	           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION             Posted: 12/03/04

             OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY                                             2:23 pm

                  WASHINGTON, D.C.

Served:  December 3, 2004

__________________________________________________

NOTICE

Docket OST-2004-19790

____________________________________________

By Order 2004-11-18, the Department initiated a proceeding on the Joint Complaint of American Airlines, Inc. and United Air Lines, Inc. against Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S.p.A. (Alitalia) and the Government of Italy, filed November 24, 2004.  The order calls for answers to the Joint Complaint to be filed by December 8, 2004, and replies thereto five calendar days thereafter.

On December 2, 2004, Alitalia filed a motion for a two-week extension of the answer date (i.e., to December 22, 2004).  In support of its motion, Alitalia states that the extension is necessary in order to enable Alitalia to consult with the Government of Italy and to prepare coordinated responses to the Joint Complaint.  Under the Department’s regulations (14 CFR 302.11), answers to the motion would be due December 13, 2004 (five calendar days after the date specified for answers in the Department’s order).  In order to act upon the motion prior to the answer date specified in the Department’s order, we have determined to shorten the answer period for the Alitalia motion in Docket OST-2004-19790 to December 6, 2004.

Therefore, acting under authority assigned in 14 CFR 385.3, we will shorten the answer period to

the Alitalia motion and will require that answers to the Alitalia motion be filed no later than December 6, 2004.

We will serve this notice by email or facsimile on all parties served with Order 2004-11-18 in

Docket OST-2004-19790.  We authorize answers to be served by facsimile or email.

BY:

						PAUL L. GRETCH

			Director, Office of International Aviation

(SEAL)

Dated:  December 3, 2004

An electronic version of this notice is available on the World Wide Web at

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"  http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28901-28906]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11780]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0616; FRL-9927-23-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Permitting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve two revisions to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP)
to update the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) SIP permitting program consistent with federal
requirements. New Mexico submitted the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County
PSD SIP permitting revisions on July 26, 2013, and March 4, 2015, which
included a request for parallel processing of the submitted 2015
revisions. These submittals contain revisions to address the
requirements of the EPA's May 2008, July 2010, and October 2012
PM2.5 PSD Implementation Rules and to incorporate revisions
consistent with the EPA's March 2011 Fugitives Interim Rule, July 2011
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Biomass Deferral Rule, and July 2012 GHG Tailoring
Rule Step 3 and GHG PALs Rule. The EPA is proposing to find that these
revisions to the New Mexico SIP meet the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act
or CAA) and EPA regulations, and are consistent with EPA policies. We
are proposing this action under section 110 and part C of title I of
the Act. The EPA is not approving these rules within the exterior
boundaries of a reservation or other areas within any Tribal Nation's
jurisdiction.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2013-0616, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions.
     Email: Ms. Ashley Mohr at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or delivery: Ms. Ashley Mohr, Air Permits Section
(6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2013-0616. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
through www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is CBI or
otherwise protected from disclosure. The www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means that the EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA
without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment along
with any disk or CD-ROM submitted. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption
and should be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at 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).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Mohr,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Ms. Ashley Mohr or Mr. Bill Deese at (214)
665-7253.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. New Mexico's SIP Submittals
    B. Relevant EPA Rulemakings
II. The EPA's Evaluation
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The Act at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop and
submit to the EPA for approval into the State Implementation Plan
(SIP), preconstruction review and permitting programs applicable to
certain new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants for
attainment and nonattainment areas that cover both major and minor new
sources and modifications, collectively referred to as the New Source
Review (NSR) SIP. The Clean Air Act (CAA) NSR SIP program is composed
of three separate programs: Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD), Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is
established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that
meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)--``attainment
areas''--as well as areas where there is insufficient information to
determine if the area meets the NAAQS--``unclassifiable

areas.'' The NNSR SIP program is established in part D of title I of
the CAA and applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS--
``nonattainment areas.'' The Minor NSR SIP program addresses
construction or modification activities that do not emit, or have the
potential to emit, beyond certain major source thresholds, and thus do
not qualify as ``major'' and applies regardless of the designation of
the area in which a source is located. The EPA regulations governing
the criteria that states must satisfy for EPA approval of the NSR
programs as part of the SIP are contained in 40 CFR 51.160--51.166.

A. New Mexico's SIP Submittals

    Since the EPA's last SIP approval on September 19, 2012, of PSD SIP
requirements for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County,\1\ the State of New
Mexico has submitted two revisions to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County
PSD program: (1) A SIP revision submittal dated July 26, 2013, which
affects sixteen sections under 20.11.61 NMAC; and (2) a request for
parallel processing of a SIP revision dated March 4, 2015, which
affects two sections under 20.11.61 NMAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 77 FR 58032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Summary of the January 26, 2013, SIP Submittal
    The July 26, 2013, SIP submittal contains revisions to adopt and
implement: (1) the EPA's 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, (2) the EPA's
2010 PM2.5 PSD Increment--Significant Impact Levels (SILs)--
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) Rule, (3) the EPA's 2012
PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule, (4) the EPA's 2011 Fugitives
Interim Rule, (5) the EPA's 2011 Biomass Deferral Rule, and (6) the
EPA's 2012 GHG Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG PALs Rule. The July 2013
submittal from New Mexico also contains other non-substantive revisions
to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD program that are not directly
associated with the incorporation of the EPA Rules. As part of this
proposed rulemaking, the EPA is addressing these non-substantive
revisions and the substantive revisions to the New Mexico SIP that were
submitted to adopt and implement the six aforementioned rulemakings by
the EPA.
ii. Summary of the March 4, 2015, SIP Submittal
    On March 4, 2015, New Mexico submitted a request for the parallel
processing of additional SIP revisions to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo
County PSD program. This means that the EPA is proposing approval of
the submitted revisions at the same time that the public comment and
rulemaking process is taking place at the state and local level. These
proposed revisions to part 61 are being made in response to comments
the EPA provided on the July 26, 2013, SIP submittal. Specifically, the
March 2015 parallel processing request contains proposed revisions to
Section 7--Definitions and Section 11--Applicability. New Mexico's
parallel processing request was made in accordance with paragraph 2.3.1
of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51. As part of this proposed rulemaking,
the EPA is addressing the proposed revisions to the New Mexico SIP
contained in the March 4, 2015, parallel processing request. As
required by paragraph 2.3.2 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51, the EPA
will not take final action on the proposed revisions contained in the
March 4, 2015, submittal until the final SIP revision submittal
containing these revisions to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD
program as a final adoption is received from New Mexico. Therefore, the
EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision request after the
completion of the state public process and final submittal. More
information regarding the anticipated timeline of the state's
rulemaking process is contained in the TSD accompanying this proposed
action.

B. Relevant EPA Rulemakings

i. Summary of the EPA's 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule
    On May 8, 2008, the EPA finalized the NSR PM2.5 Rule to
implement the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 73 FR 28321. As a result of
the EPA's final NSR PM2.5 Rule, states were required to
submit applicable SIP revisions to the EPA no later than May 16, 2011,
to address this Rule's PSD and NNSR SIP requirements. With respect to
PSD permitting, the SIP revision submittals are required to meet the
following PSD SIP requirements to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS:
(1) Require PSD permits to address directly emitted PM2.5
and precursor pollutants; (2) establish significant emission rates for
direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (including
SO2 and NOX); and (3) account for gases that
condense to form particles (condensables) in PM2.5 and
PM10 emission limits in PSD permits.
    Prior to the adoption of the revisions included in the July 26,
2013, SIP submittal, the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Board
adopted revisions to 20.11.61 NMAC to incorporate all but one of the
amendments consistent with the EPA's 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule.
These revisions were approved by the EPA on September 19, 2012. See 77
FR 58032. New Mexico's July 26, 2013, SIP revision submittal
incorporates the final remaining amendment to 20.11.61 NMAC to be
consistent with the revisions to the federal rules at 40 CFR
51.166(i)(5) contained in the EPA's 2008 rulemaking. Specifically, the
July 2013 SIP submittal amends 20.11.61 NMAC to include an additional
exemption that gives the department discretion to exempt a stationary
source from air monitoring requirements for a particular pollutant. The
EPA finds that New Mexico's July 26, 2013, SIP revision submittal is
consistent with the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule for PSD and meets
the requirements of section 110 and part C of the CAA.
ii. Summary of the EPA's 2010 PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC
Rule
    On October 20, 2010, the EPA finalized the PM2.5 PSD
Increment--SILs--SMC Rule to provide additional regulatory requirements
under the PSD SIP program regarding the implementation of the
PM2.5 NAAQS for NSR. See 75 FR 64864. As a result, the
PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule required states to
submit SIP revisions to adopt the required PSD increments by July 20,
2012. Specifically, the SIP rule requires a state's submitted PSD SIP
revision to adopt and submit for the EPA approval the PM2.5
increments pursuant to section 166(a) of the CAA to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in areas meeting the NAAQS. States could
also discretionarily choose to adopt and submit for EPA approval SILs
used as a screening tool (by a major source subject to PSD) to evaluate
the impact a proposed major source or modification may have on the
NAAQS or PSD increment and a SMC, (also a screening tool) used by a
major source subject to PSD to determine the subsequent level of data
gathering required for a PSD permit application for emissions of
PM2.5. More detail on the PM2.5 PSD Increment--
SILs--SMC Rule can be found in the EPA's October 20, 2010, final rule.
See 75 FR 64864.
(a) What are PSD increments?
    Under section 165(a)(3) of the CAA, a PSD permit applicant must
demonstrate that emissions from the proposed construction and operation
of a facility ``will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in
excess of any maximum allowable increase or allowable concentration for
any pollutant.'' In other words, when a source applies for a PSD SIP
permit to emit a regulated pollutant in an attainment or unclassifiable
area, the permitting

authority implementing the PSD SIP must determine if emissions of the
regulated pollutant from the source will cause significant
deterioration in air quality. Significant deterioration occurs when the
amount of the new pollution exceeds the applicable PSD increment, which
is the ``maximum allowable increase'' of an air pollutant allowed to
occur above the applicable baseline concentration \2\ for that
pollutant. PSD increments prevent air quality in attainment and
unclassifiable areas from deteriorating to the level set by the NAAQS.
Therefore, an increment is the mechanism used to estimate ``significant
deterioration'' of air quality for a pollutant in an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 169(4) of the CAA provides that the baseline
concentration of a pollutant for a particular baseline area is
generally the same air quality at the time of the first application
for a PSD permit in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For PSD baseline purposes, a baseline area for a particular
pollutant emitted from a source includes the attainment or
unclassifiable/attainment area in which the source is located as well
as any other attainment or unclassifiable/attainment area in which the
source's emissions of that pollutant are projected (by air quality
modeling) to result in an ambient pollutant increase of at least 1
[mu]g/m3 (annual average). See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and (ii). Under
the EPA's existing regulations, the establishment of a baseline area
for any PSD increment results from the submission of the first complete
PSD permit application and is based on the location of the proposed
source and its emissions impact on the area. Once the baseline area is
established, subsequent PSD sources locating in that area need to
consider that a portion of the available increment may have already
been consumed by previous emissions increases. In general, the
submittal date of the first complete PSD permit application in a
particular area is the operative ``baseline date.'' \3\ On or before
the date of the first complete PSD application, emissions generally are
considered to be part of the baseline concentration, except for certain
emissions from major stationary sources. Most emissions increases that
occur after the baseline date will be counted toward the amount of
increment consumed. Similarly, emissions decreases after the baseline
date restore or expand the amount of increment that is available. See
75 FR 64864. As described in the PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--
SMC Rule, pursuant to the authority under section 166(a) of the CAA the
EPA promulgated numerical increments for PM2.5 as a new
pollutant \4\ for which the NAAQS were established after August 7,
1977,\5\ and derived 24-hour and annual PM2.5 increments for
the three area classifications (Class I, II and III) using the
``contingent safe harbor'' approach. See 75 FR 64864 at 64869 and table
at 40 CFR 51.166(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Baseline dates are pollutant specific. That is, a complete
PSD application establishes the baseline date only for those
regulated NSR pollutants that are projected to be emitted in
significant amounts (as defined in the regulations) by the
applicant's new source or modification. Thus, an area may have
different baseline dates for different pollutants.
    \4\ The EPA generally characterized the PM2.5 NAAQS
as a NAAQS for a new indicator of PM. The EPA did not replace the
PM10 NAAQS with the NAAQS for PM2.5 when the
PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 1997. The EPA rather
retained the annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM10 as if
PM2.5 was a new pollutant even though the EPA had already
developed air quality criteria for PM generally. See 75 FR 64864
(October 20, 2010).
    \5\ The EPA interprets 166(a) to authorize the EPA to promulgate
pollutant-specific PSD regulations meeting the requirements of
section 166(c) and 166(d) for any pollutant for which the EPA
promulgates a NAAQS after 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to PSD increments for the PM2.5 NAAQS, the
PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule amended the definition
at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 for ``major source baseline date'' and
``minor source baseline date'' to establish the PM2.5 NAAQS
specific dates (including trigger dates) associated with the
implementation of PM2.5 PSD increments. See 75 FR 64864. In
accordance with section 166(b) of the CAA, the EPA required the states
to submit revised implementation plans adopting the PM2.5
PSD increments to the EPA for approval within 21 months from
promulgation of the final rule (by July 20, 2012). Each state was
responsible for determining how increment consumption and the setting
of the minor source baseline date for PM2.5 would occur
under its own PSD program. Regardless of when a state begins to require
PM2.5 increment analysis and how it chooses to set the
PM2.5 minor source baseline date, the emissions from sources
subject to PSD for PM2.5 for which construction commenced
after October 20, 2010, (major source baseline date) consume the
PM2.5 increment and therefore should be included in the
increment analyses occurring after the minor source baseline date is
established for an area under the state's revised PSD SIP program.
(b) What are PSD SILs and SMC?
    The EPA's PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule also
established SILs and SMC for the PM2.5 NAAQS to address air
quality modeling and monitoring provisions for fine particle pollution
in areas protected by the PSD program. The SILs and SMC are numerical
values that represent thresholds of insignificant, i.e., de minimis,
modeled source impacts or monitored (ambient) concentrations,
respectively. The de minimis principle is grounded in a decision
described by the court case Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323,
360 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In this case reviewing the EPA's 1978 PSD
regulations, the court recognized that ``there is likely a basis for an
implication of de minimis authority to provide exemption when the
burdens of regulation yield a gain of trivial or no value.'' 636 F.2d
at 360. The EPA established such values for PM2.5 in the
PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC rule to be used as screening
tools by a major source subject to PSD to determine the subsequent
level of analysis and data gathering required for a PSD permit
application for emissions of PM2.5. See 75 FR 64864. As part
of the response to comments in the PM2.5 PSD Increment--
SILs--SMC Rule final rulemaking, the EPA explained that the agency
considers that the SILs and SMC used as de minimis thresholds for the
various pollutants are useful tools that enable permitting authorities
and PSD applicants to screen out ``insignificant'' activities; however,
the fact remains that these values are not required by the Act as part
of an approvable SIP program.
(c) SILs-SMC Litigation
    The PM2.5 SILs and SMC were subject to litigation before
the U.S. Court of Appeals. (Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 10-1413, D.C.
Circuit). In response to the litigation, the EPA filed a brief on April
6, 2012, which contained a request that the Court vacate and remand to
the EPA portions of two PSD PM2.5 rules (40 CFR 51.166 and
40 CFR 52.21) addressing the PM2.5 SILs so that the EPA
could voluntarily correct errors in those provisions. On January 22,
2013, the Court granted the EPA's request for vacature and remand of
the PM2.5 SILs provisions and also vacated parts of 40 CFR
51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 that established the PM2.5 SMC,
finding that the EPA was precluded from using the PM2.5 SMC
to exempt permit applicants from the statutory requirement to compile
preconstruction monitoring data. As a result of the Court's decision,
States should avoid including language in SIP revision submittals that
are the same as or have similar effects as the vacated PM2.5
SILs and SMC language in 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21. As stated previously,
neither the PM2.5 SILs nor the PM2.5 SMC are
required elements of the PSD SIP for PM2.5.

    New Mexico's July 26, 2013, SIP revision submittal includes
revisions to 20.11.61 NMAC that incorporate the amendments to the PSD
regulations consistent with the changes in the 2010 PM2.5
PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule. Consistent with the January 2013
vacature and remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
(the D.C. Circuit), the SIP revision submittal also correctly excludes
those amendments from the EPA's 2010 Rule that established the
PM2.5 SILs and SMC. Therefore, the EPA finds that these
revisions in the July 2013 submittal are consistent with the 2010
rulemaking and subsequent Court decision and meet the requirements of
section 110 and part C of the CAA.
iii. Summary of the EPA's 2012 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule
    On October 12, 2012, the EPA finalized amendments to its rules for
the CAA NSR permitting program regarding the definition of ``regulated
NSR pollutant.'' This rulemaking clarified when condensable particulate
matter should be measured. The final rule continued to require that
condensable particulate matter be included as part of the emissions
measurements for regulation of PM2.5/PM10. As a
result of the EPA's final 2012 NSR PM2.5 Rule, the
inadvertent requirement that measurements of condensable particulate
matter emissions be included as part of the measurement and regulation
of ``particulate matter emissions'' was removed.
    New Mexico's July 26, 2013, SIP revision submittal includes a
revision to the definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant.''
Specifically, the SIP revision revises this definition found at
<IP_ADDRESS>(WW) NMAC to include the clarifying language related to the
condensable particulate matter portion accounted for in
PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. The EPA notes that as
part of the July 2013 SIP revision submittal, New Mexico did not remove
the requirement for condensable particulate matter emissions to be
included in particulate matter emissions. Therefore, the definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' at <IP_ADDRESS>(WW) NMAC is more stringent
than the federal definition. See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49). The EPA finds
that the revisions to the definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' in
the July 26, 2013, submittal meet the federal requirements in that the
definition is more stringent than the federal definition.
iv. Summary of the EPA's 2011 Fugitives Interim Rule
    On March 8, 2011, the EPA issued an interim rule to stay a December
2008 rule known as the Fugitives Emissions Rule. The 2008 Rule
established new provisions for how fugitive emissions should be treated
for NSR permitting. The EPA's 2011 interim rule replaced the stay
issued by the EPA on March 31, 2010, which inadvertently covered
portions of the NSR permitting requirements that should not have been
stayed. The 2011 rulemaking stayed the 2008 Fugitive Emissions Rule as
originally intended and reverted the regulatory text back to the
language that existed prior to those amendments, which the EPA is
reconsidering in response to a 2009 Natural Resources Defense Council
petition for reconsideration of the 2008 Fugitive Emissions Rule.
    New Mexico's July 26, 2013, SIP revision submittal includes
revisions to 20.11.61 NMAC that incorporate the amendments to the PSD
regulations consistent with the changes in the 2011 Fugitives Interim
Rule. The EPA finds that these revisions in the July 2013 submittal are
consistent with the 2011 rulemaking and meet the requirements of
section 110 and part C of the CAA.
v. Summary of the the EPA's 2011 Biomass Deferral Rule
    On July 20, 2011, the EPA promulgated the Biomass Deferral Rule,
which deferred, for a period of three years, the application of the PSD
and title V permitting requirements to CO2 emissions from
bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources. See 76 FR 43490. On
July 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued
its decision to vacate the Biomass Deferral Rule. See Center for
Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101).
    New Mexico's July 26, 2013, SIP revision submittal includes
revisions to 20.11.61 NMAC that incorporate the 2011 Biomass Deferral
Rule into the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD program. However, as
discussed in this proposed rulemaking, New Mexico's March 4, 2015, SIP
Submittal contains revisions to update the PSD program to remove the
biomass deferral, which was vacated in 2013. The EPA finds that the
combined revisions from the July 2013 and March 2015 submittals are
consistent with current PSD regulations with respect to the vacated
Biogas Referral Rule and meet the requirements of section 110 and part
C of the CAA.
vi. Summary of the the EPA's 2012 Tailoring Rule and GHG PALs Rule
    On June 3, 2010, the EPA issued a final rule, known as the
Tailoring Rule, which phased in permitting requirements for GHG
emissions from stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V
permitting programs (75 FR 31514). For Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule,
which began on January 2, 2011, PSD or title V requirements applied to
sources of GHG emissions only if the sources were subject to PSD or
title V ``anyway'' due to their emissions of non-GHG pollutants. These
sources are referred to as ``anyway sources.'' Step 2 of the Tailoring
Rule, which began on July 1, 2011, applied the PSD and title V
permitting requirements under the CAA to sources that were classified
as major, and, thus, required to obtain a permit, based solely on their
potential GHG emissions and to modifications of otherwise major sources
that required a PSD permit because they increased only GHG above
applicable levels in the EPA regulations.
    On July 12, 2012, the EPA promulgated the final ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits'' (GHG Tailoring Rule
Step 3 and GHG PALs).\6\ 77 FR 41051. In the Tailoring Rule Step 3
portion of this rule, the EPA decided against further phase in of the
PSD and title V requirements to apply to sources emitting lower levels
of greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, the thresholds for determining PSD
applicability based on emission of greenhouse gases remained the same
as established in Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule. The Step 3 portions of
the EPA's July 12, 2012, final rule are not relevant to today's
proposed action on the New Mexico SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For a complete history of the EPA's rulemakings related to
GHG emissions please review the following final actions:
    ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse
Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR 66496
(December 15, 2009).
    ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (April
2, 2010).
    ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
    ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse
Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GHG PALs portion of the July 12, 2012, final rule promulgated
revisions to the EPA regulations under 40 CFR part 52 for establishing
PALs for GHG emissions. For a full discussion of the EPA's rationale
for the GHG PALs provisions, see the notice of final rulemaking at 77
FR 41051. A PAL

establishes a site-specific plantwide emission level for a pollutant
that allows the source to make changes at the facility without
triggering the requirements of the PSD program, provided that emissions
do not exceed the PAL level. Under the EPA's interpretation of the
federal PAL provisions, such PALs are already available under PSD for
non-GHG pollutants and for GHGs on a mass basis, and the EPA revised
the PAL regulations to allow for GHG PALs to be established on a carbon
dioxide equivalent (CO2e) basis as well. See 77 FR 41052.
The EPA finalized these revisions in an effort to streamline federal
and SIP PSD permitting programs by allowing sources and permitting
authorities to address GHGs using a PAL in a manner similar to the use
of PALs for non-GHG pollutants. See 77 FR 41051, 41052.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

    New Mexico's July 26, 2013, and March 4, 2015, SIP revision
submittals include amendments to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD
program found in 20.11.61 NMAC to incorporate changes to federal PSD
provisions resulting from the following EPA rulemakings: 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule, 2010 PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC
Rule, 2012 PM2.5 PSD Implementation Rule, 2011 Fugitives
Interim Rule, 2011 Biomass Deferral Rule, and 2012 GHG Tailoring Rule
Step 3 and GHG PALs Rule. The July 26, 2013, SIP revisions also
contains additional non-substantive revisions to 20.11.61 NMAC
including formatting revisions, inclusion of acronyms, and rewording of
provisions to make this Part consistent with other provisions of the
NMAC.
    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Utility Air
Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency,\7\ issued a
decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to
GHG emissions. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs
as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a
major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a PSD permit.
The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD
permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than
GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of
Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The Supreme Court decision
effectively upheld PSD permitting requirements for GHG emissions under
Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for ``anyway sources'' and invalidated PSD
permitting requirements for Step 2 sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015,
the D.C. Circuit issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations
that implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations
that implement Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule. A copy of the judgment is
included in the docket to this rulemaking.\8\ The amended judgment
preserves, without the need for additional rulemaking by the EPA, the
application of the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirement
to GHG emissions from sources that are required to obtain a PSD permit
based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs (``anyway'' sources).
The D.C. Circuit's judgment vacated the regulations at issue in the
litigation, including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ``to the extent they
require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases
are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential
to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which
there is a significant emissions increase from a modification.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Original case is Coalition for Responsible Regulation v.
EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 09-1322, 06/26/20, judgment entered for No. 09-
1322 on 04/10/2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA may need to take additional steps to revise federal PSD
rules in light of the Supreme Court decision and recent D.C. Circuit
judgment. In addition, the EPA anticipates that many states will revise
their existing SIP-approved PSD programs. The EPA is not expecting
states to have revised their existing PSD program regulations at this
juncture. However, the EPA is evaluating PSD program submissions to
assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent
with both decisions.
    New Mexico's existing approved SIP for the Albuquerque-Bernalillo
County PSD program contains the greenhouse gas permitting requirements
required under 40 CFR 51.166, as amended in the Tailoring Rule. As a
result, the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's SIP-approved PSD permitting
program continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based
on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG
emissions based on the application of BACT when sources emit or
increase greenhouse gases in the amount of 75,000 tons per year (tpy),
measured as carbon dioxide equivalent. Although the SIP-approved
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD permitting program may also currently
contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the D.C.
Circuit's judgment or the Supreme Court decision, this does not prevent
the EPA from approving the submission addressed in this rule. New
Mexico's July 26, 2013, and March 4, 2015, SIP submissions do not add
any greenhouse gas permitting requirements that are inconsistent either
decision.
    Likewise, this revision does add to the New Mexico SIP for the
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD program elements of the EPA's July
12, 2012, rule implementing Step 3 of the phase in of PSD permitting
requirements for greenhouse gases described in the Tailoring Rule,
which became effective on August 13, 2012. Specifically, the
incorporation of the Step 3 rule provisions will allow GHG-emitting
sources to obtain PALs for their GHG emissions on a CO2e
basis. The GHG PAL provisions, as currently written, include some
provisions that may no longer be appropriate in light of both the D.C.
Circuit's judgment and the Supreme Court decision. Since the Supreme
Court has determined that sources and modifications may not be defined
as ``major'' solely on the basis of the level of greenhouse gases
emitted or increased, PALs for greenhouse gases may no longer have
value in some situations where a source might have triggered PSD based
on greenhouse gas emissions alone. However, PALs for GHGs may still
have a role to play in determining whether a modification that triggers
PSD for a pollutant other than greenhouse gases should also be subject
to BACT for greenhouse gases. These provisions, like the other GHG
provisions discussed previously, may be revised at some future time.
However, these provisions do not add new requirements for sources or
modifications that only emit or increase greenhouse gases above the
major source threshold or the 75,000 tpy greenhouse gas level in
section 52.21(b)(49)(iv). Rather, the PALs provisions provide increased
flexibility to sources that wish to address their GHG emissions in a
PAL. Since this flexibility may still be valuable to sources in at
least one context described above, we believe that it is appropriate to
approve these provisions into the New Mexico SIP at this juncture.
    As discussed in this rulemaking and the accompanying TSD, the EPA
finds that the revisions to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD
program contained in the July 26, 2013, and March 4, 2015, SIP revision
submittals are consistent with the aforementioned the EPA rulemakings
and meet the associated federal requirements. The

EPA therefore proposes to find the proposed SIP revisions to be fully
approvable.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Albuquerque-
Bernalillo County PSD program that were submitted by New Mexico as a
SIP revision on July 26, 2013, and March 4, 2015. We are proposing
approval of the portions of the July 26, 2013, and March 4, 2015,
submittals that revised the following sections under 20.11.61:
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Scope,
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Effective Date,
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Objective,
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Definitions,
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Documents,
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Applicability,
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Obligations of Owners or Operators of
Sources,
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Control Technology Review and Innovative
Control Technology,
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Ambient Impact Requirements,
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Air Quality Analysis and Monitoring
Requirements,
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits
(PALs),
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Exclusions from Increment Consumption,
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Sources Impacting Federal Class I Areas-
Additional Requirements,
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Table 2-Significant Emission Rates,
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Table 4-Allowable PSD Increments, and
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Table 5-Maximum Allowable Increases for
Class I Variances.
    The EPA has determined that these revisions to the New Mexico SIP's
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PSD program are approvable because the
submitted rules are adopted and submitted in accordance with the CAA
and are consistent with the EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting.
The EPA is proposing this action under section 110 and part C of the
Act.
    The EPA is severing from our proposed approval action the revisions
to 20.11.60 NMAC submitted on July 26, 2013, which are revisions to the
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County NNSR Program and will be addressed in a
separate action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the New Mexico regulations discussed in section III. of this
preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule is not proposed to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: April 24, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-11780 Filed 5-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 44906-44907]
[DOCID:fr09au07-116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56200; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to Exchange Fees and Charges

August 3, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 27, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been substantially prepared by NYSE Arca. On August 1, 2007,
the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The
Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a
due, fee or other charge imposed by the Exchange under section
19(b)(3)(A) \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,
as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NYSE Arca proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges for
Exchange Services (``Schedule'') in order to revise the operative
period for transactions fees that are applicable to issues that trade
as part of the Penny Pilot.\5\ The text of the proposed rule change is
available at http://www.nysearca.com, at the Exchange, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55156 (January 23,
2007) 72 FR 4759 (February 1, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NYSE Arca included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these
statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
NYSE Arca has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to revise the existing NYSE Arca
Schedule in conjunction with the extension of the Penny Pilot. On June
18, 2007, the Exchange filed SR-NYSEArca-2007-56, a proposal to extend
the pilot program, under which the Exchange trades options on a limited
number of underlying issues that are quoted in one-cent and five-cent
increments (``Penny Pilot''). On July 23, 2007, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1, which replaced the original proposal in its entirety.
On July 25, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2, which made non-
substantive changes to the proposal. The amended proposal, which
extends the operative date of the Penny Pilot until September 27, 2007,
was effective upon filing.
    NYSE Arca charges certain fees on transactions occurring in issues
that trade as part of the Penny Pilot. The Exchange now proposes to
extend the operative date for these fees until September 27, 2007, to
coincide with the dates of the Penny Pilot.
2. Statutory Basis
    NYSE Arca believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of dues, fees and other charges among its
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NYSE Arca does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \9\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee or other
charge imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary of appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in the furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-77 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-77. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE Arca. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-77 and should be
submitted on or before August 30, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-15552 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48519-48520]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17510]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-52-001; CP20-52-000]

WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on July 28, 2020, WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
(WBI Energy), 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota 58503,
filed in the above referenced docket an amendment to its application
filed on February 14, 2020, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas
Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, to construct, modify
and maintain the North Bakken Expansion Project (Project). By this
amendment, WBI Energy proposes (i) to reduce the Project's incremental
firm transportation design capacity from 350,000 Mcf/d to 250,000 Mcf/d
by reducing the number of additional compressor units at its existing
Tioga Compressor Station from six units to three units; (ii) to update
the Project's cost, and (iii) to update certain appurtenant Project
facilities.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed Lori
Myerchin, Director, Regulatory Affairs and Transportation Services, WBI
Energy Transmission, Inc., 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck, North
Dakota 58503, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will issue a Notice
of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the environmental assessment (EA) for this proposal. The issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA
(18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the
service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will
receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the
proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant
and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in
Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice
concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new NGA section 3 or
section 7 proceeding.\1\ Persons desiring to become a party to a
certificate proceeding are to intervene in a timely manner. If seeking
to intervene out-of-time, the movant is required to ``show good cause
why the time limitation should be waived,'' and should provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d)(1) of
the Commission's Rules and Regulations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 162 FERC ] 61,167 at
] 50 (2018).
    \2\ 18 CFR 385.214(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 25, 2020.

    Dated: August 4, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17510 Filed 8-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 27, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79247-79249]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31463; Amdt. No. 4039]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective December 27, 2022. The compliance date
for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of December 27, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104,
Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums
and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its
associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed
on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this
amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The
applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when
required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers or
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the type of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for Part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore-(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 9, 2022.
Thomas J. Nichols,
Aviation Safety, Flight Standards Service Manager, Standards Section,
Flight Procedures & Airspace Group, Flight Technologies & Procedures
Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 26 January 2023

Winchester, IN, I22, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1A
Kill Devil Hills, NC, KFFA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Orig-A
Kill Devil Hills, NC, KFFA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig-A

Effective 23 February 2023

Sitka, AK, PASI, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 1, CANCELED
Auburn, AL, KAUO, VOR-A, Amdt 8B, CANCELED
Phoenix, AZ, KDVT, DEER VALLEY TWO, Graphic DP
Phoenix, AZ, KDVT, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7
San Jose, CA, KSJC, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 30L, Amdt 4A
San Jose, CA, KSJC, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 30R, Amdt 4B
Denver, CO, KAPA, ILS OR LOC RWY 35R, Amdt 11B
Denver, CO, KAPA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17L, Amdt 2A
Denver, CO, KAPA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35R, Amdt 1B
Ocala, FL, KOCF, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 2
Ocala, FL, KOCF, VOR RWY 36, Amdt 19
Gainesville, GA, KGVL, ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 1
Gainesville, GA, KGVL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 2
Gainesville, GA, KGVL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 2
Jasper, GA, KJZP, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 2
Atlantic, IA, KAIO, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1D
Harlan, IA, KHNR, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1

Rock Rapids, IA, KRRQ, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1B
Anthony, KS, KANY, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2A
Hugoton, KS, KHQG, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig-C
Marysville, KS, KMYZ, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig-C
Washington, KS, K38, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1C
Murray, KY, KCEY, LOC RWY 23, Amdt 2C, CANCELED
Augusta, ME, KAUG, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 2, CANCELED
Augusta, ME, KAUG, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5
Allegan, MI, 35D, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig-D
Allegan, MI, 35D, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig-C
Three Rivers, MI, KHAI, VOR-A, Amdt 10A, CANCELED
Fairmont, MN, KFRM, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-C
Rush City, MN, KROS, NDB RWY 34, Orig-B, CANCELED
Windom, MN, KMWM, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1C
Worthington, MN, KOTG, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 1A
Worthington, MN, KOTG, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1A
Farmington, MO, KFAM, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1A
Natchez, MS, KHEZ, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A
Liberty, NC, 2A5, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig-C, CANCELED
Liberty, NC, 2A5, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig-B, CANCELED
Liberty, NC, 2A5, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1, CANCELED
Omaha, NE, KOMA, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 36, Amdt 2A
Newark, NJ, KEWR, GLS RWY 22L, Amdt 1
Newark, NJ, KEWR, GLS RWY 22R, Amdt 2
Deming, NM, KDMN, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Deming, NM, KDMN, VOR RWY 26, Amdt 10B, CANCELED
Deming, NM, KDMN, VOR-B, Orig
Jackson, OH, KJRO, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1F
Lancaster, SC, KLKR, NDB RWY 24, Amdt 5, CANCELED
Burnet, TX, KBMQ, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig-F
Burnet, TX, KBMQ, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig-E
Burnet, TX, KBMQ, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2A
Mesquite, TX, KHQZ, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Amdt 1D, CANCELED
Mesquite, TX, KHQZ, LOC/DME BC RWY 36, Amdt 4, CANCELED
Mineola/Quitman, TX, KJDD, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-E
Paris, TX, KPRX, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 2C
Stratford, TX, H70, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4A,
CANCELED
Milwaukee, WI, KMKE, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7L, Amdt 1A

    Rescinded: On November 25, 2022 (87 FR 72383), the FAA published
an Amendment in Docket No. 31456, Amdt No. 4033, to Part 97 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.33. The following
entries for, Tulsa, OK, effective December 29, 2022, is hereby
rescinded in its entirety:

Tulsa, OK, KTUL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36L, Amdt 1A

[FR Doc. 2022-28112 Filed 12-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


 MEMORANDUM 		 TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734 		 FROM:	Jill Mozier, EC/R Inc.

DATE:		December 9, 2013

SUBJECT:	Presentation submittals to OMB as part of the American Lung Association's, the American Thoracic Society's, and Trust for America's Health's presentation on November 1, 2013 regarding the proposed NSPS for Wood Heaters.

The American Lung Association and several other health organizations presented their perspectives to OMB regarding wood heater particulate pollution and the proposed NSPS. The following representatives from each organization spoke:

 Paul Billings  -  American Lung Association, Vice President, National Policy & Advocacy  Gary Ewart - American Thoracic Society, Director of Government Relations  Jack Rayburn  -  Trust for America's Health, Government Relations Manager

All three presenters expressed their support for a revised, robust, and stringent NSPS due to the serious, negative health effects of wood smoke.

Attached to this primary document in the docket are 3 handouts submitted to OMB as part of the presentation by the above group:

   (1) Photos of smoking new Phase II Outdoor Wood Fired Boilers (hydronic heaters);

   (2) A November 12, 2012 letter from the American Lung Association to EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy (urging the EPA to adopt rigorous health-protective standards for all classes of residential wood heaters that require best emission reduction systems, including a summary of the pollutants emitted and their known health effects);

   (3) People at Risk in 25 Counties Most Polluted by Short-term Particle Pollution (24-hour PM2.5)


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37316-37317]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0560]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Trent River, New Bern, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Alfred C. Cunningham Bridge across the Trent River, mile 0.0, at New
Bern, NC. The deviation allows the bridge draw span to remain in the
closed to navigation position for 3 hours to accommodate the annual
Neuse River Bridge Run.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6:30 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. on
October 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket USCG-2012-0560 and are available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0560 in the ``Keywords'' box,
and then clicking ``Search''. This material is also available for
inspection or copying the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth
Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on reviewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Event Director for the Neuse River
Bridge Run, with approval from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, owner of the drawbridge, has requested a temporary
deviation from the current operating schedule to accommodate the Neuse
River Bridge Run.
    The Alfred C. Cunningham Bridge operating regulations are set out
in 33 CFR 117.843(a). The Alfred C. Cunningham Bridge across the Trent
River, mile 0.0, a double bascule lift Bridge, in New Bern, NC, has a
vertical

clearance in the closed position of 14 feet, above mean high water.
    Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be allowed to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
on Saturday, October 20, 2012 to accommodate the Neuse River Bridge
Run.
    Vessels able to pass under the closed span may transit under the
drawbridge while it is in the closed position. Mariners are advised to
proceed with caution. The Coast Guard will inform users of the waterway
through our local and broadcast Notices to Mariners of the limited
operating schedule for the drawbridge so that vessels can arrange their
transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.
There are no alternate routes for vessels and the bridge will be able
to open in the event of an emergency.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period.
    This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under
33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 12, 2012.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-15201 Filed 6-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P