[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 212 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67682-67689]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28007]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0237; FRL-9936-46-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of a revision to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted
by the State of New Mexico through the New Mexico Environment
Department (NMED) on March 14, 2014. New Mexico's SIP revision
addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's rules
that require states to submit periodic reports describing progress
toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze
and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional
haze SIP (RH SIP).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 3, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-
0237, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.
     Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Mail or Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0237.
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and made available online at
www.regulations.gov. The EPA includes any personal information
provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit any information
electronically that is considered CBI or any other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. The www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know
one's identity or contact information unless it is provided in the body
of a comment. If a comment is emailed directly to the EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, then the sender's email address will
automatically be captured and included as part of the public docket
comment and made available on the Internet. If a comment is submitted
electronically, then it is recommended that one's name and other
contact information be included in the body of the comment, and with
any disk or CD-ROM submitted. If the EPA cannot read a particular
comment due to technical difficulties and is unable to contact for
clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider the comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment will be considered the official comment
with multimedia submissions and should include all discussion points
desired. The EPA will generally not consider comments or their contents
submitted outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing systems). For additional information on submitting
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).
    The New Mexico regional haze progress report is available online at
the following: www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/reghaz/regional-haze_index.html. It is also available for public inspection during
official business hours, by appointment, at the Air Quality Bureau,
Environmental Protection Division, New Mexico Environment Department,
525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James E. Grady,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please contact
Mr. Grady or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background on Regional Haze
II. Background on Regional Haze SIPs
III. Requirements for Five-Year Regional Haze Progress Report SIP
IV. Evaluation of New Mexico's Regional Haze Progress Report SIP
    A. Status of Control Strategies
    1. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    2. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
    3. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
    4. Additional Controls--State Air Regulations: NSR and PSD
    5. Summary of Control Strategy Implementation
    B. Emissions Reductions From Control Strategies
    C. Visibility Progress
    D. Emissions Progress
    E. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    F. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs
    G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
    H. Determination of Adequacy
V. The EPA's Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background on Regional Haze

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

    \1\ Additionally, coarse particles (PM10) can
contribute to light extinction. However, they settle out from the
air more rapidly than fine particles and usually will be found
relatively close to emission sources. Fine particles can be
transported long distances by wind and can be found in the air
thousands of miles from where they were formed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background on Regional Haze SIPs

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the prevention of any future, and the

remedying of any existing man-made impairment of visibility in 156
national parks and wilderness areas designated as mandatory Class I
Federal areas.\2\ On December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated regulations
to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e.,
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment.'' \3\ These
regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility
impairment. The EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from
a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific
knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility
impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of National Parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
    \3\ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues, and the EPA promulgated regulations addressing regional
haze in 1999.\4\ The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the regulations provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in the EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. States must
demonstrate reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of a
return to natural visibility conditions for mandatory Class I Federal
areas both within and outside states by 2064. The requirement to submit
a regional haze SIP applies to all fifty states, the District of
Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. States were required to submit the
first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility
impairment no later than December 17, 2007.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart P (Regional Haze Rule).
    \5\ See 40 CFR 51.308(b). EPA's regional haze regulations
require subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR
51.308(g)-(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Requirements for the Five-Year Regional Haze Progress Report SIP

    The Regional Haze Rule requires a comprehensive analysis of each
state's regional haze SIP every ten years and a progress report every
five years. This five-year review is intended to provide a progress
report on, and, if necessary, mid-course corrections to, the regional
haze SIP. The progress report provides an opportunity for public input
on the State's (and the EPA's) assessment of whether the approved
regional haze SIP is being implemented appropriately and whether
reasonable visibility progress is being achieved consistent with the
projected visibility improvement in the SIP. At a minimum, New Mexico
must include in its progress report the following seven elements: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Provide a description of the status of implementation of all
control measures in the approved RH SIP.
    (2) Summarize the emissions reductions achieved through
implementation of the control measures.
    (3) Assess the visibility conditions and changes for each Class I
area in the State.
    (4) Analyze the changes in emissions from sources and activities
within the State.
    (5) Provide an assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have limited
or impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in
Class I areas.
    (6) Evaluate the sufficiency of the approved RH SIP to meet all
RPGs.
    (7) Provide a review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy.
    New Mexico submitted their progress report SIP for the State \7\
under 40 CFR 51.309.\8\ Typically, progress report requirements of most
states are covered under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). However, 40 CFR
51.309 presents nine western states with an optional approach of
fulfilling Regional Haze Rule requirements by adopting emission
reduction strategies developed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission (GCVTC). These strategies were designed primarily to improve
visibility of sixteen Class I areas in the Colorado Plateau \9\ area.
Since New Mexico currently has one Class I area, the San Pedro Parks
Wilderness Area, inside the Colorado Plateau, the State exercised the
option to meet the alternative requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.309
for RH SIPs. The requirements for five-year progress reports are
consistent with those for the other states, but the requirements for
the reports are codified at 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) instead of at 40 CFR
51.308(g) and (h). Also, under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i), states must
submit a regional haze progress report in the years 2013 and 2018. In
contrast, under 40 CFR 51.308, states must submit a progress report
five years from submittal of the initial implementation plan. Under 40
CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states are required to submit, at the same time
as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of their
existing RH SIP and to take one of four possible actions, as described
in more detail in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The proposed action does not pertain to the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County portion of the SIP in New Mexico. The New Mexico
Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4) authorizes Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County to locally administer and enforce the State Air
Quality Control Act by providing for a local air quality control
program, and that entity submitted an initial RH SIP for its own
jurisdiction that was separately approved by the EPA (77 FR 71119,
November 29, 2012). The EPA anticipates a separate RH progress
report SIP submittal from this entity.
    \8\ Three Western States (New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming)
exercised the option provided in the Regional Haze Rule to meet the
alternative requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.309 for RH SIPs.
    \9\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in
Southeast Utah, Northern Arizona, Northwest New Mexico, and Western
Colorado. The sixteen mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand
Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest
National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon
Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness,
West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National
Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital
Reef National Park, and Zion National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Evaluation of New Mexico's Regional Haze Progress Report SIP

    On December 31, 2003, the State of New Mexico submitted a RH SIP
with later SIP revisions (July 5, 2011 and October 7, 2013) that
addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309.\10\ On March 14, 2014, the
EPA received the periodic report on progress from NMED in the form of a
regional haze SIP

revision. This latest submission is the subject of this proposed
approval. The periodic report was made in the first implementation
period toward RPGs for Class I areas in and outside the State that were
affected by emissions from New Mexico's sources. The SIP revision
includes the State's determination that the existing RH SIP requires no
substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze
visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. The EPA
is proposing to approve New Mexico's progress report SIP on the basis
that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The EPA approved all of the 2003 and 2011 submittals on
November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693) except for the submitted
NOX Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
determination for the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS). The EPA
had issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) containing a
different NOX BART determination for the SJGS. 76 FR
52,388 (Aug. 22, 2011). The 2013 RH SIP revision contained a new
NOX BART determination for the SJGS that superseded the
State's previous NOX BART determination included in the
2011 RH SIP revision. The EPA withdrew the FIP and approved the 2013
RH SIP revision on October 9, 2014 (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 60978)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Mexico has nine Class I areas within its borders: Bandelier
Wilderness, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, Carlsbad
Caverns National Park, Gila Wilderness, Pecos Wilderness, Salt Creek
Wilderness, Wheeler Peak Wilderness, White Mountain Wilderness, and San
Pedro Parks Wilderness. San Pedro Parks Wilderness is the only Class I
area in New Mexico that is located on the Colorado Plateau.\11\
Visibility impairment at New Mexico's nine Class I areas is tracked in
units of deciviews (dv), which is related to the cumulative sum of
visibility impairment from individual aerosol species as measured by
eight monitors in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) Network.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Section 309 SIP submitted by the State of New Mexico in
December of 2003 addresses only San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area. All
of the other Class I areas are addressed under the Section 309(g)
SIP submitted by the State of New Mexico in June of 2011 and as
revised and submitted in October of 2013.
    \12\ The IMPROVE monitor for the Wheeler Peak Wilderness Area is
used to represent visibility conditions at the nearby Pecos
Wilderness. The IMPROVE monitor for Carlsbad Caverns is located in
Texas at Guadalupe Mountains National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through collaboration with the Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP),\13\ New Mexico worked with the western states to assess state-
by-state contributions to visibility impairment in specific Class I
areas in New Mexico and those affected by emissions from New Mexico.
The WRAP report provides data on other, less pertinent Class I areas
outside New Mexico borders, and this information primarily appears in
the technical appendices.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The WRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal governments,
state governments and various federal agencies representing the
western states that provides technical and policy tools for the
western states and tribes to comply with the EPA's Regional Haze
regulations. Detailed information regarding WRAP support of air
quality management issues for western states is provided on the WRAP
Web site (www.wrapair2.org). Data summary descriptions and tools
specific to Regional Haze Rule support are available on the WRAP
Technical Support System Web site (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/).
    \14\ The Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule
Reasonable Progress Summary Report technical support document has
been prepared on behalf of the fifteen Western State members in the
WRAP region to provide the technical basis for use by states to
develop the first of their individual reasonable progress reports
for the 116 Federal Class I areas located in the Western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections cover:
     The seven regulatory elements required by the progress
report SIP; \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     How New Mexico's progress report SIP addressed each
element; and
     The EPA's analysis and proposed determination as to
whether New Mexico satisfied each part.

A. Status of Control Strategies

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) requires a description of the status of
implementation of all control measures included in the RH SIP for
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the State.
    New Mexico stated in the progress report that it is implementing
all long-term control strategies, with the exception of the state
adopted State Mobile Source Regulation.\16\ The State Mobile Source
Regulation, when adopted, sought to apply California motor vehicle
standards within New Mexico, and this regulation, while mentioned in
the State's long-term strategy, was not submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision. The report explains that federal programs, as revised,
achieve the same emission reductions and have provided the State a
basis, in its judgment, for not implementing the regulation. The EPA
considers this explanation acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), New Mexico is required to
submit interim reports to the EPA and the public on the
implementation status of the regional and local strategies to
address mobile source emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Mexico evaluated the status of all measures included in its RH
SIP in accordance with the requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The major control measures identified by New
Mexico in the progress report RH SIP are as follows:

 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
 SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
 Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
 Additional Controls--State Air Regulations: New Source Review
(NSR) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

    In its initial RH SIP, New Mexico identified ammonium sulfate,
particulate organic matter, and coarse mass as the largest contributors
to visibility impairment. Many of the contributing sources to
visibility impairment in New Mexico are natural, rather than
anthropogenic in nature, and are not controllable. The primary sources
of ammonium sulfate are point sources and on- and off-road mobile
source emissions. For particulate organic matter, the primary sources
of emissions are from natural and anthropogenic fire. The primary
sources of coarse mass emissions in New Mexico are windblown and
fugitive dust. For the progress report, New Mexico focused on those
emission sources that were anthropogenic in nature.
    The progress report stated that the emissions reductions from
implementing the major control measures would ensure that the New
Mexico Class I areas would achieve the RPGs. New Mexico included a
summary of the implementation status associated with each control
measure and quantified the benefits where possible. When comparing
baseline to current visibility conditions, the progress report showed
that New Mexico is currently on track, if not exceeding, the visibility
impairment emission reductions needed to achieve RPG's for 2018.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See table 2.1 of New Mexico Regional Haze progress report
SIP. A complete copy of the progress report SIP is available in the
online docket for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    New Mexico identified one single stationary source in the progress
report SIP, the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS), to be subject to
BART. The SJGS includes four coal-fired boilers. In the New Mexico 2013
RH SIP, New Mexico determined that the BART controls for boiler units 1
and 4 will have selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) air pollution
control devices installed for visibility-impairing pollutant reduction.
Consistent with the terms in the State's then-pending SIP revision, the
report assumed future installation of controls would occur fifteen
months following approval of the revised RH SIP (but not earlier than
January 31, 2016).\18\ Additionally, the remaining two boiler units, 2
and 3, would be retired by the end of 2017. New Mexico estimated that
implementation of the BART controls at SJGS would result in
NOX reduction of approximately 13,000 tons per year (tpy)
(from 21,000 tpy to 8,011 tpy); SO2 reduction of 6,600 tpy
(from 10,500 tpy

to 3,843 tpy); and particulate matter (PM) reduction of 1,200 tpy (from
2,380 tpy to 1,184 tpy). These reductions represent a 35% reduction in
the statewide emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Subsequent to the submission of the New Mexico progress
report SIP, the EPA withdrew the FIP and approved the 2013 RH SIP
revision on October 9, 2014 (79 FR 60985 and 79 FR 60978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA finds that the progress report SIP adequately reviews the
status of New Mexico's BART source. It identifies the controls to be
applied; outlines the compliance timeframe for those controls; and
shows potential reduction in visibility-impairing pollutants with
future BART implementation.
2. SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program
    The progress report SIP discusses the SO2 Milestone and
Backstop Trading Program \19\ as a control measure. New Mexico has
participated in this voluntary program since December 31, 2003. New
Mexico must submit an annual report that compares tracked stationary
source SO2 emissions to yearly milestones. A milestone is an
established maximum level of annual emissions for a given year (from
2003 to 2018). The milestones help establish annual SO2
emission reduction targets. The annual targets represent RPGs in
reducing visibility-impairing emissions. If states fail to meet the
milestones, then the backstop-trading program is triggered to implement
an emissions cap. The cap allocates emission allowances (or credits) to
the affected sources based on the cap, and requires the sources to hold
sufficient allowances to cover their emissions each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Under Section 309 of the Federal Regional Haze Rule, nine
western states and tribes within those states have the option of
submitting plans to reduce regional haze emissions that impair
visibility at 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. Five
states--Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming--and
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County initially exercised this option by
submitting plans to the EPA by December 31, 2003. Oregon elected to
cease participation in the program in 2006 and Arizona elected to
cease participation in 2010. The tribes were not subject to the
deadline and still can opt into the program at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix B of the progress report SIP includes the 2011 Regional
SO2 Emissions and Milestone Report. The 2011 milestone is
200,722 tons SO2, which represents the average regional
emissions milestone for the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The average of
2009, 2010, and 2011 adjusted emissions was determined to be 130,935
tons SO2. New Mexico and participating States have met the
200,722 tons SO2 milestone. Emissions were about 35% below
the 2011 three-State regional milestone.
3. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The EPA approved 20.2.65 NMAC, Smoke Management and 20.2.60
NMAC Open Burning, on November 27, 2012 (77 FR 70693) in the same
action approving the 2011 New Mexico RH SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The progress report SIP affirms that New Mexico developed a state
Smoke Management Plan (SMP) to be used as a control measure. The EPA
previously approved smoke management rules into the SIP in 2012, which
protect the health and welfare of New Mexicans from the impacts of
smoke from all sources of fire.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Several WRAP policies developed by the GCVTC were used to
guide the development of the New Mexico SMP program: The WRAP Policy
for Characterizing Fire Emissions shows a methodology to categorize
fire emissions as either natural or anthropogenic. The WRAP Policy
on Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility identifies and
enhanced SMP to address visibility effects from all types of fire
that contribute to visibility impairment in mandatory Federal Class
I areas. The WRAP Policy on Annual Emissions Goals for Fire outlines
a process by which states/tribes may establish annual emission
goals, based on the utilization of currently available emission
reduction techniques, to include in their RH SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Additional Controls--State Air Regulations: NSR and PSD
    The progress report affirms that New Mexico continues to implement
the State's NSR program and asserts that state regulations are up to
date with 40 CFR 51.166. NSR applies to all construction permitting for
new stationary sources under the CAA, for attainment or non-attainment
areas.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The NSR program is established by 20.2.72 NMAC. http://<IP_ADDRESS>/nmac/parts/title20/20.002.0072.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, New Mexico implements the State's PSD program, as has
been the case since 1982. PSD is the NSR program for new major \23\
stationary sources and major modifications in attainment areas. The
program minimizes new pollution and utilizes best available control
technology (BACT) to reduce visibility-impairing pollutants and prevent
deterioration of Class I areas.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ``Major'' means emitting or having the potential to emit
100 tpy or more of any criteria pollutant for the specific source
categories listed in the PSD regulations. There are 28 listed source
categories, which include power plants that use steam to generate
electricity, petroleum refineries and glass fiber processing plants.
If a plant does not fall into one of the listed source categories,
then a threshold of 250 tpy applies. BART addresses certain sources
that have the potential to emit 250 tpy or more of a single
visibility-impairing pollutant.
    \24\ The most recent approval of New Mexico's PSD program was on
12/11/2013 (see 78 FR 75253). PSD is established by 20.2.74 NMAC.
http://<IP_ADDRESS>/nmac/parts/title20/20.002.0074.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both PSD and BART protect Class I area visibility in the same way.
BART and PSD are complementary programs aimed at regulating the same
source categories; either one or the other applies depending upon when
the source was constructed. PSD was adopted in 1977 for all new major
sources. BART is applied to pre-PSD, to address visibility impacts from
existing major sources built 1962 to 1977. BART only addresses
visibility, whereas PSD addresses NAAQS, increment consumption, and
visibility.
5. Summary of Control Strategy Implementation
    The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico adequately addressed
the status of control measures in its progress report RH SIP as
required by the provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). All major
control measures (including BART) were identified and the emission
reduction strategy behind each control was explained. New Mexico
included a summary of the implementation status associated with each
control measure and quantified the benefits where possible. In
addition, the progress report SIP adequately outlined the compliance
timeframe for all controls.

B. Emissions Reductions From Control Strategies

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) requires a summary of the emission
reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of
control measures mentioned in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). The progress
report must identify and estimate emissions reductions to date in
visibility-impairing pollutants from the SIP control measures
identified for implementation.
    New Mexico reported in figure 3.6 of the progress report SIP that
NOX, SO2, and PM point source emissions decreased
in New Mexico from 2008 to 2012. Approximated NO2 emissions
reduced from 63,000 tpy to 44,000 tpy, constituting an emission
reduction of about 30%. Approximated SO2 emissions reduced
from 26,000 tpy to 15,000 tpy, constituting an emission reduction of
about 42%. As compared to NO2 and SO2, PM
emissions represent a small part of the State's emissions inventories,
and PM reductions are not especially pronounced. Figure 3.6 shows that
actual point source emissions for NO2 and SO2
decreased below the WRAP's projected 2018 point-source emissions that
helped establish New Mexico's RPGs for the first planning period. In
reviewing the point source data, the EPA compared it to that reported
by the Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) and found that the

reported emissions were consistent with that data.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See the Technical Support Document (TSD), ``Evaluation of
State Emission Trends Analysis,'' a copy of which is posted in the
docket for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Mexico explained that the most significant decrease in
emissions since the RH SIP revision in June 2011 has been from
SO2 in accordance with the State's SO2 Milestone
and Backstop Trading Program. SO2 emissions were about 35%
below the 2011 three-state regional milestone.
    Part of the observed emission reductions were also the result of
controls installed at SJGS completed in 2009 in response to a 2005
consent decree. Future emission reductions to satisfy BART at SJGS will
also occur during this planning period, resulting in a significant
reduction in total point source emissions in the State. New Mexico
estimated that implementation of the BART controls at SJGS would result
in NOX reduction of approximately 13,000 tons per year (tpy)
(from 21,000 tpy to 8,011 tpy); SO2 reduction of 6,600 tpy
(from 10,500 tpy to 3,843 tpy); and particulate matter (PM) reduction
of 1,200 tpy (from 2,380 tpy to 1,184 tpy). These reductions represent
a 35% reduction in the statewide emissions of NOX,
SO2, and PM. Statewide emissions are significantly below the
2018 projected levels relied upon in the 2011 RH SIP. Therefore, New
Mexico does not expect reasonable progress to be adversely impacted in
any of the Class I areas in New Mexico or neighboring states.
    Additional control measures included in the SIP were federal and
state programs (NSR, PSD, and SMP programs). Qualitatively, the
continued implementation of those federal and state measures is
expected to continue to reduce emissions. Deciview and aerosol
extinction maps provided by New Mexico illustrate both a decrease in
magnitude of visibility impairment and relative pollutant contribution
in New Mexico and surrounding states for 2005-2009.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Figures 3.1 through 3.5 of progress report SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico has adequately
summarized the emission reductions achieved throughout the State in its
progress report RH SIP as required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). In
meeting this requirement, the EPA does not expect states to quantify
emission reductions for measures which have not yet been implemented or
for which the compliance date has not yet been reached. However, for
purposes of future progress reports, we recommend that New Mexico
include additional quantitative details on the reductions of each major
specific visibility-impairing pollutant and utilize available CAMD
data, as appropriate.

C. Visibility Progress

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) requires that for each mandatory Class I
Federal area within the State, the State must assess the following
visibility conditions and changes, with values for most impaired and
least impaired days \27\ expressed in terms of five-year averages of
these annual values:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in
the regional haze rule refers to the average visibility impairment
(measured in deciviews) for the 20% of monitored days in a calendar
year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility impairment,
respectively, averaged over a five-year period. See 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Assess the current visibility conditions for the most impaired
and least impaired days.
    2. Analyze the difference between current visibility conditions for
the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility
conditions.
    3. Evaluate the change in visibility impairment for the most
impaired and least impaired days over the past five years.
    New Mexico provided visibility data for 2000 through 2011 that
addressed the three requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) for
Class I areas in New Mexico. Much of the analysis and visibility data
presented in the New Mexico progress report SIP were taken from the RHR
Reasonable Progress Summary Report prepared by the WRAP.
    This section requires the report to include deciview values for
three separate periods: Baseline visibility conditions, current
visibility conditions, and visibility conditions of the past five
years. Baseline visibility conditions refer to conditions identified in
initial RH SIPs for the 2000-2004 period. Current visibility conditions
refer to the most recent five-year average data available at the time
the State submitted its progress report. The past five years would be
five years before the year used for current visibility conditions.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze Progress
Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation Plans
(Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in Development
and Review of the Progress Reports), EPA, April 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Mexico calculated the five-year baseline visibility conditions
for 2000-2004; successive five-year average visibility conditions for
2005-2009; and the most recent visibility conditions for 2007-2011. The
change in baseline and current visibility was compared to the change in
baseline and past five-year visibility.\29\ Both results were tabulated
for the 20% worst and best days and compared to 2018 RPGs.\30\ The most
recent data from 2007-2011 in the progress report SIP were not
addressed. The EPA provided a comparison of the 2007-2011 data in table
2, below, showing that progress, while trending toward further
visibility improvement, was not quite as good as in the 2005-2009
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ New Mexico also included 2006 to 2010 data, but it was not
included in table 2.
    \30\ See Tables 3.3 through 3.20 of the New Mexico progress
report SIP.

                                               Table 2--Visibility Conditions at New Mexico Class I Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Visibility
                                                                                Visibility                   Visibility                  improvement
                                                       Baseline     2005-2009    improvement     2007-2011    improvement     2018 RPGs    needed over
                    Class I Area                      (2000-2004)     (dv)      over baseline      (dv)      over baseline      (dv)       baseline for
                                                         (dv)                    (2005-2009)                  (2007-2011)                 2018 RPGs (dv)
                                                                                (dv) *                       (dv) *                         *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandelier..........................................          12.2        11.8              0.4        12.0              0.2        11.9              0.3
Bosque del Apache..................................          13.8        13.4              0.4        13.1              0.7       13.59             0.21
Gila Wilderness....................................          13.1        12.5              0.6        11.3              1.8       12.99             0.11
Carlsbad Caverns...................................          17.2        15.9              1.3        15.3              1.9       16.93             0.27
Salt Creek.........................................          18.0        17.5              0.5        17.3              0.7       17.33             0.67
San Pedro Parks....................................          10.2         9.9              0.3        10.1              0.1         9.8              0.4
Wheeler Peak.......................................          10.4         9.1              1.3         9.6              0.8       10.23             0.17

White Mountain.....................................          13.7        13.2              0.5        13.9             -0.2       13.27             0.43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      20% Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandelier..........................................           5.0         4.2              0.8         3.9              1.1        4.89             0.11
Bosque del Apache..................................           6.3         5.8              0.5         5.5              0.8         6.1              0.2
Gila Wilderness....................................           3.3         2.7              0.6         2.4              0.9         3.2              0.1
Carlsbad Caverns...................................           5.9         5.4              0.5         4.9              1.0        6.14
Salt Creek.........................................           7.8         7.3              0.5         6.9              0.9        7.43             0.37
San Pedro Parks....................................           1.5         1.0              0.5         1.0              0.5         1.2              0.3
Wheeler Peak.......................................           1.2         0.9              0.3         0.9              0.3        1.13             0.07
White Mountain.....................................           3.6         3.3              0.3         3.3              0.3        3.42             0.18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Negative Visibility Improvement means an increase above the baseline values, indicating that visibility has worsened.

    All Class I areas show visibility improvement over the baseline
through the first progress period (2005-2009). In addition, all Class I
sites were below the 2018 RPGs for the first progress period except for
San Pedro Parks and Salt Creek. The five-year average deciview trends
for 2007-2011 progress period achieved visibility improvement for all
Class I areas except White Mountain, which got slightly worse by 0.2
dv. All but three sites met the 2018 RPGs during the 2007-2011 period.
    The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico has adequately
addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) to include
summaries of monitored visibility data as required by the Regional Haze
Rule. For purposes of improved clarity on future reports, the EPA
recommends that New Mexico include a graph of rolling averages similar
to what was provided in the guidance example,\31\ illustrating the
uniform glide path. The glide path graphically shows what would be a
uniform rate of progress, toward meeting the national goal of a return
to natural visibility conditions by 2064 for each Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See page 10 of General Principles for the 5-Year Regional
Haze Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional
Offices in Development and Review of the Progress Reports) April
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Emissions Progress

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) requires an analysis tracking the change
over the past five years in emissions of pollutants contributing to
visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State.
Emission changes should be identified by type of source or activity.
The analysis must be based on the most recent updated emissions
inventory, with estimates projected forward as necessary and
appropriate, to account for emissions changes during the applicable
five-year period. The EPA evaluated New Mexico's analysis and more
detail is provided in the Technical Support Document for this action.
    The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico has adequately
addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) to track
changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility
impairment from all sources and activities within the State. The
analysis in this progress report was based on appropriate available
data with sufficient forward projections.

E. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) requires an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the
State that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or
impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving
visibility in Class I areas impacted by the State's sources.
    New Mexico stated in the progress report SIP that there does not
appear to be any anthropogenic emissions within New Mexico that would
have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions or
improving visibility. New Mexico stated that SO2 and PM were
the major visibility-impairing concerns on the 20% worst days.
Stationary point sources were the greatest contributor of
SO2 while fire, including natural and anthropogenic, was the
greatest PM contributor. Both of these pollutants were covered by long-
term control measures described in the progress report SIP (BART, SMP,
and SO2 Milestone and Backstop Trading Program). Other
states relied on WRAP modeling to show reasonable progress at their
Class I areas. With the BART determination of a two-unit shut down and
two-unit SNCR installation for the SJGS, New Mexico will be exceeding
the modeled levels relied on by WRAP for regional haze. Therefore, New
Mexico is not impeding other states in meeting their RPGs, and is
decreasing visibility-impairing pollutants more than was anticipated in
the WRAP modeling for NOX, SO2 and PM.
    The EPA proposes to find that New Mexico has adequately addressed
the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) to show that the
major contributors of anthropogenic emissions are being reduced and
visibility is improving at a uniform rate without having limited or
impeded progress.

F. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs

    40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) calls for an assessment of whether the
current implementation plan elements and strategies in the RH SIP are
sufficient to enable the State, or other states with mandatory Federal
Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all
established RPGs.
    New Mexico stated in the progress report SIP that the elements and
strategies outlined in its RH SIP are sufficient to enable New Mexico
and other neighboring states to meet all the established RPGs. To
support this conclusion, New Mexico referenced visibility data \32\
that showed five-year average deciview trends for the 20% worst and
best days for the baseline period (2000-2004); subsequent five-

year visibility conditions (2005-2009); and the most recent five-year
visibility conditions (2007-2011). All Class I areas indicated
visibility improvement over the baseline through the first progress
period. All but two Class I areas were below the RPGs for the first
progress period based on 2005-2009 data. The five-year average deciview
trend for the most recent period (2007-2011) achieved visibility
improvement for all Class I areas except White Mountain, which got
slightly worse by 0.2 dv. All but three sites met the 2018 RPGs based
on 2007-2011 data: The data supports an inference that 2007-2011
visibility conditions at White Mountain are higher due to elevated
course mass levels in 2011 compared to baseline levels. The 2007-2011
visibility conditions at Bandelier and San Pedro parks were high,
apparently due to elevated organic mass levels in 2011 from impacts of
fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In Appendix C of Regional Haze Progress Report SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although three Class I sites were not tracking the RPGs at the time
of the progress report, New Mexico expects further reduction of
SO2 and NO2 emissions, not accounted for in the
original RH SIP, principally from the implementation of BART controls.
These added control measures should contribute toward Bandelier, San
Pedro, and White Mountain achieving the RPGs for 2018. Further progress
will also occur through recently adopted or proposed regulatory
programs. The EPA notes that visibility conditions at these sites in
some years can be impacted more significantly by natural sources of
wind-blown dust and/or fires than other years and considers this
relevant when evaluating progress toward the natural visibility goals.
    The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico has adequately
addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F). The EPA
views the requirement of this section as a qualitative assessment that
should evaluate emissions and visibility trends, including expected
emissions reductions from measures that have not yet become effective.
New Mexico referenced the improving visibility trends with
appropriately supported data with a focus on future implementation of
BART controls.

G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy

    40 CFR 51.309(10)(i)(G) requires a review of the State's visibility
monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as necessary.
    The monitoring strategy for regional haze in New Mexico relies upon
participation in the IMPROVE \33\ network, which is the primary
monitoring network for regional haze nationwide. The IMPROVE network
provides a long-term record for tracking visibility improvement or
degradation. New Mexico currently relies on data collected through the
IMPROVE network to satisfy the regional haze monitoring requirement as
specified in the Regional Haze Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Data from IMPROVE show that visibility impairment caused by
air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks
and wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds
of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air
pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United
States, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or
about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its progress report SIP, New Mexico summarizes the existing
IMPROVE monitoring network: Seven monitoring sites in New Mexico and
one in Texas (utilized for Carlsbad Caverns National Park). New Mexico
stated that IMPROVE monitoring data served as the baseline for the
regional haze program and that future regional haze monitoring strategy
must be based on, or directly comparable to the current IMPROVE
network. New Mexico concluded that the existing network is adequate and
modifications to the visibility monitoring strategy are not necessary
at this time.
    The EPA proposes to conclude that New Mexico has adequately
addressed the sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as required by the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G). New Mexico reaffirmed its
continued reliance upon the IMPROVE monitoring network. New Mexico also
explained the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring network for tracking
visibility trends at its Class I areas and identified no expected
changes in this network.

H. Determination of Adequacy

    Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), states are required to submit, at
the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the
adequacy of their existing RH SIP and to take one of four possible
actions based on information in the progress report. 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(ii) requires states to take one of the following actions:
    (1) Submit a negative declaration to the EPA that no further
substantive revision to the State's existing RH SIP is needed.
    (2) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another state(s) which participated in a regional planning
process, the State must provide notification to the EPA and to the
other state(s) which participated in the regional planning process with
the states. The State must also collaborate with the other state(s)
through the regional planning process for developing additional
strategies to address the plan's deficiencies.
    (3) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another country, the State shall provide notification, along
with available information, to the Administrator.
    (4) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources within the State, then the State shall revise its
implementation plan to address the plan's deficiencies within one year.
    The State of New Mexico has provided the information required under
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i) in the five-year progress report. Based upon
this information, New Mexico states in its progress report SIP that it
believes that the current Section 309 and 309(g) RH SIPs are adequate
to meet the State's 2018 RPGs and require no further revision at this
time. Thus, the EPA has received a negative declaration from New
Mexico.

V. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve New Mexico's regional haze five-
year progress report SIP revision (submitted on March 11, 2014) as
meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10). The EPA is proposing to approve New Mexico's
determination that the current RH SIP is adequate to meet the State's
2018 RPGs.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 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);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000). This action does have tribal implications in non-reservation
areas of Indian country within the state. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EPA is coordinating
with tribes regarding this matter.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: October 23, 2015.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-28007 Filed 11-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 32414]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12843]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4103-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a
Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (FEMA-4103-DR), dated March 1, 2013,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 22, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 22, 2013, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements
regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage to the lands associated with
the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians resulting from severe storms,
flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of January 14-
17, 2013, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost
sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declaration of March 1, 2013, to authorize
Federal funds for all categories of Public Assistance at 90 percent
of total eligible costs.
    This adjustment to the cost sharing applies only to Public
Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for such
adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar
adjustment for funds provided for the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (Section 404). These funds will continue to be reimbursed at
75 percent of total eligible costs.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-12843 Filed 5-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25264-25273]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10818]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0450; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-010-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Models
337, 337A (USAF 02B), 337B, 337C, 337D, 337E, T337E, 337F, T337F, 337G,
T337G, M337B, F 337E, FT337E, F 337F, FT337F, F 337G, and FT337GP
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD would require inspecting the
wings for internal and external damage, repairing any damage,
reinforcing the wings, installing operational limitation placards in
the cockpit, and adding limitations to the airplane flight manual
supplement. This proposed AD was prompted by a review of installed
Flint Aero, Inc. wing tip auxiliary fuel tanks, Supplemental Type
Certificate (STC) SA5090NM. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect
and correct damage in the wings and to prevent overload failure of the
wing due to the installation of the STC. Damage in the wing or overload
failure of the wing could result in structural failure of the wing,
which could result in loss of control.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 20, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Flint Aero, Inc., 1942 Joe Crosson Drive, El Cajon, CA 92020; phone:
(619) 448-1551; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.flintaero.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dara Albouyeh, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Blvd.,
Lakewood, CA 90712; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0450;
Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-010-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    In May 2010, we reviewed wing tip auxiliary fuel tank extension
STCs to Cessna 336 and 337 series airplanes for compliance with
airworthiness standards. Due to the STC similarities between Aviation
Enterprises wing tip auxiliary fuel tank extensions and Flint Aero,
Inc. wing tip auxiliary fuel tank extensions, both were reviewed for
possible wing overload conditions.
    In June 2010, we determined the proper design loads for both
Aviation Enterprises wing tip auxiliary fuel tank extension and Flint
Aero, Inc. wing tip auxiliary fuel tank extension STCs exceeded the
strength capabilities of the outer portions of the wing.
    On October 4, 2010, we issued AD 2010-21-18, Amendment 39-16478 (75
FR 64111, October 19, 2010), which applies to Cessna Models 336, 337,
337A (USAF 02B), 337B, M337B (USAF 02A), T337B, 337C, T337C, 337D,
T337D, 337E, T337E, 337F, T337F, 337G, T337G, 337H, P337H, T337H,
T337H-SP, F337E, FT337E, F337F, FT337F, F337G, FT337GP, F337H, and
FT337HP airplanes that are now or have ever been modified by Aviation
Enterprises wing tip auxiliary fuel tank extensions Supplemental Type
Certificates (STC) SA02055AT, SA02056AT, SA02307AT, or SA02308AT.
    In January 2011, Flint Aero, Inc. confirmed the under-strength
condition of the outer wing section.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in structural
failure of the wing, which could result in loss of control.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Flint Aero, Inc. Service Bulletin FA2, Rev 2, dated
April 8, 2011, and Flint Aero, Inc. Drawing FA2, Rev A, dated April 8,
2011. The service information describes procedures for the
reinforcement of the upper wing skin, the wing front spar cap, and the
stringers.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require inspecting the wings for internal
and external damage, repairing any damage, reinforcing the wings,
installing operational limitation placards in the cockpit, and adding
limitations to the Flint Aero, Inc. Airplane Flight Manual Supplement.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 33 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                   Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of the wing for       5 work-hours x $85   Not applicable....  $425 per            $14,025 per
 damage.                          per hour = $425                          inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
                                  per inspection
                                  cycle.
Fabricating and installing       1 work-hour x $85    Not applicable....  $85...............  $2,805.
 placards in the cockpit.         per hour = $85.
Modifying the Limitations        .5 work-hour x $85   Not applicable....  $42.50............  $1,402.50.
 section of the Flint Aero,       per hour = $42.50.
 Inc. Airplane Flight Manual
 Supplement.
Reinforcing the upper wing       25 work-hours x $85  $1,070............  $3,195............  $105,435.
 skin, stringer, and wing front   per hour = $2,125.
 spar cap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

Cessna Aircraft Company: Docket No. FAA-2011-0450; Directorate
Identifier 2011-CE-010-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by June 20, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) AD 2010-21-18, Amendment 39-16478, is related to the subject
of this AD.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Models
337, 337A (USAF 02B), 337B, 337C, 337D, 337E, T337E, 337F, T337F,
337G, T337G, M337B, F 337E, FT337E, F 337F, FT337F, F 337G, and
FT337GP airplanes, all serial numbers, that:
    (1) Are certificated in any category; and
    (2) Are or have ever been modified by Flint Aero, Inc.
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA5090NM.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 57; Wings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by a review of installed Flint Aero,
Inc. wing tip auxiliary fuel tanks, STC SA5090NM. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct damage in the wings and to prevent
overload failure of the wing due to the installation of the STC.
Damage in the wing or overload failure of the wing could result in
structural failure of the wing, which could result in loss of
control.

Compliance

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

Required Actions

    (g) Within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD or within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a general and focused
inspection of the left and right wing for internal and external
damage at wing stations (WSTA) 150 and 177. Do the inspections
following Appendix 1 of this AD.
    (h) After the inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD if
no damage was found and before the modification required in
paragraph (k) of this AD is incorporated, anytime severe and/or
extreme turbulence is encountered during flight, before the next
flight do a focused inspection of the wing for damage following
steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10 in Appendix 1 of this AD. Also inspect
for signs of distress in the upper front spar in the area around
WSTA 150 and 177. The definition of severe and extreme turbulence
can be found in table 7-1-9 of the FAA Aeronautical Information
Manual (AIM). You may obtain a copy of the FAA AIM at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/.
    (i) For airplanes that have not had the modification specified
in paragraphs (j) and (k) incorporated, within the next 50 hours
time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD or within
30 days after the effective date of this AD, fabricate a placard
(using at least \1/8\-inch letters) with the following words and
install the placard on the instrument panel within the pilot's clear
view:
    (1) ``MAINTAIN AT LEAST 12 GAL OF FUEL IN EACH WING TIP FUEL
TANK FOR AIRPLANE WEIGHTS BETWEEN 3,400 LBS AND 4,330 LBS.''
    (2) ``MAINTAIN FULL FUEL IN EACH WING TIP FUEL TANK FOR AIRPLANE
WEIGHTS AT OR ABOVE 4,330 LBS.''
    (j) If damage or signs of distress are found during the
inspections required in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, before
further flight do the following:
    (1) Repair all damaged and distressed parts following FAA
Advisory Circular (AC) 43.13-1B, Chapter 4, which can be found at
http://rgl.faa.gov/;
    (2) Incorporate the modification reinforcement specified in
Flint Aero, Inc. Service Bulletin FA2, Rev 2, dated April 8, 2011,
following Flint Aero, Inc. Drawing FA2, Rev A, dated April 8, 2011;
    (3) Remove the placard specified in paragraph (i) of this AD;
    (4) Fabricate a new placard (using at least \1/8\-inch letters)
with the following words and install the placard on the instrument
panel within the pilot's clear view: ``MAINTAIN AT LEAST 12 GAL OF
FUEL IN EACH WING TIP FUEL TANK FOR AIRPLANE WEIGHTS AT OR ABOVE
4,330 LBS''; and
    (5) Incorporate the information from Appendix 2 of this AD into
the Limitations section of the Flint Aero, Inc. Airplane Flight
Manual Supplement.
    (k) If no damage or signs of distress are found during the
inspections required in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, within
the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within
12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first, do the following:
    (1) Incorporate the modification reinforcement specified in
Flint Aero, Inc. Service Bulletin FA2, Rev 2, dated April 8, 2011,
following Flint Aero, Inc. Drawing FA2, Rev A, dated April 8, 2011;
    (2) Remove the placard specified in paragraph (i) of this AD;
    (3) Fabricate a new placard (using at least \1/8\-inch letters)
with the following words and install the placard on the instrument
panel within the pilot's clear view: ``MAINTAIN AT LEAST 12 GAL OF
FUEL IN EACH WING TIP FUEL TANK FOR AIRPLANE WEIGHTS AT OR ABOVE
4,330 LBS''; and
    (4) Incorporate the information from Appendix 2 of this AD into
the Limitations section of the Flint Aero, Inc. Airplane Flight
Manual Supplement.
    (l) You may incorporate the modification reinforcement specified
in Flint Aero, Inc. Service Bulletin FA2, Rev 2, dated April 8,
2011, following Flint Aero, Inc. Drawing FA2, Rev A, dated April 8,
2011, at any time after the inspection required in paragraph (g) of
this AD but no later than the compliance time specified in paragraph
(k) of this AD as long as no cracks were found. As required in
paragraph (j) of this AD, the modification reinforcement must be
incorporated before further flight if damage or signs of distress
are found.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (m)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

Related Information

    (n) For more information about this AD, contact Dara Albouyeh,
Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Blvd.,
Lakewood, CA 90712; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (o) For service information identified in this AD, contact Flint
Aero, Inc., 1942 Joe Crosson Drive, El Cajon, CA 92020; phone: (619)
448-1551; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.flintaero.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Appendix 1 to Docket No. FAA-2011-0450

General and Focused Inspection Procedures

    Perform a general and focused inspection of the wing for
internal and external damage from wing station (WSTA) 23 to the wing
tip. The general inspection must be performed in accordance with 14
CFR 43.15(c), using a checklist that includes at least the scope and
detail of the items contained in Appendix D of 14 CFR part 43. The
focused inspection must include the items listed below. Remove all
wing access panels to conduct the inspections. Do these inspections
following the manufacturer's service information and any other
appropriate guidance, such as FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 43.13-1B
Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices--Aircraft Inspection
and Repair. AC 43.13-1B can be found at http://rgl.faa.gov/.
    Focused inspection items to look for:
    (1) Wrinkles in upper wing skins, from the outboard edge on the
fuel tank access covers (WSTA 150 or 177) to the WSTA 222 (See View
B, Figure 3).
    (2) Wrinkles in the upper wing skins from WSTA 55 to 66,
adjacent to the booms (See View E, Figure 6).
    (3) Cracking of the upper wing skins. Pay particular attention
to any wrinkles, the radius between stiffeners at WSTA 150 (under
fuel tank covers), and unreinforced access holes (See View B, Figure
3).
    (4) Working (smoking) rivets outboard of the wing tank access
covers.
    (5) Fasteners with less than two diameters edge distance.
    (6) Fasteners with less than four diameters center to center
spacing.
    (7) Looseness of attachments of the tip extension to the wing
and wing tip to wing extension when pushing up and down on the tip.
    (8) Any signs of distress along both front and rear spars,
particularly in the area around WSTA 177.
    (9) Inspect under any repairs to the upper skins, particularly
in the area just outboard of the fuel tank access covers as these
may be covering up existing damage.
    (10) Inter-rivet buckling of the stringers attached to the upper
surface skin, outboard of the fuel tank access covers (See View F,
Figure 7).
    (11) Inspect rib at WSTA 222 for damage. Trimming of the rib may
have been done to allow installation of fuel lines (See View A,
Figure 2). Repair in accordance with AC 43.13-1B, Chapter 4,
paragraph 4-58(g) and Figure 4-14, or by using another FAA-approved
method that restores equivalent strength of the wing rib.

Appendix 1 to Docket No. FAA-2011-0450

General and Focused Inspection Procedures (Continued)

    (12) Inspect and identify screws, installed in tapped (threaded)
holes in metal substructure, used to attach wing tips, stall fences,
fuel and electrical components, and access doors. For tapped holes,
remove fastener and open up the diameter to provide a smooth bore
hole, for the smallest oversize fastener, using close tolerance
holes noted in AC 43.13-1B, paragraph 7-39 or other FAA-approved
scheme. Maintain minimum 2 x fastener diameter edge distance and 4 x
fastener diameter center to center spacing. Select and install new,
equivalent strength or stronger, fasteners with nuts/collars in
accordance with AC 43.13-1B, Chapter 7 and AC 43.13-2B, paragraph
108 or other FAA-approved repair. New fasteners must not have
threads in bearing against the sides of the holes.
    (13) Inspect wing skins for unreinforced cutouts. (See View C,
Figure 4).
    (14) Inspect the upper spar cap horizontal flanges for open
holes (See View D, Figure 5).

Appendix 1 to Docket No. FAA-2011-0450 (Continued)

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MY11.005

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

Appendix 1 to Docket No. FAA-2011-0450 (Continued)

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MY11.006

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

Appendix 1 to Docket No. FAA-2011-0450 (Continued)

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MY11.007

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

Appendix 1 to Docket No. FAA-2011-0450 (Continued)

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MY11.008

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

Appendix 1 to Docket No. FAA-2011-0450 (Continued)

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MY11.009

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

Appendix 1 to Docket No. FAA-2011-0450 (Continued)

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MY11.010

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

Appendix 2 to Docket No. FAA-2011-0450

    Airworthiness Limitations for the Flint Aero, Inc. Airplane
Flight Manual Supplement
    ``MAINTAIN AT LEAST 12 GAL OF FUEL IN EACH WING TIP FUEL TANK
FOR AIRPLANE WEIGHTS AT OR ABOVE 4,330 LBS.''

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 27, 2011.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-10818 Filed 5-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75936-75937]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30685]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1141

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0568]
RIN 0910-AG41

Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements;
Research Report

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that it
has added a document to the docket for the proposed rulemaking
concerning required textual warnings and accompanying graphics to be
displayed on cigarette packages and in cigarette advertisements. The
document is a report entitled ``Report: Experimental Study of Graphic
Cigarette Warning Labels'' (Experimental Study Report) and it describes
the results from a research study that quantitatively evaluated the
relative impact of certain color graphics on consumer attitudes,
beliefs, perceptions, and intended behaviors related to cigarette
smoking. The purpose of this notice is to provide the public an
opportunity to review and comment on the Experimental Study Report.

DATES: Interested persons may submit either electronic or written
comments by January 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2010-
N-0568, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following ways:
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number and Regulatory Information Number (RIN). All comments
received may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. For additional information
on submitting comments, see the ``Comments'' heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of
Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerie Voss or Kristin Davis, Center
for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate
Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850-3229,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco
Control Act) was enacted on June 22, 2009, amending the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act (FCLAA), and providing FDA with the authority to
regulate tobacco products (Pub. L. 111-31; 123 Stat. 1776). Section 201
of the Tobacco Control Act modifies section 4

of FCLAA (15 U.S.C. 1333) to require that nine new health warning
statements appear on cigarette packages and in cigarette
advertisements. Section 201 also states that ``the Secretary [of Health
and Human Services] shall issue regulations that require color graphics
depicting the negative health consequences of smoking'' to accompany
the nine new health warning statements.
    On November 12, 2010, FDA published a proposed rule seeking comment
on these new requirements (75 FR 69524). The proposed rule provides a
60-day comment period, which ends January 11, 2011. FDA proposed
several options for color graphics that could accompany each of the
nine health warning statements required by FCLAA. These documents are
available in the docket and on FDA's Web site (http://www.fda.gov/cigarettewarnings). FDA seeks comment on these proposed images.

II. Experimental Study

    In considering and developing appropriate color graphics depicting
the negative health consequences of smoking to accompany the textual
warning statements specified in section 4(a)(1) of FCLAA (15 U.S.C.
1333(a)(1)), FDA assessed the graphic warnings that other countries
have required for tobacco products, as well as scientific literature
studying the impact of graphic warnings on smoking behavior and
evaluating the communication effectiveness of such images. FDA worked
with various experts in the fields of health communications, marketing
research, graphic design, and advertising to develop the required
warnings published with the proposed rule. The proposed rule explained
that FDA was conducting research to: (1) Measure consumer attitudes,
beliefs, and intended behaviors related to cigarette smoking in
response to the proposed color graphics and their accompanying textual
warning statements; (2) determine whether consumer responses to the
proposed color graphics and their accompanying textual warning
statements differ across various groups based on smoking status, age,
or other demographic variables; and (3) evaluate the relative
effectiveness of the proposed color graphics and their accompanying
textual warning statements at conveying information about various
health risks of smoking, and additionally, at encouraging smoking
cessation and discouraging smoking initiation (75 FR 7604 (February 22,
2010); 75 FR 52352 (August 25, 2010)). The proposed rule stated that
once the research is complete and final analyses of the results are
available, FDA planned to place a report of the results of the analyses
in the docket so the public has an opportunity to comment on it.
    FDA has now completed this research and analyzed the results. The
Experimental Study Report describes FDA's findings and analysis. FDA
has placed the Experimental Study Report in the docket for the proposed
rule and is providing notice and an opportunity to comment on it.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding the
Experimental Study Report and the related rulemaking documents. It is
only necessary to send one copy of comments. It is no longer necessary
to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: December 2, 2010.
Margaret A. Hamburg,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
[FR Doc. 2010-30685 Filed 12-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


           38TH FLOOR    ONE OXFORD CENTRE    PITTSBURGH, PA  15219

<PHONE_NUMBER>       FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>

DIRECT DIAL NO.:<PHONE_NUMBER>

DIRECT FAX DIAL NO.:<PHONE_NUMBER>

FILE NO.: AVAL-82691

E-MAIL<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
September 14, 2009

Jordan Barab, Assistant Secretary

U.S. Department of Labor/OSHA

Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities

Room N3655

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC  20210

Re:	Avalotis Corporation’s Application for Permanent Variance

Dear Mr. Barab:

On behalf of my client, Avalotis Corporation, the Application for
Permanent Variance is amended to include the alternative conditions that
OSHA now requires.  Specifically, Avalotis amends its application to
include the conditions specified in the attached letter of
interpretation (revised August 24, 2009).  Avalotis also amends its
Application to include the following conditions:

At least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to commencing any
chimney-construction operation using the conditions specified herein,
the applicant must/would notify the OSHA Area Office nearest to the
worksite, or the appropriate State-Plan Office, of the operation,
including the location of the operation and the date the operation will
commence; and

The applicant must/would inform OSHA national headquarters as soon as it
has knowledge that it will:

Cease to do business; or

Transfer the activities covered by this permanent variance to a
successor company.

Thank you for your consideration of Avalotis’ Application for a
Permanent Multi-State Variance.  Please feel free to contact me if you
need any additional information.

						Very truly yours,

						Joseph J. Bosick

JJB/bjb

Enclosure

Doc #: 1586328

cc:	Mr. Bruce A. Love via E-Mail, (w/enc)

bcc:	Mr. Chris Aivaliotis via E-Mail, (w/enc)

Mr. Jordan Barab

Re:  AVAL-82691

September 14, 2009

Page   PAGE  3

OHIO	              PENNSYLVANIA  	                             WEST
VIRGINIA


----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/06/2010 06:36 PM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Bromberg, Kevin L."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Michael Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Johnson, Nancy"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Higgins, Cortney"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
"Kymn,     |
  |Christine J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Peter
Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Mancini, Dominic J."
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>  |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |08/06/2010 06:19 PM
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |RICE - Testing Program Was Limited to Uncontrolled Engines  - Now
Documented                                                                |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|

<<0281-1 API meeting summary and Test Plan.pdf>> “This test program is
designed to obtain uncontrolled “as found” emission data to support revisions
to the MACT floor limits in the upcoming Final Rule that will amend the NESHAP
for reciprocating IC engines 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ. Data collected as
part of this intensive effort are needed to develop technically defensible
emission standards.”

You can see other references to uncontrolled engines in the test plan.
Apparently, this plan was presented and accepted by EPA.   Despite what
we heard today, there apparently was no suggestion by EPA that testing
uncontrolled engines was inconsistent with the MACT protocol.
Apparently, EPA made this decision after the October 14, 2009 meeting.

I don’t believe, that of the scores of commenters that anyone suggested that
EPA had incorrectly proposed that only uncontrolled 4SLB engines belonged in
the MACT floor, and am very interested in EPA’s explanation
as to how to address the notice and comment issue.    I  understand that
EPA know says it made a “mistake”, but does the regulated public need to pay
for this “mistake” (if it is one)?

 (See attached file: 0281-1 API meeting summary and Test Plan.pdf)