[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 250 (Friday, December 30, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80462-80468]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28272]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0107; FRL-9426-02-R9]

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County; Power Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the Maricopa County Air Quality
Department's (MCAQD or County) portion of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision addresses Arizona's reasonably
available control technology (RACT) SIP obligations for the Phoenix-
Mesa ozone nonattainment area that is classified as Moderate
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). We are approving a local rule that regulates emissions of
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) from
power plants under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective January 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0107. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action and Interim Final Determination
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action and Interim Final Determination

    On February 8, 2022 (87 FR 7069), the EPA proposed to approve MCAQD
Rule 322 ``Power Plant Operations,'' as amended on June 23, 2021, and
submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to
the EPA on June 30, 2021.\1\ The MCAQD regulates a portion of the
Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area that is classified as Moderate
for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (40 CFR
81.303). Maricopa County's ``Analysis of Reasonably Available Control
Technology For The 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP),'' adopted
December 5, 2016, submitted June 22, 2017 (the ``2016 RACT SIP''),
found that there were major sources of NOX within the
Maricopa County portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area
subject to Rule 322. Accordingly, this rule must establish RACT levels
of control for applicable major sources of NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In our February 8, 2022 proposed rule, we inadvertently
cited the submittal date for this submittal as June 24, 2021, which
was the date that the letters from the County and State transmitting
these materials were signed. The date that these materials were
received in the EPA's SPeCS for SIPs system was June 30, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 322 regulates emissions from electricity steam generating
units, cogeneration steam units, and turbines. It also includes related
recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements. The version of
Rule 322 that we are acting on in this rule (i.e., the version adopted
on June 23, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on June 30, 2021) corrects
several deficiencies in a previous version of Rule 322 that was adopted
by MCAQD on November 2, 2016, and submitted to the EPA on June 22,
2017, and that resulted in the EPA's disapproval published in the
Federal Register in February 2020.\2\ The EPA has determined that this
revised version of Rule 322 corrects the deficiencies in the 2017
submitted version related to flawed cost effectiveness analyses and the
lack of enforceable operational restrictions in the rule itself and,
further, that it meets the EPA's criteria for RACT for this source
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See EPA Region IX, ``Technical Support Document for Maricopa
County Air Quality Department Rule 322, Power Plant Operations,''
January 2022; 87 FR 7070 (February 8, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve Rule 322 because we determined that it
complies with the relevant CAA requirements in CAA sections 110,
182(b)(2), 182(f), and 193. Our proposed action contains more
information on Rule 322 and our evaluation of the SIP revision. On the
same day, we also made an interim final determination (87 FR 7042) that
the submittal from the ADEQ corrected SIP deficiencies from a previous
submittal, allowing us to defer the imposition of sanctions resulting
from our disapproval of a previously submitted version of Rule 322 (85
FR 43692, July 20, 2020).

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received five comments. Four of these comments
were from members of the public and were generally supportive of our
proposed action or were not germane. The fifth comment was submitted by
Air Law for All, Ltd. on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity
and the Sierra Club (the commenter from here on referred to as ``ALFA''
or ``the commenter'').

Low Use Exemptions and RACT

    ALFA asserts that Rule 322's annual operational limits cannot be
used to exempt units from RACT for short-term ozone standards, that
Rule 322's limits on operation are used to ``artificially inflate the
annualized cost-effectiveness of NOX controls to justify not
installing RACT-level technology,'' and that Rule 322 uses a long-term
annual average to circumvent the installation of overall RACT level
controls.
    We do not agree with the commenter's assertions. As discussed
further below,

and contrary to the statements in the comment letter, Rule 322
satisfies RACT requirements for NOX emissions from power
plants in two ways. First, it includes RACT-level NOX
emission limits in section 306 that apply to electric utility steam
generating turbines rated greater than 100 MMBtu/hr and electric
utility stationary gas turbines rated greater than 10 MMBtu/hr.\3\
Second, Rule 322 provides an exemption from the RACT-level
NOX emission limit only for emissions units that meet
certain criteria that are set forth in section 104.4. In particular,
for units that operate at or below 10 percent annual capacity factor,
Rule 322 allows an exemption from NOX RACT limits only if
the facility demonstrates through an analysis that RACT-level controls
are not economically or technologically feasible. Rule 322's provisions
for low use equipment are an important component of EPA's determination
that Rule 322 satisfies the RACT obligation under the CAA for this
source category.\4\ We note that the EPA has approved rules that exempt
certain units from RACT requirements based on low use in other SIPs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We note that the limits in the submitted rule are more
stringent than the NOX emission limits that are currently
in the SIP. (The current SIP-approved rule was adopted by MCAQD in
2007 and approved by the EPA in 2009. 74 FR 52693 (October 14,
2009).) For example, the current SIP-approved version of Rule 322
does not contain any NOX limit for electric utility
stationary gas turbines, whereas the submitted version of Rule 322
establishes a NOX limit of 42 ppm for these units, if
they are fired by gaseous fossil fuel, and 65 ppm if they are fired
by liquid fossil fuel. This notice provides additional discussion
comparing the submitted and currently SIP-approved versions of Rule
322 below.
    \4\ In the 1992 General Preamble for the Implementation of Title
I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA stated that ``it is
possible that a state could demonstrate that an existing source in
an area should not be subject to a control technology especially
where such control is unreasonable in light of the area's attainment
needs or infeasible.'' 57 FR 13498, 13541, note 20 (April 16, 1992).
Appendix C4 to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title
I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (titled ``RACT Determinations for
Stationary Sources'') further elaborates on this point, clarifying
that ``States may give substantial weight to cost effectiveness in
evaluating the economic feasibility of an emission reduction
technology.'' 82 FR 18070, 18074 (Apr. 28, 1992). Appendix C4 refers
to the General Preamble discussion on particulate matter, but its
discussion on economic feasibility also applies to considerations
for NOX RACT emissions controls. That is what the State
has done in this instance; when the facilities operate at or below
10 percent annual capacity factor, there is no requirement to
install RACT because it is not cost effective.
    \5\ See, for example: Colorado's 5 CCR 1001-9, Regulation 7,
part E, section II.A.2.a, approved at 86 FR 11125 (February 24,
2021); Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.19, section (1)(d), approved at 85 FR
65236 (October 15, 2020); Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District Rule 74.15.1 section C.2 as low a heat input exemption
approved at 81 FR 50348 (August 1, 2016); Wisconsin's NR 428.21,
section (1)(d) paragraph 2 and section (2)(d) paragraph 2, approved
at 75 FR 64155 (October 19, 2010); Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District Rule 411, section 113, approved at 74 FR
20880 (May 6, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 104.4 of Rule 322 now allows for equipment that operates at
or below 10 percent of the unit's calendar year annual capacity factor
\6\ to be exempt from NOX and CO emissions limitations in
sections 306 and 307 if the equipment meets the criteria specified in
section 104.4(a), (b) and (c).\7\ To qualify for the exemption from the
NOX and CO emissions limits in sections 306 and 307, section
104.4(a) requires an owner or operator to submit an analysis to the
MCAQD Control Officer and EPA Administrator demonstrating that
conventional commercially available control technology is not
technically or economically feasible. In addition, section 104.4(b)
requires an owner or operator to submit, within 60 days of MCAQD
approval, an application to modify the equipment's permit to include an
annual heat input limit (i.e., a limit on the amount of fuel that can
be used in the unit annually), and section 104.4(c) specifies that
owners and operators must demonstrate compliance with the heat input
limit by multiplying the higher heating value (expressed in terms of
either MMBtu/mass or MMBtu/volume by fuel use (mass or volume)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The U.S. Energy Information Administration defines
``capacity factor'' as: ``The ratio of the electrical energy
produced by a generating unit for the period of time considered to
the electrical energy that could have been produced at continuous
full power operation during the same period.'' Available: https://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.php.
    \7\ Equipment that operates at less than 10 percent of its
annual capacity is also subject to provisions in Rule 322 that
require compliance with good combustion practices, particulate
limits, and requirements for recordkeeping and reporting. See e.g.,
Rule 322, sections 301, 302, 303, 304 and 500. A more complete
description of these provisions is included later in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix 12 to Maricopa County's 2021 submittal includes a set of
three analyses of technical feasibility and cost effectiveness (i.e.,
economic feasibility) for thirteen emissions units at four different
facilities owned by Arizona Public Service (APS) and Salt River Project
(SRP).\8\ APS and SRP seek to comply with Rule 322 by operating these
units subject to the 10 percent annual capacity factor limit in section
104.4.\9\ The analyses present available NOX control
technologies, including water injection, steam injection, low
NOX burners, dry low NOX combustion, selective
non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and selective catalytic reduction
(SCR).\10\ The analyses next determine which available technologies are
technically feasible for the various emissions units. The analyses then
assess the cost effectiveness of the technically feasible options by
considering the capital and annual costs compared to the NOX
reductions that would be expected to result from the controls. For this
last step, each analysis assumed that the emissions unit would operate
at 10 percent of its rated capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 2021 Submittal, Appendix 12.
    \9\ Besides the thirteen emissions units that seek to comply
with Rule 322 by operating subject to the 10 percent annual capacity
factor limit in section 104.4, there are 40 units that must comply
with the emissions limits in sections 306 and 307. Of the nine
facilities subject to Rule 322, four operate units seeking the low
use exemption from sections 306 and 307 of the rule.
    \10\ The range of NOX control technologies evaluated
varied according to the specifics of the emissions units. For more
detailed information, see our 2022 TSD, 9-11; 2021 Submittal at 64-
189.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that the analyses state, for each emissions
unit analyzed, actual operation of each unit was far below ten percent
of capacity. For example, Table 3-2 of the analysis for APS Ocotillo
and West Phoenix power plants presents the capacity factor for each of
the four units analyzed in the document in the years 2015, 2016 and
2017, the most recent three years at the time the analysis was
developed; of the twelve data points, only two units were operated
above 1 percent annual capacity, and eight were below 0.5 percent
annual capacity.\11\ Similarly, the analysis for SRP Agua Fria
generating station's units 1-3 states that the units ``have a very low
utilization, with a typical capacity factor of approximately 5
percent,'' \12\ and the analysis for SRP Agua Fria units 4-6 states
that the annual capacity factor is less than 1 percent.\13\ Moreover,
the analysis for SRP Kyrene units 4-6 states that the units have ``very
low utilization, with a typical capacity factor less than 0.1
percent.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 2021 Submittal at 71 (``Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) Analysis for the control of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) emission from the Arizona Public Service Ocotillo
and West Phoenix Power Plants'' (October 2018) at 8).
    \12\ 2021 Submittal at 106 (``Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) Analysis for the control of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) emissions from the Salt River Project Agua Fria
Generating Station'' (July 2020) at 14).
    \13\ 2021 Submittal at 167 (``Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) Analysis for the control of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) emissions from simple-cycle combustion turbine
generators at the Salt River Project Agua Fria and Kyrene Generating
Stations'' (July 2020) at 15).
    \14\ 2021 Submittal at 176, 182; (``Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) Analysis for the control of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) emissions from simple-cycle combustion turbine
generators at the Salt River Project Agua Fria and Kyrene Generating
Stations'' (July 2020) at 24, 30.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fact that actual usage of the emissions units that will be
regulated

pursuant to the low use exemption has historically been well below the
10 percent capacity factor imposed by the exemption contradicts the
commenter's point that ``the limits on operation are used to
artificially inflate the annualized cost-effectiveness of
NOX controls to justify not installing RACT-level
technology.'' Arguably, because the cost effectiveness analyses
conservatively assumed higher levels of operation than actually occur,
the analyses overestimated NOX emissions and therefore
overestimated NOX reductions that would result from use of
NOX control equipment. Because cost effectiveness is
expressed as dollars (capital and operational costs of controls) per
ton of emissions (emissions reductions resulting from the controls), an
overestimation of emissions reductions would effectively make controls
appear more cost effective, not less.
    The commenter also points to a 1984 guidance document \15\ to
assert that ``the averaging time for ozone plan emission limitations
should match the standards, that is, should be short term.'' We note,
however, that section 104.4's 10 percent heat input limit differs from
the emission limits addressed in the 1984 guidance in that it is also a
criterion that must be met to qualify for and maintain an exemption
from Rule 322's NOX and CO limits. Further, to qualify for
the exemption, section 104.4 also requires sources to submit, for
Control Officer and EPA approval, a RACT analysis that demonstrates
that ``conventional commercially-available control technology is not
technologically and/or economically feasible.'' EPA has long considered
what is technologically and economically feasible in determining RACT
controls.\16\ And, as explained above, the analyses in Appendix 12 of
the 2021 submittal package demonstrate that the installation of RACT
control technologies for units operating at 10 percent of their annual
capacity factors exceeds established cost effectiveness values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See ``Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission
Limits--SIP Revision Policy,'' (also referred to as the ``O'Connor
Memorandum''). 51 FR 43857 (December 4, 1986). It is conceivable
that this guidance pertains to limits on direct emissions of air
pollutants only, not operational standards. We note that the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments added the phrase ``work practice or
operational standard'' to the definition of the terms ``emission
limit'' and ``emission standard'' at CAA section 302(k).
    \16\ Since the 1970s, EPA has consistently defined ``RACT'' as
the lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of
meeting by the application of the control technology that is
reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility. See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional
Administrators, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas.'' 44 FR 53762 (September 17,
1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to the commenter's assertion, section 104.4's annual
capacity limit does not allow sources to ``circumvent the installation
of RACT level controls.'' Rather, as evidenced by the analyses in
Appendix 12 of the 2021 submittal package, sources regulated by Rule
322 appear to understand section 104.4 to require not only a standard
approach to evaluating the cost effectiveness of pollution controls,
but also application of this approach to all emissions units, even
those that are used at one percent (or even lower) of their rated
capacity.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ We note further that Rule 322 does not allow
``circumvention'' of RACT by units that do not seek to qualify as
exempt pursuant to section 104.4. Rule 322 applies to electric
utility steam generating units and cogeneration steam generating
units with rated heat input capacity greater than or equal to 100
million Btu/hour. Rule 322 clearly requires any unit that does not
submit to section 104.4's limit on heat input to comply with the
NOX and CO limits in sections 306 and 307, which EPA has
determined to be RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is also important to note that units regulated by the low use
provisions in section 104.4 must comply with requirements in section
500, ``Monitoring and Records,'' including section 501.1 that requires
owners and operators to maintain records of days and hours of operation
and monthly fuel usage that will ensure that regulators, members of the
public, and facility owners and operators can determine compliance with
section 104.4's fuel input cap. In addition, the units regulated by the
low use provisions in section 104.4 must still comply with other
provisions in Rule 322, such as particulate matter emissions
limitations (section 301), good combustion practice obligations for
turbines (section 302), opacity limits (section 304), and fuel sulfur
limits (section 305).
    We acknowledge the commenter's point that the equipment for which
power generators are seeking an exemption from NOX and CO
limits pursuant to section 104.4 are likely operated as peaking units
and are therefore expected to operate primarily during hot summer days
when ozone formation is typically high. The Clean Air Act provides
states with primary responsibility for developing pollution control
strategies discretion to attain the NAAQS. The states also have ``broad
authority to determine the methods and particular control strategies
they will use to achieve the statutory requirements.'' \18\ Because we
find that Rule 322 is consistent with federal standards for RACT, we
believe it is appropriate for the State to use its discretion to allow
these units to operate, even during high ozone periods, as long as the
State can demonstrate attainment with applicable ozone NAAQS. The EPA
has approved the State's attainment demonstration and the associated
reasonably available control measures (RACM) demonstration for the
Phoenix 2008 ozone nonattainment area,\19\ and has determined that this
area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date.\20\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld
both of these actions.\21\ With respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which
is more stringent than the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA has recently
determined that the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area failed to attain
the standard by the attainment date for areas classified as Marginal
and therefore it has been reclassified to the next highest
classification, Moderate.\22\ This ``bump up'' action means that the
State of Arizona and MCAQD are subject to CAA section 182(b)(2)'s
requirement to demonstrate RACT and to section 182(b)(1)'s requirement
to submit a plan demonstrating reasonable further progress towards
attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and providing for attainment by the
Moderate area attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ BCCA Appeal Grp. v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817, 822 (5th Cir. 2003)
(as amended on denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc Jan. 8,
2004) (citing Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 266 (1976) (``So
long as the national standards are met, the state may select
whatever mix of control devices it desires.'')
    \19\ 85 FR 33571 (June 2, 2020).
    \20\ 84 FR 60920 (November 12, 2019).
    \21\ Bahr v. Regan, 6 F.4th 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) Matusow v.
Wheeler, Case No. 20-72279 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2022).
    \22\ 87 FR 60897 (October 7, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discretionary Authority in SIP Actions

    ALFA asserts that the EPA's statement that we do not have the
``discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical, appropriate and legally
permissible methods under Executive Order 12898'' is incorrect, and
that the EPA has the discretion to interpret the requirements of the
Act with regard to SIP submissions, demonstrated by our application of
Agency guidance in interpreting requirements for averaging times in
emission limitations. The commenter further asserts that the EPA does
in fact have the discretionary authority to address impacts to
environmental justice communities in this context.
    While the EPA may in certain circumstances have discretion to

consider environmental justice in implementing the requirements of the
Act, E.O. 12898 does not provide any independent authority for action.
For the reasons described in our proposal, our Technical Support
Document (TSD), and this notice, we have determined that the submittal
satisfies the obligation to implement RACT under sections 110 and 182
of the Act. Under the CAA, the EPA is required to approve a SIP
submission that meets the minimum requirements of the CAA and
applicable federal regulations. Moreover, we note that while we are
approving Rule 322 as meeting RACT under the requirements of the 2008
ozone NAAQS, we are not making any determinations as to whether this
submittal meets requirements applicable to the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    Although Executive Order 12898 does not provide us with an
independent basis to disapprove the County's SIP submission, we
conducted an environmental justice analysis to provide additional
context and information about this rulemaking to the public. To
identify environmental burdens and susceptible populations in
underserved communities in the areas surrounding units operating under
the low use exemption in Rule 322, we performed a screening analysis
using the EPA's environmental justice screening and mapping tool
(``EJSCREEN'') and the Power Plants and Neighboring Communities mapping
tool (``PPNC'') that includes EJSCREEN data in addition to facility
emissions data collected by the EPA.23 24 We used these
tools to assess the areas within a three-mile radius of the four
facilities operating under the low use provisions of Rule 322. We
selected a three-mile buffer because these facilities on their own have
fairly large geographic footprints, and a three-mile radius was
appropriate to capture potentially impacted communities that may be
located nearby. We focused our analysis of the area on the two
demographic indicators explicitly named in Executive Order 12898, the
area's percentage of people of color and the percentage of low-income
population.\25\ Based on our screening analysis, we found that two of
the four areas had higher percentages for the People of Color indicator
living in the buffer zone than the state average of 45 percent (the
area around the Agua Fria Generating Station reported 60 percent and
the area around the West Phoenix Power Plant reported 91 percent), and
three of the four areas had higher percentages for the Low Income
indicator than the state average of 35 percent (Agua Fria Generating
Station reported 44 percent, Ocotillo Power Plant reported 49 percent,
and West Phoenix Power Plant reported 77 percent). Selected metrics
from that analysis are presented below in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``EJScreen (Version
2.0), 2022.'' Environmental Justice index and Socioeconomic
Indicator tables, and EJSCREEN American Community Survey (ACS)
Summary reports 2015-2019 data. Retrieved August 12, 2022 from
https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
    \24\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2022. ``Power Plants
and Neighboring Communities (PPNC), 2020'' Washington, DC: Office of
Atmospheric Programs, Clean Air Markets Division. Available from
EPA's PPNC website: https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/power-plants-and-neighboring-communities. The reports generated for this analysis are
available in the rulemaking docket.
    \25\ Executive Order 12898 focuses explicitly on these two
demographic indicators, which it refers to as ``minority
populations'' and ``low-income populations.'' EJSCREEN reports
environmental indicators (e.g., air toxics cancer risk, lead paint
exposure, and traffic proximity and volume) and demographic
indicators (e.g., people of color, low income, and linguistically
isolated populations). Depending on the indicator, a community that
scores highly for an indicator may have a higher percentage of its
population within a demographic group or a higher average exposure
or proximity to an environmental health hazard compared to the
state, region, or national average. EJSCREEN also reports EJ
indexes, which are combinations of a single environmental indicator
with the EJSCREEN Demographic Index. For additional information
about environmental and demographic indicators and EJ indexes
reported by EJSCREEN, see EPA, ``EJSCREEN Environmental Justice
Mapping and Screening Tool--EJSCREEN Technical Documentation,''
section 2, September 2019.
    \26\ Estimates from EJSCREEN, 2015-2019 American Community
Survey, U.S. Census.

                         Table 1--Selected Environmental Justice Demographic Indicators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Agua Fria        Kyrene
                                                    generating      generating       Ocotillo      West Phoenix
                                                      station         station       power plant     power plant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated population in 3-mile buffer zone \26\.         154,817         130,571         145,867         107,697
People of Color (AZ average 45%)................             60%             43%             46%             91%
Low Income (AZ average 35%).....................             44%             26%             49%             77%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the EPA's ``Technical Guidance for Assessing
Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis,'' people of color and
low-income populations often experience greater exposure and disease
burdens than the general population, which can increase their
susceptibility to adverse health effects from environmental
stressors.\27\ Underserved communities can also experience reduced
access to health care, nutritional, and fitness resources, further
increasing their susceptibility. We also note that the Phoenix-Mesa
area is currently designated as non-attainment for the 2008 and 2015
ozone standards.\28\ Areas in nonattainment typically face other air
pollution and environmental health challenges, which may especially
impact these underserved communities. Such impacts are seen in the
EJSCREEN data for these areas, including indexes for fine particulate
matter exposure, diesel particulate matter, air toxics risks,
underground storage tank, Superfund site and hazardous waste facility
proximity, all being higher than the State's average. Because the APS
West Phoenix Power Plant and the SRP Agua Fria Generating Station are
both located near communities, which the EJSCREEN data shows is higher
than the state's average for EJ demographic indicators that may
indicate the presence of underserved communities, it is possible that
these facilities contribute to disproportionate pollution impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ U.S. EPA, ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental
Justice in Regulatory Analysis,'' section 4, June 2016.
    \28\ The EPA determined that the Phoenix-Mesa attained the 2008
ozone NAAQS by the Moderate area attainment date of July 20, 2018.
84 FR 60920 (November 12, 2019). This determination is not a
redesignation to attainment and therefore it does not relieve the
State from its obligations to implement RACT for this standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even though some of the facilities that are operating units under
Rule 322's partial exemption for low use units are located in or near
underserved communities, approval of this rule into the SIP strengthens
the Arizona SIP by incorporating more stringent requirements for power
plants operating in Maricopa County into the SIP, making them
enforceable by the EPA and the public. For example, the version of Rule
322 we are approving into the SIP contains more stringent
NOX limits for more emissions units compared to the version
of Rule 322 currently in the SIP, which EPA approved in 2009. The

2007 version of Rule 322 does not impose NOX limits for
stationary gas turbines at all, whereas the submitted version of Rule
322 limits NOX emissions to 42 ppm and 65 ppm when burning
gaseous and liquid fossil fuels, respectively.\29\ Moreover, the 2007
version of Rule 322 only limits NOX for steam generating
units for which construction commenced between May 30, 1972, and May
10, 1996; as a result, the 2007 version of Rule 322 does not regulate
at least some of the units covered by the low use exemption in the 2021
version of Rule 322.\30\ The 2021 version of the rule now requires all
units, regardless of construction date or type, to comply with the RACT
limits or demonstrate compliance with the low use provisions by
limiting annual operations. Also, the units operating under the
submitted version of Rule 322's partial exemption for low use units
must still comply with the updated operating requirements controlling
sulfur, particulate matter, and opacity, even if they are exempt from
the RACT NOX and CO limits. Therefore, we expect that this
action and the codification of Rule 322's more stringent requirements
into the federally enforceable SIP will contribute to reduced
environmental and health impacts on all populations in Maricopa County,
including people of color and low-income populations in Maricopa
County. For these reasons, this action is not expected to have a
disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effect
on a particular group of people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The submitted rule also expands the applicability of CO
limits to each electric utility or cogeneration steam generating
unit with a rated heat input capacity greater than or equal to 100
MMBtu per hour, and to each electric utility stationary gas turbine
with a rated heat input capacity at peak load greater than or equal
to 10 MMBtu per hour. The 2007 version of Rule 322 limited CO
emissions to the same equipment, but only if construction commenced
prior to May 10, 1996.
    \30\ Per the RACT analyses submitted with the 2021 version of
Rule 322, the APS Ocotillo and West Phoenix low use units were
constructed at some point in 1972 and at least three of the SRP Agua
Fria low use units were constructed well before 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA remains committed to working with the State of Arizona and
Maricopa County to ensure that the ozone attainment requirements for
this area satisfy applicable CAA requirements and thereby protect all
populations in the area, including minority, low income, and indigenous
populations, from disproportionately high or adverse air pollution
impacts.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving Rule 322 into
the Arizona SIP and, pursuant to the requirements in section 104.4 of
Rule 322, also approving the RACT cost effectiveness demonstrations in
Appendix 12 of the State's submittal for the facilities seeking to
operate under the low use partial exemption. The June 23, 2021 version
of Rule 322 will replace the October 17, 2007 version of this rule in
the SIP. As a result of this action, the sanctions that were deferred
in our interim final determination are now rescinded, and a federal
implementation plan to resolve the deficiency is no longer required
under section 110(c) of the Act. We will also delete our previous
disapproval codified at 40 CFR 52.133 (Rules and regulations) since a
subsequent version of Rule 322 is being approved.
    Relatedly, we are also making a correction in 40 CFR 52.124. In our
final rule of August 23, 2021 (86 FR 46986), approving revisions to the
Pinal County Air Quality District's RACT demonstrations for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, we should have deleted only the codified language
noting our previous disapproval of portions of Pinal County's
demonstration. However, we instead inadvertently deleted all the
codified disapprovals for RACT demonstrations in Arizona. This action
will correct that error and revise 40 CFR 52.124 to recodify the
disapprovals for Maricopa County's RACT demonstration. This is relevant
to our action here because the previous disapproval for Rule 322 was a
contributing factor to our overall disapproval on Maricopa County's
demonstration for implementing RACT at major sources of NOX.
This language should remain in 40 CFR 52.124 until a future action
addresses the remaining deficiencies that prevent us from fully
approving Maricopa County's demonstration of this requirement.
    The EPA has determined that this correction falls under the ``good
cause'' exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding ``good cause,'' authorizes
agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and
comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest. Public notice and comment for this action is
unnecessary because the underlying rule for which this correcting
amendment has been prepared was already subject to a 30-day comment
period, and this action merely adds amendatory instructions that
reverts the errors made in the underlying rule. Further, this action is
consistent with the purpose and rationale of the final rule, which is
corrected herein. Because this action does not change the EPA's
analyses or overall actions, no purpose would be served by additional
public notice and comment. Consequently, additional public notice and
comment are unnecessary.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Maricopa
County Rule 322 as described in Section I of this preamble and as set
forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. Therefore, these
materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have
been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will
be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\31\ The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region
IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the minimum criteria of the Act. Accordingly,
this action approves a County rule as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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); and
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
    The state did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal. The EPA performed an environmental justice
analysis for the purpose of providing additional context and
information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the
final action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this
action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air
quality of the affected area. Thus, there is no information in the
record inconsistent with the stated goals of Executive Order 12898 (59
FR 7629, February 16, 1994) of achieving environmental justice for
people of color, low-income populations, and indigenous peoples.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 28, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: December 21, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. In Sec.  52.120, in paragraph (c), amend Table 4 by revising the
entry for ``Rule 322,'' and in paragraph (e), amend Table 1 by adding
an entry for ``Revision of Rule 322 of the Maricopa County Air
Pollution Control Regulations, Appendix 12: RACT Analyses Submitted to
the Maricopa County Air Quality Department from the Arizona Public
Service and the Salt River Project, only'' after the entry for
``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Analysis, Negative
Declaration and Rules Adoption'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

            Table 4 to Paragraph (c)--EPA-Approved Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   State effective                               Additional
        County citation           Title/subject         date          EPA approval date         explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Rule 322......................  Power Plant       June 23, 2021...  [INSERT Federal        Submitted on June 30,
                                 Operations.                         Register CITATION],    2021 under an
                                                                     December 30, 2022.     attached letter
                                                                                dated June 24, 2021.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       Table 1--EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Applicable geographic
     Name of SIP provision      or nonattainment area  State  submittal    EPA approval         Explanation
                                   or title/subject           date             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Revision of Rule 322 of the     Maricopa County        June 30, 2021...  [INSERT Federal   Submitted on June 30,
 Maricopa County Air Pollution   portion of Phoenix-                      Register          2021 under a letter
 Control Regulations, Appendix   Mesa nonattainment                       CITATION],        dated June 24, 2021,
 12: RACT Analyses Submitted     area for 2008 8-hour                     December 30,      as a part of the SIP
 to the Maricopa County Air      ozone NAAQS.                             2022..            revision for
 Quality Department from the     Demonstrations for                                         Maricopa County Rule
 Arizona Public Service and      Equipment Under Rule                                       322. Required
 the Salt River Project, only.   322, section 104.4,                                        demonstrations from
                                 paragraph b.                                               facilities that
                                                                                operate equipment
                                                                                seeking partial
                                                                                exemption from the
                                                                                rule through
                                                                                compliance with
                                                                                annual heat input
                                                                                limits.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.124 by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows.

Sec.  52.124  Part D disapproval.

* * * * *
    (b) The following Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
determinations are disapproved because they do not meet the
requirements of Part D of the Clean Air Act.
    (1) [Reserved]
    (2) Maricopa County Air Quality Department. (i) RACT determinations
for major sources of NOX, and CTG source categories for
Aerospace Coating and Industrial Adhesives (``National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Aerospace
Manufacturing and Rework'' (59 FR 29216), ``Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing
and Rework Operations'' (EPA-453/R-97-004), and ``Control Techniques
Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives'' (EPA-453/R-08-
005)), in the submittal titled ``Analysis of Reasonably Available
Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP),'' dated
December 5, 2016, as adopted on May 24, 2017 and submitted on June 22,
2017.
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *

Sec.  52.133  [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec.  52.133 by removing and reserving paragraph (h).

[FR Doc. 2022-28272 Filed 12-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 6, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66655-66659]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0120]
RIN 2127-AL49

Consumer Information; Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) contain
detailed testing procedures for generating consumer information about
the treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance of passenger car
tires. To ensure the uniformity of treadwear grades, the grading
procedures specify a 400-mile test course located near San Angelo,
Texas. Two or four-vehicle convoys equipped with candidate tires travel
along this course to evaluate the tire treadwear performance. Because
flooding is currently affecting several water crossings along a portion
of the test course, NHTSA is issuing this interim final rule to add an
alternate treadwear test course route to avoid the inaccessible
portions of the course. This change will not compromise the reliability
of the treadwear grades, and will not impose or relax any substantive
requirements or burdens on manufacturers. Although the addition of the
alternative course route is effective immediately, in order to benefit
from comments which interested parties and the public may have, the
agency is requesting that comments be submitted to the docket for this
rule. Following the close of the comment period, the agency will
publish a document responding to the comments and, if appropriate, the
agency will amend the provisions of this rule.

DATES: Effective date: This interim final rule is effective November 6,
2013. Comments: You should submit your comments early enough to be
received not later than January 6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the docket number at
the heading of this notice, by any of the following methods:
    Online: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by clicking on
``Help'' or ``FAQs.''
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: 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 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Operations at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical and policy issues: Hisham Mohamed, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., West Building, W43-437, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For legal issues: William H. Shakely, Office of the Chief Counsel,
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., West Building, W41-227, Washington, DC
20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. UTQGS and the Treadwear Test Course
II. Change to the Treadwear Test Course
III. Request for Comment
IV. Public Participation
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. UTQGS and the Treadwear Test Course

    The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) require motor
vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to provide
information indicating the relative performance of passenger car tires
in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. This
information aids consumers in making informed choices in the purchase
of passenger car tires.
    Treadwear grades are expressed, in multiples of 20, as a percentage
of a nominal treadwear value of 100.\1\ For example, a treadwear grade
of 160 means the candidate tire tread life should be 1.6 times longer
compared to NHTSA's ``control tire.'' \2\ Although treadwear grades do
not predict the actual mileage that a particular tire will achieve,
they are sufficiently accurate to help consumers choose among tires
based on their relative tread life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 49 CFR 575.104(e)(2)(ix)(F).
    \2\ See http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/Tires/Tires+Rating/Treadwear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure the uniformity of treadwear grades, Appendix A of 49 CFR
575.104 specifies a 400-mile treadwear test course. Two or four-vehicle
convoys equipped with candidate tires travel along this course to
evaluate the tire treadwear performance. The test course consists of
three loops in the geographical vicinity of Goodfellow Air Force Base
near San Angelo, Texas. The first loop (``Southern Loop'') runs south
143 miles through the cities of Eldorado, Sonora, and Juno, Texas to
the Camp Hudson Historical Marker, and returns by the same route. The
second loop (``Eastern Loop'') runs east over Farm and Ranch Roads and
returns to its starting point. The third loop (``Northwestern Loop'')
runs northwest to Water Valley, northeast toward Robert Lee and returns
via Texas 208 to the vicinity of Goodfellow AFB.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Figure 3, Appendix A, 49 CFR 575.104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of recent overflow of the Devils River, the treadwear
testing convoys cannot access Texas 189 due to road washout and cannot
cross at least one of the several water crossings along Texas 163 and,
therefore, cannot safely use a portion of the Southern Loop.
Specifically, FM 189 and several low water crossings along Texas 163,
located between US 277 and the Camp Hudson Historical Marker, are
impassable or submerged under several inches of water.

II. Change to the Treadwear Test Course

    Because the affected portion of the Southern Loop will be
inaccessible for an indeterminate time and there is an immediate need
for testing, the agency is adding an alternate test course route that
substitutes different sections of the course for the flooded portion of
the Southern Loop. Test convoys will have the option of using this
alternate route to conduct treadwear testing. As explained above, the
regular course route consists of the Southern Loop, the Eastern Loop,
and the Northwestern Loop, in that order. Test convoys using the
alternate route will travel on portions of the Southern Loop and then
continue on the Eastern Loop and the Northwestern Loop. After
completing the Northwestern Loop, the convoys will repeat the Eastern
Loop, travel on the Northwestern Loop (including travel on portions of
the Northwestern Loop in the reverse direction), and then complete the
Eastern Loop a third time. Making the additional trips on the Eastern
Loop and the Northwestern Loop will make up the distance that is
usually traveled on Texas 163 and FM 189.
    Specifically, instead of traveling south on FM 189 and Texas 163,
each test convoy will travel south from Sonora on US 277 as normal for
approximately 5.5 miles to a picnic area on right. At this location the
test convoy will reverse course and proceed to the completion of the
Southern Loop. After completing this modified Southern Loop, the
Eastern Loop and Northwestern Loop to the intersection of Loop 306 and
FM 388, the test convoy will turn left on FM 388 and run the Eastern
Loop a second time. On completion of the second Eastern Loop at FM 388
and Loop 306, the convoys will turn right to travel on the Northwestern
Loop a second time with the following modification: The convoys will
follow the normal Northwestern Loop until they reach the intersection
of FM 2105 and Texas 208, where the convoys will turn right onto Texas
208. The convoys will travel on Texas 208 until the intersection with
FM 2034. The convoys will turn left onto FM 2034 and travel on FM 2034
to the intersection with US 87, where they will turn left onto US 87.
At the intersection of US 87 and FM 2105, the convoys will turn left
onto FM 2105 and continue to the intersection with US 277. The convoys
will then turn right onto US 277 and continue to the intersection of
Loop 306 and FM 388. At this point the convoy will turn left and run
the Eastern Loop a third and final time, returning to the intersection
of Loop 306 and FM 388. This will be the completion of the full route.
    The distance between the picnic area on US 277 and the Camp Hudson
Historical Marker is approximately equivalent to the combined distance
of the modified Northwestern Loop and two trips on the Eastern Loop.
Accordingly, the agency has concluded that using the alternative
treadwear course route will not compromise the reliability of the
treadwear grades and will not impose or relax any substantive
requirements or burdens on manufacturers. The agency has further
determined that the impact of this interim final rule is so minimal as
to not warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

III Request for Comment

    Although this interim final rule is effective immediately, in order
to

benefit from comments which interested parties and the public may have,
the agency is requesting that comments be submitted to the docket for
this notice. Following the close of the comment period, the agency will
publish a notice responding to the comments and, if appropriate, the
agency will amend the provisions of this rule.

IV. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Comments may be submitted to the docket electronically by logging
onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    You may also submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's
guidelines may be accessed at http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/statistical_policy_and_research/data_quality_guidelines/index.html.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider, we will
consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking
action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on
the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Immediate Effective Date and Request for Comments

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553)
provides that when an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and
public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)).
NHTSA has determined that there is good cause to issue this interim
final rule without notice and an opportunity for public comment because
such notice and opportunity for comment would be impracticable.
Flooding is presently making portions of the treadwear test course
inaccessible, and there is an immediate need to continue testing. This
testing would be unavoidably prevented by undertaking notice and
comment rulemaking proceedings before specifying an alternate treadwear
test course route.
    Section 553 further requires that that a rule be published at least
30 days prior to its effective date unless one of three exceptions
applies. One of these exceptions is when the agency finds good cause
for a shorter period. For the reasons stated above, i.e., the
inaccessibility of portions of the test course and the immediate need
for testing, the agency finds that there is good cause to make this
rule effective immediately.
    Although the agency is issuing this interim final rule, which is
effective immediately, without notice and opportunity for public
comment, the agency is requesting that comments be submitted to the
docket for this notice in order to benefit from comments which
interested parties and the public may have. Following the close of the
comment period, the agency will publish a notice responding to the
comments and, if appropriate, the agency will amend the provisions of
this rule.

B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies require determinations as to
whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to
OMB review and the requirements of the aforementioned Executive Orders.
Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;

    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    We have considered the potential impact of this interim final rule
under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department
of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This interim
final rule specifies an alternate route for test convoys using the
treadwear test course in order to avoid portions of the course that are
currently inaccessible due to flooding. The agency has determined that
this rule will not impose or relax any substantive requirements or
burdens on manufacturers. Accordingly, it has been determined to be not
``significant'' under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and was not
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (codified as
amended at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The interim final rule affects tire manufacturers and brand name
owners. Specifically, the agency is adding an alternate route for test
convoys using the treadwear test course in order to avoid portions of
the course that are currently inaccessible due to flooding. The agency
has concluded that specifying this alternate route will not compromise
the reliability of the treadwear grades, and will not result in any
additional costs to these entities. Accordingly, we certify that the
interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's interim final rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no
additional consultation with States, local governments or their
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency
has concluded that the interim final rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local
officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The interim final rule, which specifies an alternate route for test
convoys using the treadwear test course, would 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.'' The agency
expects that general principles of preemption law would operate so as
to displace any conflicting State law or regulations.

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    When promulgating a regulation, Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that the agency must make every reasonable effort to ensure
that the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language
the preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard,
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship of regulations.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this interim final rule is discussed above in connection with
Executive Order 13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement
that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other
administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 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 more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). In 2011 dollars, this
threshold is $139 million.\4\ This interim final rule would not result
in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, of more than $139 million annually, and would not result in
the expenditure of that magnitude by the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product
price deflator for the year 2011 results in $139 million (113.361/
81.606 = 1.39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that this
rulemaking will not have any significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
et. seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct,
sponsor, or require through regulations. This rulemaking does not
establish any new information collection requirements.

H. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments.

I. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information

Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of
each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the
beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

J. Privacy Act

    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 organization, 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://www.dot.gov/privacy.html

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575

    Consumer protection, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part
575 as follows:

PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION

0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 575 to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32302, 32304A, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30123,
30166, 30181, 30182, 30183, and 32908, Pub. L. 104-414, 114 Stat.
1800, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, Pub. L. 110-140, 121 Stat.
1492, 15 U.S.C. 1232(g); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Amend Appendix A to Sec.  575.104 by adding the paragraphs entitled,
``Alternate Route When FM 189 and Texas 163 are Closed,'' ``Modified
Southern Loop,'' ``Eastern Loop and Northwestern Loop,'' ``Modified
Northwestern Loop,'' and ``Repeat Eastern Loop'' after the paragraph
entitled ``Northwestern Loop'' to read as follows:

Sec.  575.104  Uniform tire quality grading standards.

* * * * *

Appendix A--Treadwear Test Course and Driving Procedures

* * * * *
    Alternate Route When FM 189 and Texas 163 are Closed. This
alternate test course route consists of a Modified Southern Loop,
the Eastern Loop and Northwestern Loop described above, and a
Modified Northwestern Loop.
    Modified Southern Loop. The course begins at the intersection
(1) of Ft. McKavitt Road and Paint Rock Road (FM 388) at the
northwest corner of Goodfellow AFB. Drive east via FM 388 to
junction with Loop Road 306 (2). Turn right onto Loop Road 306 and
proceed south to junction with US 277 (3). Turn onto US 277 and
proceed south through Eldorado and Sonora (4), continuing on US 277
approximately 5.5 miles (from traffic light at separation of US 277
and Loop 467) to picnic area on right. Reverse route at this
location and proceed north to junction of Loop 306 and FM 388 (2).
    Eastern Loop and Northwestern Loop. From junction of Loop Road
306 and FM 388 (2), complete the Eastern Loop, the Northwestern
Loop, and then, from junction of Loop Road 306 and FM 388 (2),
repeat the Eastern Loop.
    Modified Northwestern Loop. Proceed north on Northwestern Loop
as normal until reaching the intersection of FM 2105 and Texas 208
and turn right onto Texas 208. Proceed on Texas 208 until the
intersection with FM 2034. Turn left onto FM 2034 and continue on FM
2034 to the intersection with US 87. Turn left onto US 87. At the
intersection of US 87 and FM 2105 turn left onto FM 2105 and proceed
to the intersection with US 277. Turn right onto US 277 and proceed
to the intersection of Loop Road 306 and FM 388 (2).
    Repeat Eastern Loop. Turn left onto FM 388 and repeat the
Eastern Loop. For convoys that originate at Goodfellow AFB, continue
on FM 388 and proceed to starting point at junction of Ft. McKavitt
Road and FM 388 (1). For convoys that do not originate at Goodfellow
AFB, turn left onto Loop Road 306.
* * * * *

    Issued on: October 31, 2013 in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-26581 Filed 11-1-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 239 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 80225]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27268]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2020-0090]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49
U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on
November 19, 2020, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval
to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition
Docket Number FRA-2020-0090.
Applicant: National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Nicholas J. Croce
III, PE, Deputy Chief Engineer, C&S, 2995 Market Street, Philadelphia,
PA 19104.
    Specifically, Amtrak requests permission to convert approximately 3
miles of its cab signal and fixed automatic block signal system to a
signal system having cab signals without fixed automatic block signals,
operated under NORAC Rule 562, on Amtrak's Mid-Atlantic Division, Main
Line Philadelphia to Washington, Northeast Corridor, between Bush
interlocking located at milepost (MP) 71.6, in Perryman, Maryland, and
Wood interlocking located at MP 75.3, in Edgewood, Maryland. Amtrak is
the owner and operator of this line. Maryland Area Regional Commuter
Train Service and Norfolk Southern Railway operate on portions of this
line as tenants with trackage rights. Both have concurred with the
application.
    The changes proposed are to remove the wayside signals on Tracks
No. 2 and No. 3 at automatic block points 733 and 744. Both locations
will remain in service as a block point without wayside signals.
    The reason for removal of the signals is to eliminate maintenance
and operation of unnecessary hardware and to reduce delays to trains
caused by failures of the signals.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by January 25, 2021 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic
form of any written communications and comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts
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-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety,Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-27268 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One roundtrip within the past 60 months.
\2\ If the route is to be traversed during darkness, one of the four roundtrips must be made during darkness.

* * * * *

    Dated: October 21, 2022.
W.R. Arguin,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-23339 Filed 11-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52332-52333]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18286]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0568; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-12]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Alma, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E surface airspace and Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bacon
County Airport, Alma, GA, due to the decommissioning of the Alma Very
High Frequency Omnidirectional Range Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC)
and cancellation of associated approaches, as well as updating the
airport's geographic coordinates. Controlled airspace is necessary for
the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations
in the area.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E airspace for Bacon County Airport, Alma, GA, to
support IFR operations in the area.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (87 FR 33083, June 1, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-0568 to
amend Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface at Bacon County Airport, Alma, GA.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021,
and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by amending Class E surface
airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Bacon County Airport, Alma, GA, due to the decommissioning
of the Alma VORTAC and cancellation of associated extensions. This
action also updates the airport's geographic coordinates to coincide
with the FAA's database, and removes the city name from airspace header
per order FAA 7400.2. In addition, this action replaces the outdated
term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the
airspace description.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021,
and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO
7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published
yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 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 7400.11F,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and
effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO GA E2 Alma, GA [Amended]

Bacon County Airport, GA
    (Lat. 31[deg]32'10'' N, long. 82[deg]30'24'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4-mile
radius of Bacon County Airport. This Class E airspace area is
effective during the specific days and times established in advance
by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective days and times will
thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

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

* * * * *

ASO GA E5 Alma, GA [Amended]

Bacon County Airport, GA
    (Lat. 31[deg]32'10'' N, long. 82[deg]30'24'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Bacon County Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 17, 2022.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2022-18286 Filed 8-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 45422]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-41-000]

Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Eagle LNG
Partners Jacksonville, LLC Jacksonville Project

    On January 31, 2017, Eagle LNG Partners Jacksonville, LLC (Eagle
LNG) filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC or Commission) in Docket No. CP17-41-000 pursuant to section 3(a)
of the Natural Gas Act and Parts 153 and 380 of the Commission's
Regulations, requesting authorization to site, construct, and operate a
natural gas liquefaction, storage, and liquefied natural gas (LNG)
export facility. The proposed project, known as the Jacksonville
Project, would consist of three liquefaction trains with a total
capacity of 132 million cubic feet per day and one full containment LNG
storage tank capable of storing 12,000,000 gallons of LNG (equivalent
to 1.0 billion cubic feet of natural gas), for domestic LNG markets and
for export overseas. The terminal would receive natural gas to the
export facilities from a third-party intrastate pipeline. On July 21,
2016, in Order No. 3867, the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Fossil Energy, granted to Eagle LNG a long-term, multi-contract
authorization to export LNG to Free Trade Agreement nations.
    FERC issued its Notice of Application for the Jacksonville Project
on February 13, 2017. Among other things, that notice alerted other
agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete
all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on the request for
a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the
Commission staff's final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the
Jacksonville Project. This notice identifies the FERC staff's planned
schedule for completion of the final EIS for the Jacksonville Project,
which is based on an issuance of the draft EIS in November 2018. The
forecasted schedule for both the draft and final EIS is based upon
Eagle LNG providing complete and timely responses to any future data
requests. In addition, the schedule assumes that the cooperating
agencies will provide input on their areas of responsibility on a
timely basis.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS--April 12, 2019
90-Day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--July 11, 2019

    If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an
additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are
kept informed of project's progress.

Background

    On December 3, 2014, the Commission staff granted Eagle LNG's
request to use FERC's pre-filing environmental review process and
assigned the Jacksonville Project Docket No. PF15-7-000. On February
24, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Jacksonville Project,
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public
Scoping Meeting. On March 25, 2015, the Commission issued a
Supplemental Notice to seek comments. The notices were issued during
the pre-filing review of the project in Docket No. PF15-7-000 and were
sent to federal, state, and local government representatives and
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American Tribes; affected property owners; other interested
parties; and local libraries and newspapers. Major issues raised during
scoping include visual impacts, threatened and endangered species,
surface water and groundwater resources, air quality and noise, and
safety.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S.
Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of Energy are
cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents via email. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Jacksonville Project is available
from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or
on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select
General Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range
and Docket Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-41), and
follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the
helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: August 31, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19393 Filed 9-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P