is the requirement for
operators to establish two-way radio contact with ATC prior to entering
the area and to maintain contact while in the area. The SATR offers
flight following services to pilots on a strictly voluntary basis.
Conversely, Class C services include among other things, separation,
traffic advisories and safety alerts between IFR and VFR aircraft, and
mandatory traffic advisories and safety alerts between VFR aircraft.
Class C services are required for all aircraft operating within Class C
airspace. The NPRM did not propose to establish, and this final rule
does not establish, Class C airspace at Luke or within the SATR area.
    The SATR does not define a new category of airspace, it is a
procedural requirement for the management of aircraft by ATC. The Luke
SATR requires direct communication with Luke RAPCON before entry and
while operating in the designated area. The designated area and
procedures will be contained in 14 CFR part 93 which prescribes special
air traffic rules necessary for the safe and efficient management of
air traffic. The SATR area is in no way similar to restricted airspace
as defined in 14 CFR part 73. Restricted airspace is established to
confine or segregate activities considered hazardous to
nonparticipating aircraft, and within which flight is not prohibited,
but is subject to restriction. The SATR is not sterile nor does it
prohibit or limit aircraft access, so long as the aircraft operator
complies with simple communications requirements of this rule. It was
developed to enhance safety and awareness within an area where high
volumes of military and GA air traffic exist. Both the NPRM and the
final rule continue to allow GA access to the SATR area and the FAA
neither proposed, nor implemented, restricted or sterile airspace.
    AOPA, the APA, and other commenters stated the proposed SATR would
derogate rather than improve safety. Specific concerns were pilots
concentrating on their instruments and placing too much reliance upon
ATC rather than ``see and avoid,'' and the compression of air traffic
into narrow corridors. Commenters claimed that compression may increase
the impact of aircraft noise on underlying communities and noise
sensitive areas. Commenters stated that the SATR area design is too
``chopped up'' with the floor varying in altitudes across different
sub-areas, and at times, increased ``funneling'' of aircraft into small
vertical corridors at lower, and less safe, altitudes over populated
areas and terrain.

    The FAA does not agree. Direct and continuous communication
requirements for aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Luke
terminal airspace area would reduce the number of conflicts and the
NMAC potential. Continuous communication provides controllers with the
ability to exchange timely and accurate aircraft position information
for both military and civil pilots operating in the area thus enhancing
the pilots' see and avoid capability.
    The SATR area uses prominent geographical landmarks to define the
separate sub-areas that comprise the whole configuration. These sub-
area boundaries are depicted on both the PHX Terminal Area Chart and
the VFR Sectional Aeronautical Chart to assist the pilot with basic
navigation. A uniform floor was considered and rejected because it
would have required a larger area than was needed to protect aircraft
arriving and departing Luke.
    Regarding perceived issues of compression or ``funneling'' of air
traffic, pilots have two alternatives. First, pilots may participate in
SATR services and thus not be limited to flying below the base of each
area. Second, a pilot may deviate 2,000 feet horizontally from the
obstacle or populated area. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-36D, Visual
Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas, recommends
flights remain above 2,000 feet MSL, but the AC provisions do not apply
when they conflict with regulations, ATC instructions, or when a pilot
believes operating below 2,000 feet is necessary for the safety of the
flight. The SATR area does not require a clearance and was not
conceived or designed to force aircraft into circumnavigating the area
but pilots can circumnavigate the area if necessary. The area is not
restrictive or prohibitive and does not force aircraft into an unsafe
operating mode. Pilots who choose not to contact the Luke RAPCON and
avoid the SATR area do so voluntarily.
    The FAA received comments suggesting changes to the boundaries,
floors and ceilings of the Luke SATR. One commenter stated that the
northeast corner of the proposed SATR area is likely to cause
unintentional incursions by aircraft executing a straight-in approach
to Runway 19 at GEU. These approaches typically start over the
Arrowhead Mall which is very close to the northeast corner of the
proposed SATR area.
    The FAA shares this concern and asked the USAF to reevaluate the
proposed boundary in the vicinity of the Arrowhead Mall. The USAF and
the FAA determined that relocating the boundary would not impact the
final approach path to runway 21 at Luke. In this final rule the FAA
has moved the SATR boundary approximately 1 mile west of the Arrowhead
Mall to protect the straight-in approach to runway 19 at GEU. The FAA
will not move the boundary 2 miles to the west, as suggested by the
comment, because the airspace is necessary to protect the final
approach path to runway 21.
    Another commenter suggested eliminating the proposed SATR area and
expanding the airport traffic area and control zone to the northwest by
5 miles. The FAA does not agree. In 1993, the FAA reclassified the
regulatory structure of the National Airspace System (NAS). This was
done primarily to more closely align the airspace in the United States
along International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) guidelines. The
airspace previously identified as Airport Traffic Areas and Control
Zones were reclassified at that time to Class D Airspace Areas. FAA
Order 7400.2G, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, provides
guidance on the design of Class D airspace nationally. It states that
vertical and lateral limits should be standardized and shall be
designed to contain IFR arrival operations. The current Luke Class D
airspace area varies from 4.4 miles to a 5.6 mile radius of Luke and is
configured in accordance with the above mentioned guidelines. Adding an
additional 5 miles to the existing Class D airspace area is not
supported by current design criteria, and has no bearing on the scope
of issues addressed by the SATR area.
    Another commenter stated that the FAA should establish VFR
corridors through the SATR area and allow pilots in the VFR corridors
to operate without establishing and maintaining two-way radio
communication with the Luke RAPCON. The FAA does not agree. The USAF
sought an improvement in air safety when it petitioned the FAA to
address the problem of NMACs in the proposed SATR area. The suggestion
that pilots should be allowed to continue their current practice of not
contacting the Luke RAPCON and not exchanging position information
would negate the basic purpose of the SATR, which is to require two-way
communication with Luke RAPCON to improve safety.
    Another commenter believed that the segment of the proposed SATR
area west of DVT and north of Luke that has a floor of 3,000' and a
ceiling of 4,000', will encourage pilots of aircraft departing or
arriving GEU and/or DVT to under fly or circumnavigate increasing the
concentration of traffic in this area. He suggested raising the floor
to 4,000' and the ceiling to 5,000' to allow aircraft to avoid the SATR
area by operating at 3,500' and 4,500' below it.
    The FAA does not agree. First, very few aircraft currently
circumnavigate the airspace around Luke and a large percentage contact
Luke and take part in the flight following services offered by Luke
RAPCON. Although there may be an increase in the number of aircraft
that would circumnavigate the SATR, the FAA does not expect the
increase to be significant or burdensome. Second, aircraft operators
can establish communication and operate within the SATR rather than
navigate out of their way to avoid it. The SATR area was designed to
protect aircraft on an instrument approach to Runway 21L/R. The floor
of this area was designated at 3,000' which provides a 500' buffer
between the lowest altitude in use on the instrument approach and any
aircraft transiting or operating just beneath the SATR.
    Another commenter suggested modifying or eliminating the segment of
the proposed SATR labeled West Sector North which has a floor of 3,000'
and a ceiling of 6,000'. He stated that this area intrudes into rising
terrain in the northwest and would force aircraft into the foothills if
pilots are trying to under fly this area. The FAA does not agree. This
area was designed to protect the Luke auxiliary field traffic pattern
for aircraft conducting touch and go landings. The northwest point of
this area is the junction of Carefree Highway and US60. The area is
remote and there were not many landmarks that could be used as visual
references. A small portion of this area on the northern side intrudes
into rising terrain. Pilots may avoid the rising terrain by
establishing contact with Luke RAPCON and transiting the SATR or
circumnavigating the area.
    Another commenter stated that the 2,100' floor of the SATR area
just west of GYR does not allow transition for aircraft wishing to
overfly GYR Class D or aircraft departing/arriving GYR wishing to avoid
the SATR area. The FAA is establishing the 2,100' floor to protect Luke
aircraft departing/arriving runway 03 L/R. Aircraft that do not wish to
contact Luke RAPCON for use of the SATR area will have to
circumnavigate this area. Letters of Agreement (LOA) will be entered
into among Luke RAPCON and GYR, DVT and GEU Towers. The LOA will
outline special operating procedures to create a seamless environment
for GA operations. Departure and arrival procedures to and from the
SATR

boundaries and the airports, will be referenced in the LOA. These
procedures will allow GA operators to proceed on course while movement
information is passed between ATC facilities. This will negate abrupt
frequency changes and not having enough time to establish two-way
communication with the RAPCON prior to entering the SATR.
    One of the commenters was concerned that the SATR area would
infringe on, or virtually eliminate, airspace used today for GA pilot
training. That is not the case. The SATR area does not replace,
eliminate, or change any of the existing airspace structure or
operating rules; it only adds a requirement for two-way radio
communication with Luke RAPCON prior to entry and while in the area.
The SATR does not prohibit or restrict aircraft access for any purpose
including transit and/or training.

RAPCON Staffing and SATR Area Hours of Operation

    Several commenters addressed RAPCON staffing, communication
coverage and access to the area. The APA and others do not believe that
Luke RAPCON can maintain adequate staffing to provide communication
coverage and, as a result, GA aircraft will be denied access to the
area. AOPA, APA and other commenters were concerned about frequency
congestions and one commenter stated that during periods of peak
traffic, Luke RAPCON may not be able to immediately respond to aircraft
wishing to establish two-way radio contact for entry into the SATR
area, thereby denying aircraft access to the area. Another commenter
said that Luke radio coverage may not be sufficient for all the
airspace encompassed by the SATR area; especially the Luke ATIS.
    The FAA does not agree. Staffing and equipment resources are
already in place to support the Luke SATR area. Staffing and equipment
levels are adequate to provide all services without impacting safety or
efficiency and the USAF and the FAA do not expect staffing to be an
issue for Luke. LOAs and procedures will be developed to operate the
Luke SATR efficiently. However, should circumstances arise that
indicate a need for additional resources, action will be taken to
obtain them.
    The ability to provide any ATC service is limited by many factors,
such as the volume of traffic, frequency of congestion, controller
workload, or other higher priority duties that may not be apparent to a
pilot requesting access to the SATR area. Aircraft attempting to
establish two-way radio contact with ATC for entry into the SATR area
will be handled on a first-come, first-serve basis and as quickly as
the controller can safely provide the service. Currently a large
percentage of VFR operators contact Luke and exchange position
information. Though there may be an increase in the number of aircraft
establishing communication, the FAA does not expect the increase to be
significant.
    FAA's ATC experience has been that frequency congestion does occur
at peak demand periods at most major airports. When such congestion
occurs, resource adjustments are made on-site. Such adjustments include
resectoring and assigning selected personnel. The USAF recognizes the
potential exists for a need to establish additional controller
positions if delays during peak demand become a problem, and will
respond accordingly.
    Luke's existing radio coverage is sufficient to cover the area
defined in the SATR including the ATIS. The USAF has installed
additional transceivers on the White Tank Mountains radio relay site
that enhance the current radio coverage on the existing frequencies due
to the height and placement of the new transceivers.
    Some commenters stated that the operating rules for the SATR were
not clearly defined in the NPRM. They requested clarification about
whether a clearance from Luke was required, and if separation services,
including assigned headings, would be provided to GA aircraft. Further,
they asked if routine traffic advisories would be given, and if a
transponder was required.
    As stated in the NPRM and final rule, an air traffic clearance is
not required to operate in the SATR area. The final rule requires
pilots to establish two-way radio communication with Luke RAPCON prior
to entering the SATR area, and to maintain communication while
operating in the area. Once two-way communication is established,
flight following service is available upon request from Luke RAPCON.
Pilots of those aircraft not equipped with radios, or with inoperable
radios, can make advance arrangements with the Luke RAPCON to
coordinate transit through the area. The USAF requires use of flight
following service for military aircraft. The FAA recommends use of
flight following services by GA. Those aircraft participating in flight
following services are provided traffic advisory service as they
transition the area. Separation services and headings will not be
provided, and this rule does not change the current transponder
requirements in 14 CFR 91.215.
    Commenters had concerns about the Luke SATR's hours of operation.
One stated that the proposed hours of operation were not clear. Another
observed that the Luke RAPCON could open and close for just one flight
and asked whether the SATR would be activated for that situation.
Another noticed that the SATR was not active at night. Others were
concerned about access to the SATR area when the Luke RAPCON is not
open.
    The NPRM and the final rule both state the Luke SATR is designated
during official daylight hours Monday through Friday, during flight
training operations. The area may be activated at other times by NOTAM
when necessary to support Luke flight training. Status of Luke flight
training activities will be broadcast on Luke, DVT, GYR, and GEU local
ATIS frequencies. The Luke ATIS also can be contacted via a local
telephone call. Luke does occasionally open outside of normal hours to
handle VIP or other transient aircraft movement, but the SATR area will
not be activated routinely for those limited situations.
    The SATR area is not necessary during nighttime operations
primarily for three reasons. First, Luke's primary auxiliary airfield
is closed at night which significantly reduces the number of F-16
aircraft transitioning between the auxiliary field and Luke. Second,
aircraft are more easily visible at greater distances at night, thereby
allowing pilots more reasonable reaction time for conflict avoidance
with high performance aircraft. Third, the SATR area would be extremely
difficult to navigate at night when visual landmarks are either not
visible or not easily distinguishable. Therefore, when limited Luke
flight training activities are conducted at night the SATR will not be
active and GA pilots will have access to the area without a requirement
to communicate with the Luke RAPCON.

Gliders

    Pilots from the glider community expressed concern that their
operations would be unfairly impacted. They stated that it was not
clear that sailplanes without transponders would be able to operate
within the SATR area.
    The FAA agrees that clarification about glider operations is
needed. In that regard, the USAF has worked with the glider community
to address their operational concerns. The USAF met with the Pleasant
Valley Sailplane Association (PVSA) personnel to discuss the glider
community concerns. The USAF and the PVSA agreed to enter into an LOA
covering glider operation to allow glider operations to continue. The

Luke RAPCON plans to designate an assigned beacon code for the tow
planes. When the first tow plane of the morning goes up on the discrete
code, the Luke RAPCON will show the glider area active and provide
general traffic advisories throughout the course of the day while the
area is in use. The glider operators will call the Luke RAPCON at the
termination of the day's glider activity.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined there is
no current or new requirement for information collection associated
with this amendment.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule. We suggest readers seeking
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we
have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized
below.

Costs and Benefits of the Rule

    The FAA believes that this rule will impose minimal costs on VFR
pilots of GA aircraft, Luke AFB RAPCON and negligible cost on the FAA.
The rule will enhance aviation safety by reducing the risk of a midair
collision in the SATR area. As a result, the FAA believes this rule is
cost-beneficial.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to ensure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    This final rule will impose only negligible costs on individuals
operating GA aircraft in the Luke AFB vicinity under VFR. Most
operators of GA aircraft are individuals, not small business entities,
and are not included when performing a regulatory flexibility analysis.
However, flight schools, as well as GA operators flying for business
reasons, are considered small business entities. The FAA assumes
affected instructors and operators use aircraft equipped with two-way
radios, and therefore will not incur any extra costs.
    Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, I certify that this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

International Trade Analysis

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it
will have only a domestic impact and therefore will not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The level equivalent of $100 million in CY 1995,
adjusted for inflation to CY 2007 levels by the

Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $136.1 million. This final rule does
not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/
sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Alaska, Navigation, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

 The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502,
44514, 44701, 44719, 46301.

0
2. Add Subpart O to part 93 to read as follows:
Subpart O--Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Luke AFB, AZ
Sec.
93.175 Applicability.
93.176 Description of area.
93.177 Operations in the Special Air Traffic Rule Area.

Subpart O--Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Luke AFB, AZ

Sec.  93.175  Applicability.

    This subpart prescribes a Special Air Traffic Rule for aircraft
conducting VFR operations in the vicinity of Luke Air Force Base, AZ.

Sec.  93.176  Description of area.

    The Luke Air Force Base, Arizona Terminal Area is designated during
official daylight hours Monday through Friday while Luke pilot flight
training is underway, as broadcast on the local Automatic Terminal
Information Service (ATIS), and other times by Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM), as follows:
    (a) East Sector:
    (1) South section includes airspace extending from 3,000 feet MSL
to the base of the overlaying Phoenix Class B airspace bounded by a
line beginning at: Lat. 33[deg]23'56'' N; Long. 112[deg]28'37'' W; to
Lat. 33[deg]22'32'' N; Long. 112[deg]37'14'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]25'39''
N; Long. 112[deg]37'29'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]31'55'' N; Long.
112[deg]30'32'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]28'00'' N; Long. 112[deg]28'41'' W;
to point of beginning.
    (2) South section lower includes airspace extending from 2,100 feet
MSL to the base of the overlaying Phoenix Class B airspace, excluding
the Luke Class D airspace area bounded by a line beginning at: Lat.
33[deg]28'00'' N; Long. 112[deg]28'41'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]23'56'' N;
Long. 112[deg]28'37'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]27'53'' N; Long.
112[deg]24'12'' W; to point of beginning.
    (3) Center section includes airspace extending from surface to the
base of the overlaying Phoenix Class B airspace, excluding the Luke
Class D airspace area bounded by a line beginning at: Lat.
33[deg]42'22'' N; Long. 112[deg]19'16'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]38'40'' N;
Long. 112[deg]14'03'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]27'53'' N; Long.
112[deg]24'12'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]28'00'' N; Long. 112[deg]28'41'' W;
to Lat. 33[deg]31'55'' N; Long. 112[deg]30'32'' W; to point of
beginning.
    (4) The north section includes that airspace extending upward from
3,000 feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL, bounded by a line beginning at: Lat.
33[deg]42'22'' N; Long. 112[deg]19'16'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]46'58'' N;
Long. 112[deg]16'41'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]44'48'' N; Long.
112[deg]10'59'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]38'40'' N; Long. 112[deg]14'03'' W;
to point of beginning.
    (b) West Sector:
    (1) The north section includes that airspace extending upward from
3,000 feet MSL to 6,000 feet MSL, bounded by a line beginning at: Lat.
33[deg]51'52'' N; Long. 112[deg]37'54'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]49'34'' N;
Long. 112[deg]23'34'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]46'58'' N; Long.
112[deg]16'41'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]42'22'' N; Long. 112[deg]19'16'' W;
to Lat. 33[deg]39'27'' N; Long. 112[deg]22'27'' W; to point of
beginning.
    (2) The south section includes that airspace extending upward from
the surface to 6,000 feet MSL, bounded by a line beginning at: Lat.
33[deg]39'27'' N; Long. 112[deg]22'27'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]38'06'' N;
Long. 112[deg]23'51'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]38'07'' N; Long.
112[deg]28'50'' W; to Lat. 33[deg]39'34'' N; Long. 112[deg]31'39'' W;
to Lat. 33[deg]39'32'' N; Long. 112[deg]37'36'' W; to Lat.
33[deg]51'52'' N;

Long. 112[deg]37'54'' W; to point of beginning.

Sec.  93.177  Operations in the Special Air Traffic Rule Area.

    (a) Unless otherwise authorized by Air Traffic Control (ATC), no
person may operate an aircraft in flight within the Luke Terminal Area
designated in Sec.  93.176 unless--
    (1) Before operating within the Luke Terminal area, that person
establishes radio contact with the Luke RAPCON; and
    (2) That person maintains two-way radio communication with the Luke
RAPCON or an appropriate ATC facility while within the designated area.
    (b) Requests for deviation from the provisions of this section
apply only to aircraft not equipped with an operational radio. The
request must be submitted at least 24 hours before the proposed
operation to Luke RAPCON.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2009.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-30938 Filed 12-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Pennsylvania has adequately demonstrated that the Areas will continue
to maintain the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
during the 10 year maintenance period.
3. Monitoring Network
    Pennsylvania's maintenance plans include a commitment to continue
to operate its EPA-approved monitoring network, as necessary to
demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. Pennsylvania currently
operates a PM2.5 monitor in each of the counties in the
Harrisburg Area, namely Cumberland, Dauphin, and Lebanon Counties, and
a PM2.5 monitor on Hill Street in the York Area. In its
April 22, 2014 submittals, Pennsylvania stated that it will consult
with EPA prior to making any necessary changes to the network and will
continue to quality assure the monitoring data in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    To provide for tracking of the emission levels in the Areas, PADEP
requires major point sources to submit air emissions information
annually and prepares a new periodic inventory for all PM2.5
precursors every three years in accordance with EPA's Air Emissions
Reporting Requirements (AERR). Emissions information will be compared
to the attainment year inventory (2007) to assure continued attainment
with the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and
will be used to assess emissions trends, as necessary. Also, as noted
in the previous subsection, PADEP will continue to operate its
monitoring system in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and remains
obligated to quality-assure monitoring data and enter all data into the
AQS in accordance with federal requirements. PADEP will use this data,
supplemented with additional data, as necessary, to assure continuing
attainment in the Areas.
5. Contingency Measures
    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a
violation of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS that occurs in the
Areas after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that a state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and
implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the
time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
    Pennsylvania's maintenance plans describe the procedures for the
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to reduce emissions
should a violation occur. Pennsylvania's contingency measures include a
first level response and a second level response. A first level
response is triggered for when the annual mean PM2.5
concentration exceeds 15.5 [mu]g/m\3\ in a single calendar year within
the Areas, or if the periodic emissions inventory for the Areas exceed
the attainment year inventory by more than ten percent. The first level
response will consist of a study to determine if the emissions trends
show increasing concentrations of PM2.5, and whether this
trend is likely to continue. If it is determined through the study that
action is necessary to reverse a trend of emissions increases,
Pennsylvania will, as expeditiously as possible, implement necessary
and appropriate control measures to reverse the trend.
    A second level response will be prompted if the two-year average of
the annual mean concentration exceeds 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ within the Areas.
This would trigger an evaluation of the conditions causing the
exceedence, whether additional emission control measures should be
implemented to prevent a violation of the standard, and analysis of
potential measures that could be implemented to prevent a violation.
Pennsylvania would then begin its adoption process to implement the
measures as expeditiously as practicable.
    Pennsylvania's candidate contingency measures include the
following: (1) A regulation based on the Ozone Transport Commission
(OTC) Model Rule to update requirements for consumer products; (2) a
regulation based on the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for
industrial cleaning solvents; (3) voluntary diesel projects such as
diesel retrofit for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets,
idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives, and idling
reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses, and
other freight-handling facilities; (4) promotion of accelerated
turnover of lawn and garden equipment, focusing on commercial
equipment; and (5) promotion of

alternative fuels for fleets, home heating and agricultural use.
Pennsylvania's rulemaking process and schedule for adoption and
implementation of any necessary contingency measure is shown in the SIP
submittals as being 18 months from PADEP's approval to initiate
rulemaking. For all of the reasons discussed in this section, EPA is
proposing to approve Pennsylvania's 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 maintenance plans for the Harrisburg, York, and
Harrisburg-York Areas as meeting the requirements of section 175A of
the CAA.

C. Transportation Conformity

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires Federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to ``conform to'' the goals of SIPs. This means
that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations of a
NAAQS, worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity
rule (40 CFR Part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas
coordinate with state air quality and transportation agencies, EPA, and
the FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that their long range transportation
plans and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to
applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing that estimated
emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are
less than or equal to the MVEBs contained in the SIP. On April 22,
2014, Pennsylvania submitted SIP revisions that contain the 2017 and
2025 PM2.5 and NOX onroad mobile source budgets
for Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and York Counties, Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania did not provide emission budgets for SO2, VOC,
and NH3 because it concluded, consistent with the
presumptions regarding these precursors in the Transportation
Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), which predated and were not
disturbed by the litigation on the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation
Rule, that emissions of these precursors from motor vehicles are not
significant contributors to the Area's PM2.5 air quality
problem. EPA issued conformity regulations to implement the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in July 2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1,
2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 2005). Those actions were not part of the
final rule recently remanded to EPA by the D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC
v. EPA, No. 08-1250 (January 4, 2013), in which the D.C. Circuit Court
remanded to EPA the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule because
it concluded that EPA must implement that NAAQS pursuant to the PM-
specific implementation provisions of subpart 4, rather than solely
under the general provisions of subpart 1. That decision does not
affect EPA's proposed approval of the MVEBs for the Areas. The MVEBs in
tpy are presented in Tables 14, 15, and 16.

 Table 14--MVEBs for Cumberland and Dauphin Counties for the 1997 PM2.5
                         and 2006 24-Hour NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                         PM2.5            NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017....................................             365           10287
2025....................................             275            7024
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 15--MVEBs for Lebanon County for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 24-
                               Hour NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                         PM2.5            NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017....................................              76            2252
2025....................................              52            1446
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 16--MVEBs for York County for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 24-
                               Hour NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                         PM2.5            NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017....................................             192            5390
2025....................................             144            3398
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of MVEBs are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Additionally, to approve the MVEBs, EPA
must complete a thorough review of the SIP, in this case the
PM2.5 maintenance plans, and conclude that with the
projected level of motor vehicle and all other emissions, the SIPs will
achieve its overall purpose, in this case providing for maintenance of
the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's
process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three basic
steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a
public comment period; and (3) EPA taking action on the MVEB.
    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA is initiating the process
for determining whether or not the MVEBs are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. The publication of this document
starts a 30-day public comment period on the adequacy of the submitted
MVEBs. This comment period is concurrent with the comment period on
this proposed action and comments should be submitted to the docket for
this rulemaking. EPA may choose to make its determination on the
adequacy of the budgets either in the final rulemaking on this
maintenance plan and redesignation request or by informing Pennsylvania
of the determination in writing, publishing a notice in the Federal
Register and posting a notice on EPA's adequacy Web page (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm).\16\ However,
EPA would not complete the adequacy process for these budgets in
advance of the final rule approving the maintenance plan and
redesignation request unless the D.C. Circuit Court lifts the stay on
the implementation of CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For additional information on the adequacy process, please
refer to 40 CFR 93.118(f) and the discussion of the adequacy process
in the preamble to the 2004 final transportation conformity rule.
See 69 FR 40039-40043.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and found them consistent with the
maintenance plan and that the budgets meet the criteria for adequacy
and approval. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for Cumberland, Dauphin,
Lebanon, and York Counties for transportation conformity purposes
provided that the D.C. Circuit Court grants EPA's motion to lift the
stay of CSAPR, as discussed in detail in Section IV.B. of today's
proposed rulemaking action. Additional information pertaining to the
review of the MVEBs can be found in the TSDs dated September 3, 2014,
available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0525.

VI. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve the redesignations of the Harrisburg-
Lebanon-Carlisle-York Areas from nonattainment to attainment for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has evaluated
Pennsylvania's redesignation requests and determined that the Areas
meet the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA provided that the D.C. Circuit Court grants EPA's motion to
lift the stay of CSAPR. The monitoring data demonstrates that the Areas
have attained the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and, for the reasons discussed previously, that they will
continue to attain the NAAQS. Final approval of these redesignation
requests would

change the designation of Harrisburg and York Areas from nonattainment
to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the
Harrisburg-York Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the
associated maintenance plans for the Areas as revisions to the
Pennsylvania SIP because they meet the requirements of section 175A of
the CAA as described previously in this proposed rulemaking notice. In
addition, EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 base year emissions
inventory as meeting the requirement of section 172(a)(3) of the CAA.
Furthermore, EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for
Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and York Counties for transportation
conformity purposes. EPA is also initiating the process for determining
whether the MVEBs are adequate for transportation conformity purposes.
EPA's proposed approval of Pennsylvania's redesignation requests,
maintenance plans, and MVEBs in today's rulemaking action are
contingent upon the lifting of the CSAPR stay. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule proposing to approve Pennsylvania's
redesignation requests, maintenance plans, 2007 base year emissions
inventory, and MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for the
Harrisburg and York Areas for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
and the Harrisburg-York Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not
approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments
or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: September 30, 2014.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014-24596 Filed 10-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P