[Federal Register: August 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 149)]
[Notices]
[Page 44983-44984]
[DOCID:fr01au08-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER03-295-003; ER04-1194-001]

SESCO Enterprises, LLC SESCO Enterprises Canada, Ltd.; Notice of
Filing

July 25, 2008.
    Take notice that on June 19, 2008, SESCO Enterprises, LLC and SESCO
Enterprises Canada, Ltd tendered for filing for Determination of
Category 1 Status Under Order No. 697 and Modification of Market-Based
Rate Tariff.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies

of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 1, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17627 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 230 (Thursday, November 29, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71119-71129]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28822]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0702; FRL-9755-5]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; City of
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Interstate Transport
Affecting Visibility and Regional Haze Rule Requirements for Mandatory
Class I Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the City of Albuquerque--Bernalillo County,
New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
Governor of New Mexico on July 28, 2011 addressing the regional haze
requirements for the mandatory Class I areas under 40 CFR 51.309. The
EPA finds that these revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
and associated rules meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and comply with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.309, thereby meeting
requirements for reasonable progress for the 16 Class I areas covered
by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report for approval
of the plan through 2018. We are also approving SIP submissions offered
as companion rules to the Section 309 regional haze plan, specifically,
rules for the Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventory Requirements and the
Western Backstop Trading Program, submitted on December 26, 2003,
September 10, 2008, and May 24, 2011, and rules for Open Burning,
submitted on December 26, 2003 and July 28, 2011. These SIP revisions
were submitted to address the requirements of the Act and our rules
that require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing man-
made impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by
emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide
geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze program'').
States are required to assure reasonable progress toward the national
goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas.
    We are also approving a portion of the SIP revision submitted by
the City of Albuquerque--Bernalillo County, New Mexico on July 30,
2007, for the purpose of addressing the ``good neighbor'' provisions of
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the
PM2.5 NAAQS. We are approving the portion of the SIP
submittal that addresses the CAA requirement concerning non-
interference with programs to protect visibility in other states. EPA
is taking this action pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective December 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0702. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
    Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the Air
Planning Section (6PD-

L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 The file will be made available by appointment
for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays.
Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at our Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Feldman, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
214-665-7263; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to
certain words or initials as follows:
    i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    ii. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    iii. The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
    iv. The initials RH and RHR mean or refer to Regional Haze and
Regional Haze Rule.
    v. The initials BC and the words Albuquerque and Bernalillo
County mean the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico
    vi. The initials AQCB mean or refer to the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board.
    vii. The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit
Technology.
    viii. The initials OC mean or refer to organic carbon.
    ix. The initials EC mean or refer to elemental carbon.
    x. The initials VOC mean or refer to volatile organic compounds.
    xi. The initials EGUs mean or refer to Electric Generating
Units.
    xii. The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
    xiii. The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
    xiv. The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
    xv. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with
an aerodynamic of less than 2.5 micrometers.
    xvi. The initial RPGs mean or refer to reasonable progress
goals.
    xvii. The initials RPOs mean or refer to regional planning
organizations.
    xviii. The initials WRAP mean or refer to the Western Regional
Air Partnership.
    xix. The initials GCVTC mean or refer to the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Basis for Final Action
IV. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses
V. Statutory and Executive Orders

I. Background

    The CAA requires each state to develop plans, referred to as SIPs,
to meet various air quality requirements. A state must submit its SIPs
and SIP revisions to us for approval. The Albuquerque/Bernalillo County
Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) is the federally delegated air quality
authority for the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, New Mexico
(BC). The AQCB is authorized to administer and enforce the CAA and the
New Mexico Air Quality Control Act, and to require local air pollution
sources to comply with air quality standards. The AQCB has submitted a
Section 309 regional haze SIP for its geographic area of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4). The BC
RH SIP is a necessary component of the regional haze plan for the
entire State of New Mexico and is also necessary to ensure the
requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA are satisfied for
the entire State of New Mexico. Once approved, a SIP is enforceable by
EPA and citizens under the CAA, also known as being federally
enforceable. This action involves the requirement that states have SIPs
that address regional haze and address the requirement that emissions
from a state do not interfere with measures of other states to protect
visibility.

A. Regional Haze

    In 1990, Congress added section 169B to the CAA to address regional
haze issues, and we promulgated regulations addressing regional haze in
1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart
P. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in our visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR
51.300-309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to
all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. States
were required to submit a SIP addressing regional haze visibility
impairment no later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b).
    The AQCB submitted the BC RH SIP to EPA on July 28, 2011, and it
adds to earlier RH SIP planning components that were submitted on
December 26, 2003.

B. Interstate Transport and Visibility

    On July 18, 1997, we promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for
PM2.5. 62 FR 38652. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
states to submit SIPs to address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years
after promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter period as
we may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires that
states have a SIP, or submit a SIP revision, containing provisions
``prohibiting any source or other type of emission activity within the
state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will * * *
interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable
implementation plan for any other State under part C [of the CAA] * * *
to protect visibility.'' Because of the impacts on visibility from the
interstate transport of pollutants, we interpret the ``good neighbor''
provisions of section 110 of the Act described above as requiring
states to include in their SIPs either measures to prohibit emissions
that would interfere with the reasonable progress goals set to protect
Class I areas in other states, or a demonstration that emissions from
BC sources and activities will not have the prohibited impacts on other
states' existing SIPs.
    The EPA received a SIP revision adopted by AQCB on September 12,
2007 to address the interstate transport provisions of CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

C. Lawsuits

    In a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, environmental groups sued us for our failure to timely take
action with respect to the regional haze requirements of the CAA and
our regulations. In particular, the lawsuit alleged that we had failed
to promulgate federal implementation plans (FIPs) for these
requirements within the two-year period allowed by CAA section 110(c)
or, in the alternative, fully approve SIPs addressing these
requirements.
    As a result of this lawsuit, we entered into a consent decree. The
consent decree requires that we sign a notice of final rulemaking
addressing the regional haze requirements for Bernalillo County by
November 15, 2012. We are meeting that requirement with the signing of
this notice of final rulemaking.

D. Our Proposal

    We signed our notice of proposed rulemaking on April 12, 2012, and
it was published in the Federal Register on April 25, 2012 (77 FR
24768). In that notice, we provided a detailed description of the
various regional haze requirements and interstate transport and
visibility requirements. We are not repeating that description here;
instead, the reader should refer to our notice of proposed rulemaking
for further detail. In our proposal, we proposed to approve BC SIP
revisions submitted on July 28, 2011 addressing the regional haze
requirements for the mandatory Class I areas under 40 CFR 51.309. We
proposed to find that all reviewed components of the SIP meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. We also proposed to approve a portion of
the BC SIP revision submitted on July 30, 2007, for the purpose of
addressing the ``good neighbor'' provisions of the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the
PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposal proposed to approve the portion
of the SIP submittal that addresses the CAA requirement concerning non-
interference with programs to protect visibility in other states.

E. Public Participation

    We requested comments on all aspects of our proposed action and
provided a thirty-day comment period, with the comment period closing
on May 25, 2012. We received comments on our proposed rule that
supported our proposed action and that were critical of our proposed
action. In this action, we are responding to the comments we have
received, taking final rulemaking action, and explaining the bases for
our action.

II. Final Action

    In this action, EPA is approving City of Albuquerque--Bernalillo
County, New Mexico SIP revisions submitted on July 28, 2011 addressing
the regional haze requirements for the mandatory Class I areas under 40
CFR 51.309. We find that all reviewed components of the SIP meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. In conjunction with this approval, we
are also approving the following related rules: 20.11.46 NMAC, Sulfur
Dioxide Emission Inventory Requirements; Western Backstop Sulfur
Dioxide Trading Program (submitted after initial adoption on December
26, 2003, with revisions submitted on September 10, 2008, and May 24,
2011) and 20.11.21 NMAC, Open Burning (submitted after initial adoption
on December 26, 2003, with revisions submitted on July 28, 2011).
    We are approving a portion of the SIP revision submitted by the
City of Albuquerque--Bernalillo County, New Mexico on July 30, 2007,
for the purpose of addressing the ``good neighbor'' provisions of the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the
PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ We are approving the portion of the SIP
submittal that addresses the CAA requirement concerning non-
interference with programs to protect visibility in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ There are four ``prongs'' under the ``good neighbor''
provisions of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). On November 8, 2012
(75 FR 68447), we approved a SIP revision that air pollutant
emissions from sources within BC do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS
in any other state. On September 19, 2012, we approved a SIP
revision that air pollutant emissions from sources within BC do not
interfere with prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
measures required in the SIP of any other state for the 1997 ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Basis for Our Final Action

    We have fully considered all significant comments on our proposal
and have concluded that no changes from our proposal are warranted. Our
action is based on an evaluation of BC's regional haze SIP submittal
against the regional haze requirements at 40 CFR 51.300-51.309 and CAA
sections 169A and 169B. A detailed explanation of how the Albuquerque
SIP submittal meets these requirements is contained in the proposal.
All general SIP requirements contained in CAA section 110, other
provisions of the CAA, and our regulations applicable to this action
were also evaluated. The purpose of this action is to ensure compliance
with these requirements. Our authority for action on BC's SIP submittal
is based on CAA section 110(k).
    We are approving BC's regional haze SIP provisions because they
meet the relevant regional haze requirements. Most of the adverse
comments we received concerning our proposed approval of the regional
haze SIP pertained to our proposed approval of the SO2
backstop trading program.

IV. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses

A. Comments and Responses Common to Participating States Regarding
Proposed Approval of the SO2 Backstop Trading Program
Components of the RH SIPS

    EPA has proposed to approve the SO2 backstop trading
program components of the RH SIPs for all participating States and has
done so through four separate proposals: For the Bernalillo County
proposal see 77 FR 24768 (April 25, 2012); For the Utah proposal see 77
FR 28825 (May 15, 2012); for the Wyoming proposal see 77 FR 30953 (May
24, 2012); finally, for the New Mexico proposal see 77 FR 36043 (June
15, 2012). National conservation organizations paired with
organizations local to each state have together submitted very similar,
if not identical, comments on various aspects of EPA's proposed
approval of these common program components. These comment letters may
be found in the docket for each proposal and are dated as follows: May
25, 2012 for Bernalillo County; July 16, 2012 for Utah; July 23, 2012
for Wyoming; and July 16, 2012 for New Mexico. Each of the comment
letters has attached a consultant's report dated May 25, 2012, and
titled: ``Evaluation of Whether the SO2 Backstop Trading
Program Proposed by the States of New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming and
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Will Result in Lower SO2
Emissions than Source-Specific BART.'' In this section, we address and
respond to those comments we identified as being consistently submitted
and specifically directed to the component of the published proposals
dealing with the submitted SO2 backstop trading program. For
our organizational purposes, any additional or unique comments found in
the conservation organization letter that is applicable to this
proposal (i.e., for the City of Albuquerque -Bernalillo County) will be
addressed in the next section where we also address all other comments
received.
    Comment: The language of the Clean Air Act appears to require BART.
The commenter acknowledges that prior case law affirms EPA's regulatory
basis for having ``better than BART'' alternative measures, but
nevertheless asserts that it violates Congress' mandate for an
alternative trading program to rely on emissions reductions from non-
BART sources and excuse EGUs from compliance with BART.
    Response: The Clean Air Act requires BART ``as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal'' of
remedying existing impairment and preventing future impairment at
mandatory Class I areas. See CAA Section 169A(b)(2). In 1999, EPA
issued regulations allowing for alternatives to BART based on a reading
of the CAA that focused on the overarching goal of the statute of
achieving progress. EPA's regulations provided states with the option
of implementing an emissions trading program or other alternative
measure in

lieu of BART so long as the alternative would result in greater
reasonable progress than BART. We note that this interpretation of CAA
Section 169A(B)(2) was determined to be reasonable by the D.C. Circuit
in Center for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653,
659-660 (D.C. Cir. 2005) in a challenge to the backstop market trading
program under Section 309, and again found to reasonable by the D.C.
Circuit in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333, 1340
(D.C. Cir. 2006) (``* * * [W]e have already held in CEED that EPA may
leave states free to implement BART-alternatives so long as those
alternatives also ensure reasonable progress.''). Our regulations for
alternatives to BART, including the provisions for a backstop trading
program under Section 309, are therefore consistent with the Clean Air
Act and not in issue in this action approving a SIP submitted under
those regulations. We have reviewed the submitted 309 trading program
SIPs to determine whether each has the required backstop trading
program (see 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v)), and whether the features of the
program satisfy the requirements for trading programs as alternatives
to BART (see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)). Our regulations make clear that any
market trading program as an alternative to BART contemplates market
participation from a broader list of sources than merely those sources
that are subject to BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).
    Comment: The submitted 309 Trading Program is defective because
only 3 of 9 Transport States remain in the program. The Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission Report clearly stated that the program
must be ``comprehensive.'' The program fails to include the other
Western States that account for the majority of sulfate contribution in
the Class I areas of participating States, and therefore Class I areas
on the Colorado Plateau will see little or no visibility benefit. Non-
participation by other Transport Region States compounds the program's
deficiencies.
    Response: We disagree that the 309 trading program is defective
because only 3 States remain in the program. EPA's regulations do not
require a minimum number of Transport Region States to participate in
the 309 trading program, and there is no reason to believe that the
limited participation by the 9 Transport States will limit the
effectiveness of the program in the 3 States that have submitted 309
SIPs. The commenter's argument is not supported by the regional haze
regulations and is demonstrably inconsistent with the resource
commitments of the Transport Region States that have worked for many
years in the WRAP to develop and submit SIPs to satisfy 40 CFR 51.309.
At the outset, our regulations affirm that ``certain States * * * may
choose'' to comply with the 40 CFR 51.309 requirements and conversely
that ``[a]ny Transport Region State [may] elect not to submit an
implementation plan'' to meet the optional requirements. 40 CFR
51.309(a); see also 40 CFR 51.309(f). We have also previously observed
how the WRAP, in the course of developing its technical analyses as the
framework for a trading program, ``understood that some States and
Tribes may choose not to participate in the optional program provided
by 40 CFR 51.309.'' 68 FR 33769 (June 5, 2003). Only five of nine
Transport Region States initially opted to participate in the backstop
trading program in 2003, and of those initial participants only Oregon
and Arizona later elected not to submit 309 SIPs.
    We disagree with the commenter's assertion that Class I areas on
the Colorado Plateau will see little or no visibility benefit. Non-
participating States must account for sulfate contributions to
visibility impairment at Class I areas by addressing all requirements
that apply under 40 CFR 51.308. To the extent Wyoming, New Mexico and
Utah sources ``do not account for the majority of sulfate
contribution'' at the 16 class I areas on Colorado Plateau, there is no
legal requirement that they account for SO2 emissions
originating from sources outside these participating States. Aside from
this, the modeling results detailed in the proposed rulemaking show
projected visibility improvement for the 20 percent worst days in 2018
and no degradation in visibility conditions on the 20 percent best days
at all 16 of the mandatory Class I areas under the submitted 309 plan.
    Finally, we do not agree with the commenter's characterization of
the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report, which used the
term ``comprehensive'' only in stating the following:

    ``It is the intent of [the recommendation for an incentive-based
trading program] that [it] include as many source categories and
species of pollutants as is feasible and technically defensible.
This preference for a `comprehensive' market is based upon the
expectation that a comprehensive program would be more effective at
improving visibility and would yield more cost-effective emission
reduction strategies for the region as a whole.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission,
Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas at 32 (June 10, 1996).

    It is apparent that the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission recommended comprehensive source coverage to optimize the
market trading program. This does not necessitate or even necessarily
correlate with geographic comprehensiveness as contemplated by the
comment. We note that the submitted backstop trading program does in
fact comprehensively include ``many source categories,'' as may also be
expected for any intrastate trading program that any state could choose
to develop and submit under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). As was stated in our
proposal, section 51.309 does not require the participation of a
certain number of States to validate its effectiveness.
    Comment: The submitted 309 trading program is defective because the
pollutant reductions from participating States have little visibility
benefit in each other's Class I areas. The States that have submitted
309 SIPs are ``largely non-contiguous'' in terms of their physical
borders and their air shed impacts. Sulfate emissions from each of the
participating States have little effect on Class I areas in other
participating States.
    Response: We disagree. The 309 program was designed to address
visibility impairment for the sixteen Class I areas on the Colorado
Plateau. New Mexico, Wyoming and Utah are identified as Transport
Region States because the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
had determined they could impact the Colorado Plateau class I areas.
The submitted trading program has been designed by these Transport
Region States to satisfy their requirements under 40 CFR 51.309 to
address visibility impairment at the sixteen Class I areas. The
strategies in these plans are directed toward a designated clean-air
corridor that is defined by the placement of the 16 Class I areas, not
the placement of state borders. ``Air sheds'' that do not relate to
haze at these Class I areas or that relate to other Class I areas are
similarly not relevant to whether the requirements for an approvable
309 trading program are met. As applicable, any Transport Region State
implementing the provisions of Section 309 must also separately
demonstrate reasonable progress for any additional mandatory Class I
Federal areas other than the 16 Class I areas located within the state.
See 40 CFR 51.309(g). More broadly, the State must submit a long-term
strategy to address these additional Class I areas as well as those
Class I areas located outside the state which may be affected by
emissions from the State. 40 CFR 51.309(g) and

51.308(d)(2). In developing long-term strategies, the Transport Region
States may take full credit for visibility improvements that would be
achieved through implementation of the strategies required by
51.309(d). A state's satisfaction of the requirements of 51.309(d), and
specifically the requirement for a backstop trading program, is
evaluated independently from whether a state has satisfied the
requirements of 51.309(g). In neither case, however, does the
approvability inquiry center on the location or contiguousness of state
borders.
    Comment: The emission benchmark used in the submitted 309 trading
program is inaccurate. The ``better-than-BART'' demonstration needs to
analyze BART for each source subject to BART in order to evaluate the
alternative program. The submitted 309 trading program has no BART
analysis. The ``better-than-BART'' demonstration does not comply with
the regional haze regulations when it relies on the presumptive
SO2 emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu for most coal-fired EGUs.
The presumptive SO2 limits are inappropriate because EPA has
elsewhere asserted that ``presumptive limits represented control
capabilities at the time the BART Rule was promulgated, and that [EPA]
expected that scrubber technology would continue to improve and control
costs would continue to decline.'' 77 Fed. Reg. 14614 (March 12, 2012).
    Response: We disagree that the submitted 309 trading program
requires an analysis that determines BART for each source subject to
BART. Source specific BART determinations are not required to support
the better-than-BART demonstration when the ``alternative measure has
been designed to meet a requirement other than BART.'' See 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). The requirements of Section 309 are meant to
implement the recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission and are regulatory requirements ``other than BART'' that are
part of a long-term strategy to achieve reasonable progress. As such,
in its analysis, the State may assume emission reductions ``for similar
types of sources within a source category based on both source-specific
and category-wide information, as appropriate.'' See id. The 309 States
used this approach in developing their emission benchmark, and we view
it to be consistent with what we have previously stated regarding the
establishment of a BART benchmark. Specifically, we have explained that
States designing alternative programs to meet requirements other than
BART ``may use simplifying assumptions in establishing a BART benchmark
based on an analysis of what BART is likely to be for similar types of
sources within a source category.'' 71 FR 60619 (Oct. 13, 2006).
    We also previously stated that ``we believe that the presumptions
for EGUs in the BART guidelines should be used for comparisons to a
trading program or other alternative measure, unless the State
determines that such presumptions are not appropriate.'' Id. Our
reasoning for this has also long been clear. While EPA recognizes that
a case-by-case BART analysis may result in emission limits more
stringent than the presumptive limits, the presumptive limits are
reasonable and appropriate for use in assessing regional emissions
reductions for the better than BART demonstration. See 71 FR 60619
(``the presumptions represent a reasonable estimate of a stringent case
BART because they would be applied across the board to a wide variety
of units with varying impacts on visibility, at power plants of varying
size and distance from Class I areas''). EPA's expectation that
scrubber technology would continue to improve and that control costs
would continue to decline is a basis for not regarding presumptive
limits as a default or safe harbor BART determination when the BART
Guidelines otherwise call for a complete, case-by-case analysis. We
believe it was reasonable for the developers of the submitted trading
program to use the presumptive limits for EGUs in establishing the
emission benchmark, particularly since the methodology used to
establish the emission benchmark was established near in time to our
promulgation of the presumptive limits as well as our guidance that
they should be used. We do not think the assumptions used at the time
the trading program was developed, including the use of presumptive
limits, were unreasonable. Moreover, the commenter has not demonstrated
how the use of presumptive limits as a simplifying assumption at that
time, or even now, would be flawed merely because EPA expects that
scrubber technology and costs will continue to improve.
    Comment: The presumptive SO2 emission rate overstates
actual emissions from sources that were included in the BART benchmark
calculation. In addition, States in the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Region have established or proposed significantly more
stringent BART limits for SO2. Using actual SO2
emission data for EGUs, SO2 emissions would be 130,601 tpy,
not the benchmark of 141,859 tpy submitted in the 309 trading program.
Using a combination of actual emissions and unit-specific BART
determinations, the SO2 emissions would be lower still at
123,529 tpy. Finally, the same data EPA relied on to support its
determination that reductions under the Cross State Air Pollution Rule
are ``better-than-BART'' would translate to SO2 emissions of
124,740 tpy. These analyses show the BART benchmark is higher than
actual SO2 emissions reductions achievable through BART. It
follows that the submitted 309 trading program is flawed because it
cannot be deemed to achieve ``greater reasonable progress'' than BART.
    Response: The BART benchmark calculation does not overstate
emissions because it was not intended to assess actual emissions at
BART subject sources nor was it intended to assess the control
capabilities of later installed controls. Instead, the presumptive
SO2 emission rate served as a necessary simplifying
assumption. When the States worked to develop the 309 trading program,
they could not be expected to anticipate the future elements of case-
by-case BART determinations made by other States (or EPA, in the case
of a BART determination through any federal implementation plan), nor
could they be expected to anticipate the details of later-installed
SO2 controls or the future application of enforceable
emission limits to those controls. The emissions projections by the
WRAP incorporated the best available information at the time from the
states, and utilized the appropriate methods and models to provide a
prediction of emissions from all source categories in this planning
period. In developing a profile of planning period emissions to support
each state's reasonable progress goals, as well as the submitted
trading program, it was recognized that the final control decisions by
all of the states were not yet complete, including decisions as they
may pertain to emissions from BART eligible sources. Therefore, we
believe it is appropriate that the analysis and demonstration is based
on data that was available to the States at the time they worked to
construct the SO2 trading program. The States did make
appropriate adjustments based on information that was available to them
at the time. Notably, the WRAP appropriately adjusted its use of the
presumptive limits in the case of Huntington Units 1 and 2 in Utah,
because those units were already subject to federally enforceable
SO2 emission rates that were lower than the

presumptive rate. The use of actual emissions data after the 2006
baseline is not relevant to the demonstration that has been submitted.
    Comment: SO2 emissions under the 309 trading program
would be equivalent to the SO2 emissions if presumptive BART
were applied to each BART-subject source. Because the reductions are
equivalent, the submitted 309 trading program does not show, by ``the
clear weight of the evidence,'' that the alternative measure will
result in greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by
requiring BART. In view of the reductions being equivalent, it is not
proper for EPA to rely on ``non-quantitative factors'' in finding that
the SO2 emissions trading program achieves greater
reasonable progress.
    Response: We recognize that the 2018 SO2 milestone
equals the BART benchmark and that the benchmark generally utilized the
presumptive limits for EGUs, as was deemed appropriate by the States
who worked together to develop the trading program. If the
SO2 milestone is exceeded, the trading program will be
activated. We note, moreover, that the 2018 milestone constitutes an
emissions cap on sulfur dioxide emissions that will persist after
2018.\3\ Under this framework, sources that would otherwise be subject
to the trading program have incentives to make independent reductions
to avoid activation of the trading program. We cannot discount that the
2003 309 SIP submittal may have already influenced sources to upgrade
their plants before any case-by-case BART determination under Section
308 may have required it. In addition, the trading program was designed
to encourage early reductions by providing extra allocations for
sources that made reductions prior to the program trigger year.
Permitting authorities that would otherwise permit increases in
SO2 emissions for new sources would be equally conscious of
the potential impacts on the achievement of the milestone. We note that
the most recent emission report for the year 2010 shows a 35% reduction
in emissions from 2003. The 309 trading program is designed as a
backstop such that sources would work to accomplish emission reductions
through 2018 that would be superior to the milestone and the BART
benchmark. If instead the backstop trading program is triggered, the
sources subject to the program would be expected to make any reductions
necessary to achieve the emission levels consistent with each source's
allocation. We do not believe that the ``clear weight of the evidence''
determination referenced in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(E)--in short, a
determination that the alternative measure of the 309 trading program
achieves greater reasonable progress than BART--should be understood to
prohibit setting the SO2 milestone to equal the BART
benchmark. Our determination that the 2018 SO2 milestone and
other design features of the 309 SIP will achieve greater reasonable
progress than would be achieved through BART is based on our
understanding of how the SIP will promote and sustain emission
reductions of SO2 as measured against a milestone. Sources
will be actively mindful of the participating states' emissions
inventory and operating to avoid exceeding the milestone, not trying to
maximize their emissions to be equivalent to the milestone, as this
comment suggests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The trading program can only be replaced via future SIP
revisions submitted for EPA approval that will meet the BART and
reasonable progress requirements of 51.308. See 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: In proposing to find that the SO2 trading
program achieves greater reasonable progress than BART, EPA's reliance
on the following features of the 309 trading program is flawed: Non-
BART emission reductions, a cap on new growth, and a mass-based cap on
emissions. The reliance on non-BART emission reductions is ``a hollow
promise'' because there is no evidence that the trading program will be
triggered for other particular emission sources, and if the program is
never triggered there will be no emission reductions from smaller non-
BART sources. The reliance on a cap on future source emissions is also
faulty because there is no evidence the trading program will be
triggered, and thus the cap may never be implemented. Existing programs
that apply to new sources will already ensure that SO2
emissions from new sources are reduced to the maximum extent. EPA's
discussion of the advantages of a mass-based cap is unsupported and
cannot be justified. EPA wrongly states that a mass-based cap based on
actual emissions is more stringent than BART. There should not be a
meaningful gap between actual and allowable emissions under a proper
BART determination. A mass-based cap does not effectively limit
emissions when operating at lower loads and, as an annual cap, does not
have restrictive compliance averaging. EPA's argument implies that BART
limits do not apply during startup, shutdown or malfunction events,
which is not correct. The established mass-based cap would allow
sources to operate their SO2 controls less efficiently,
because some BART-subject EGUs already operate with lower emissions
than the presumptive SO2 emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu and
because some EGUs were assumed to be operating at 85% capacity when
their capacity factor (and consequently their S02 emissions
in tpy) was lower.
    Response: We disagree that it is flawed to assess the benefits
found in the distinguishing features of the trading program. The
backstop trading program is not specifically designed so that it will
be activated. Instead sources that are covered by the program are on
notice that it will be triggered if the regulatory milestones are not
achieved. Therefore, the backstop trading program would be expected to
garner reductions to avoid its activation. It also remains true that if
the trading program is activated, all sources subject to the program,
including smaller non-BART sources would be expected to secure emission
reductions as may be necessary to meet their emission allocation under
the program
    We also disagree that the features of the 2018 milestone as a cap
on future source emissions and as a mass-based cap has no significance.
As detailed in our proposal, the submitted SIP is consistent with the
requirement that the 2018 milestone does indeed continue as an emission
cap for SO2 unless the milestones are replaced by a
different program approved by EPA as meeting the BART and reasonable
progress requirements under 51.308. Future visibility impairment is
prevented by capping emissions growth from those sources not eligible
under the BART requirements, BART sources, and from entirely new
sources in the region. The benefits of a milestone are therefore
functionally distinct from the control efficiency improvements that
could be gained at a limited number of BART subject sources. While
BART-subject sources may not be operating at 85% capacity today, we
believe the WRAP's use of the capacity assumption in consideration of
projected future energy demands in 2018 was reasonable for purposes of
the submitted demonstration. While BART requires BART subject sources
to operate SO2 controls efficiently, this does not mean that
an alternative to BART thereby allows, encourage, or causes sources to
operate their controls less efficiently. On the contrary, we find that
the SIP, consistent with the well-considered 309 program requirements,
functions to the contrary. Sources will be operating their controls in
consideration of the milestone and they also remain subject to any
other existing or future

requirements for operation of SO2 controls.
    We also disagree with the commenter's contention that existing
programs are equivalent in effect to the emissions cap. EPA's new
source review programs are designed to permit, not cap, source growth,
so long as the national ambient air quality standards and other
applicable requirements can be achieved. Moreover, we have not argued
that BART does not apply at all times or that emission reductions under
the cap are meant to function as emission limitations are made to meet
the definition of BART (40 CFR 51.301). The better-than-BART
demonstration is not, as the comment would have it, based on issues of
compliance averaging or how a BART limit operates in practice at an
individual facility. Instead, it is based on whether the submitted SIP
follows the regulatory requirements for the demonstration and evidences
comparatively superior visibility improvements for the Class I areas it
is designed to address.
    Comment: The submitted 309 SIP will not achieve greater reasonable
progress than would the requirement for BART on individual sources. The
BART program ``if adequately implemented'' will promote greater
reasonable progress, and EPA should require BART on all eligible air
pollution sources in the state. EPA's proposed approval of the 309
trading program is ``particularly problematic'' where the BART sources
cause or contribute to impairment at Class I areas which are not on the
Uniform Rate of Progress glide-path towards achieving natural
conditions. EPA should require revisions to provide for greater
SO2 reductions in the 309 program, or it should require BART
reductions on all sources subject to BART for SO2.
    Response: We disagree with the issues discussed in this comment. As
discussed in other comments, we have found that the state's SIP
submitted under the 309 program will achieve greater reasonable
progress than source-by-source BART. As the regulations housed within
section 51.309 make clear, States have an opportunity to submit
regional haze SIPs that provide an alternative to source-by-source BART
requirements. Therefore, the commenter's assertion that we should
require BART on all eligible air pollution sources in the state is
fundamentally misplaced. The commenter's use of the Uniform Rate of
Progress (URP) as a test that should apparently be applied to the
adequacy of the 309 trading program as a BART alternative is also
misplaced, as there is no requirement in the regional haze rule to do
so.
    Comment: The 309 trading program must be disapproved because it
does not provide for ``steady and continuing emissions reductions
through 2018'' as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii). The program
establishes its reductions through milestones that are set at three
year intervals. It would be arbitrary and capricious to conclude these
reductions are ``steady'' or ``continuous.''
    Response: We disagree and find that the reductions required at each
milestone demonstrate steady and continuing emissions reductions. The
milestones do this by requiring regular decreases. These decreases
occur in intervals ranging from one to three years and include
administrative evaluation periods with the possibility of downward
adjustments of the milestone, if warranted. The interval under which
``steady and continuing emissions reductions through 2018'' must occur
is not defined in the regional haze rule. We find the milestone
schedule and the remainder of the trading program submitted by City of
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County does in fact reasonably provide for
``steady and continuing emissions reductions through 2018.''
    Comment: The WRAP attempts to justify the SO2 trading
program because SO2 emissions have decreased in the three
Transport Region states relying on the alternative program by 33%
between 1990-2000. The justification fails because the reductions were
made prior to the regional haze rule. The reliance on reductions that
predate the regional haze rule violates the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iv) that BART alternatives provide emission reductions
that are ``surplus'' to those resulting from programs implemented to
meet other Clean Air Act Requirements.
    Response: We did not focus on the WRAP's discussion of early
emission reductions in our proposal. However, we do not agree with this
comment. The WRAP's statements regarding past air quality improvements
are not contrary to the requirement that reductions under a trading
program be surplus. Instead, the WRAP was noting that forward-planning
sources had already pursued emission reductions that could be partially
credited to the design of the 309 SIP. We note that the most recent
emission report for the year 2010 shows a 35% reduction in emissions
from 2003. Sources that make early reductions prior to the program
trigger year may acquire extra allocations should the program be
triggered. This is an additional characteristic feature of the backstop
trading program that suggests benefits that would be realized even
without triggering of the program itself. The surplus emission
reduction requirement for the trading program is not in issue, because
the existence of surplus reductions is studied against other reductions
that are realized ``as of baseline date of the SIP.'' The 1990-2000
period plainly falls earlier than the baseline date of the SIP, so we
disagree that the WRAP's discussion of that period was problematic or
violative of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), regarding surplus reductions.
    Comment: EPA must correct discrepancies between the data presented
in the 309 SIP submittals.\4\ There are discrepancies in what has been
presented as the results of WRAP photochemical modeling. The New Mexico
RH SIP proposal by EPA shows, for example, that the 20% worst days at
Grand Canyon National Park have visibility impairment of 11.1
deciviews, while the other EPA proposals show 11.3 deciviews. The
discrepancy appears to be due to the submittals being based on
different modeling scenarios developed by the WRAP. EPA must explain
and correct the discrepancies and ``re-notice'' a new proposed rule
containing the correct information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This particular comment was not submitted in response to the
proposal to approve Albuquerque's 309 trading program, the earliest
published proposal. It was consistently submitted in the comment
periods for the proposals to approve the 309 trading programs for
NM, WY and UT, which were later in time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We agree that there are discrepancies in the numbers in
Table 1 of the proposal notices. The third column of the table below
shows the modeling results presented in Table 1 of the Albuquerque,
Wyoming and Utah proposals. The modeling results in the New Mexico
proposal Table 1 are shown in the fourth column. The discrepancies come
from the State's using different preliminary reasonable progress cases
developed by the WRAP. The Wyoming, Utah and Albuquerque proposed
notices incorrectly identify the Preliminary Reasonable Progress case
as the PRP18b emission inventory instead of correctly identifying the
presented data as modeled visibility based on the ``prp18a'' emission
inventory. The PRP18a emission inventory is a predicted 2018 emission
inventory with all known and expected controls as of March 2007. The
preliminary reasonable progress case (``PRP18b'') used by New Mexico is
the more updated version produced by the WRAP with all known and
expected controls as of March 2009. Thus, we are correcting Table 1,
column 5 in the

Wyoming, Utah and Albuquerque of our proposed notices to include model
results from the PRP18b emission inventory, consistent with the New
Mexico proposed notice and the fourth column in the table below. We are
also correcting the description of the Preliminary Reasonable Progress
Case (referred to as the PRP18b emission inventory and modeled
projections) to reflect that this emission inventory includes all
controls ``on the books'' as of March 2009.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2018            2018
                                            Preliminary     Preliminary
                                            reasonable      reasonable
         Class I area            State       progress        progress
                                            PRP18a case     PRP18b case
                                            (deciview)      (deciview)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Canyon National Park...  AZ                   11.3            11.1
Mount Baldy Wilderness.......  AZ                   11.4            11.5
Petrified Forest National      AZ                   12.9            12.8
 Park.
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness...  AZ                   15.1            15.0
Black Canyon of the Gunnison   CO                    9.9             9.8
 National Park Wilderness.
Flat Tops Wilderness.........  CO                    9.0             9.0
Maroon Bells Wilderness......  CO                    9.0             9.0
Mesa Verde National Park.....  CO                   12.6            12.5
Weminuche Wilderness.........  CO                    9.9             9.8
West Elk Wilderness..........  CO                    9.0             9.0
San Pedro Parks Wilderness...  NM                    9.8             9.8
Arches National Park.........  UT                   10.9            10.7
Bryce Canyon National Park...  UT                   11.2            11.1
Canyonlands National Park....  UT                   10.9            10.7
Capitol Reef National Park...  UT                   10.5            10.4
Zion National Park...........  UT                   13.0            12.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 309 requires Transport Region States to include a
projection of the improvement in visibility expected through the year
2018 for the most impaired and least impaired days for each of the 16
Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2). As
explained in the preamble to the 1999 regional haze regulations, EPA
included this requirement to ensure that the public would be informed
on the relationship between chosen emissions control measures and their
effect on visibility. 64 FR at 35751. Given the purpose of this
requirement, we do not consider the discrepancies noted above to be
significant and are not re-noticing our proposed rulemaking as the
discrepancies do not change our proposed conclusion that SIP submitted
by City of Albuquerque--Bernalillo County contains reasonable
projections of the visibility improvements expected at the 16 Class I
areas at issue. The PRP18a modeling results show projected visibility
improvement for the 20 percent worst days from the baseline period to
2018. The PRP18b modeling results show either the same or additional
visibility improvement on the 20 percent worst days beyond the PRP18a
modeling results. We also note there are two discrepancies in New
Mexico's Table 1, column four compared to the other participating
States' notices. The 2018 base case visibility projection in the New
Mexico proposed notice for Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park
Wilderness and Weminuche Wilderness should be corrected to read 10.1
deciview rather than 10.0. Notwithstanding the discrepancies described
above, we believe that the BC SIP adequately projects the improvement
in visibility for purposes of Section 309.

B. Additional Comments

    Comment: The regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B)
require that ``each BART-eligible source in the State must be subject
to the requirements of the alternative program, [and] have a federally
enforceable emission limitation determined by the State and approved by
EPA as meeting BART * * *'' The sole coal-fired electric generating
units (``EGUs'') that are subject to BART in New Mexico are the four
units at the San Juan Generating Station (``SJGS''). While the BC RH
SIP lists SJGS as a BART eligible source, it fails to identify a
federally enforceable emission limitation for SO2 that is
determined to be BART by the State and has been approved by EPA as
meeting BART. As such, the BC RH SIP fails to comply with 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).
    Response: This comment presents a flawed reading of our regulations
by inserting the word ``and'' where it does not, in fact, appear in the
language of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B)
requires that ``each BART-eligible source in the State must be subject
to the requirements of the alternative program, have a federally
enforceable emission limitation determined by the State and approved by
EPA as meeting BART in accordance with section 302(c) or paragraph
(e)(1) of this section, or otherwise addressed under paragraphs (e)(1)
or (e)(4) of this section.'' This section of the rule requires that
each BART-eligible source be covered by the alternative program or
satisfy the BART requirements by either participation in a ``Transport
Rule Federal Implementation Plan'' under paragraph (e)(4) or by
determining BART for the source under paragraph (e)(1). Because there
are no BART-eligible sources in Bernalillo County, the requirement to
make BART determinations does not apply. As was detailed in the
proposal, the alternative program satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), because all BART-eligible sources are covered by
the alternative program. We also note the alternative program goes
further to additionally cover point sources that have actual emissions
of SO2 greater than 100 tons per year (sources meeting the
requirements of <IP_ADDRESS>. NMAC).
    Comment: The BC RH SIP also fails to comply with 40 CFR 51.309(g),
which requires that SIPs address impacts to Class I areas not located
on the Colorado plateau. 40 CFR 51.309(g). States are required to
submit air quality modeling or other reliable evidence revealing
visibility impacts and establishing that reasonable progress goals will
be met. In December 2010 and February 2011, EPA informed Bernalillo
County that its SIP failed to comply with 40 CFR 51.309(g)(1) and (2)
because it did not submit evidence showing Bernalillo

County's effects on visibility in Class I areas in New Mexico, such as
Gila Wilderness and Carlsbad Cavern. EPA Docket EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0702-
0011 at pages 110-111 and 126-127. EPA determined that SO2
emissions in New Mexico were projected to increase from 4,966 tpy in
2002 to 14,073 tpy by 2018 with nearly 30% of the 2018 emissions coming
from Bernalillo County. Id. EPA also determined that a significant
increase in NOX emissions from Bernalillo County was
projected to occur over this same time period. Id. EPA asked Bernalillo
County to conduct visibility modeling to determine its impacts to Class
I areas and to explain how reasonable progress goals would be met in
light of significant emissions increases. Id.
    The commenters state that they were unable to identify any
visibility modeling or other analysis conducted by Bernalillo County to
address EPA's concerns. The commenters request an opportunity to review
any visibility modeling or related analysis and that EPA reject the BC
RH SIP until these issues are fully addressed.
    Response: The letters referred to by the commenter state that the
analysis with regard to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(g)(1) and (2)
in BC's draft SIP revision shared with EPA in 2010 may be incomplete.
Specifically, the qualitative analysis provided in ``Appendix 2007-H''
and ``Addendum to Appendix 2007-H'' addressed the impact of BC's
emissions on nearby Class I areas, but did not include information on
the inaccuracy and over-prediction in the 2018 WRAP emission
projections for NOX and SO2 emissions in BC, or
the effect of an accurate emission inventory with respect to modeled
visibility degradation at Gila Wilderness and Carlsbad Caverns.
    With respect to the above mentioned modeled degradation at Gila
Wilderness, an error in data retrieval affected initial results for
modeled visibility conditions at Gila Wilderness in 2002 and indicated
that visibility would degrade from 2002 to 2018. This error was
corrected and the updated submitted data indicates a predicted
improvement in visibility conditions on the 20% worst days and no
degradation of visibility on the 20% best days.\5\ For Carlsbad
Caverns, NMED provided modeling data that demonstrates that significant
projected growth in emissions by 2018 from Mexico are responsible for
the degradation in visibility conditions on the 20% best days at this
Class I area (Section 11.3.3 of the NM RH 309(g) SIP submittal). WRAP
visibility modeling results with Mexico emissions held constant from
2002 to 2018 show a slight improvement in visibility conditions at
Carlsbad Caverns on the 20% best days. Therefore, the initial modeled
visibility degradation at both Gila Wilderness and Carlsbad Caverns was
addressed without a need to further evaluate the impact of over-
estimated NOX and SO2 emissions in BC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Correction of WRAP region Plan02d CMAQ visibility modeling
results on TSS for Regional Haze Planning--Final Memorandum, June
30, 2011, available at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/help/plan02d_rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, BC provided additional information in Appendix 2010-B
of the BC RH SIP \6\ that included an evaluation of emission inventory
trends for 2002, 2005, and 2008 for NOX and SO2
emissions for Bernalillo County. The analysis in the BC RH SIP
submittal identifies some inaccuracies in the emission inventories used
by the WRAP to model the 2002 baseline and the 2018 future case. The
2002 and 2018 emission projections are higher than expected when
compared to the reduction in SO2 emissions observed in the
actual emissions inventories for 2002, 2005 and 2008. Table 5 of our
proposed approval of the BC RH SIP (77 FR 24790) shows a comparison of
emission data from Bernalillo County and a trend of decreasing
emissions compared to emissions included in the WRAP estimates and
photochemical modeling, projecting a large increase of both NOx and
SO2. Based on the information provided in BC RH SIP
submittal, we agree with the determination that visibility impacts at
the nearby Class I areas due to area and mobile emission sources in
Bernalillo County are overestimated in the WRAP 2002 and 2018
visibility modeling. The emission trends for 2002 through 2008 (BC RH
SIP submittal Appendix 2010-B) indicate that emissions of
NOX and SO2 within Bernalillo County are
declining and therefore visibility impairment due to these emissions
are also anticipated to decrease from their current low levels
presented in Appendix 2007-H and in the addendum to Appendix 2007-H of
the BC RH SIP. We find that BC adequately evaluated the Class I areas
that may be impacted by sources of air pollution within Bernalillo
County and BC adequately determined and demonstrated that, at this
time, it is improbable that sources located within the county cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located outside
of the county. The BC RH SIP submittal therefore complies with 40 CFR
51.309(g)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ AQD exhibit5 EPA Docket EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0702-0013
beginning at page 227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Section 51.308(d)(1)(vi) states, ``[t]he State may not
adopt a reasonable progress goal that represents less visibility
improvement than is expected to result from implementation of other
requirements of the CAA during the applicable planning period. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(vi). Since the BC RH SIP's reasonable progress goals would
result in less visibility improvement than would be achieved through
application of BART, the BC RH SIP's reasonable progress goals must be
revised to reflect reductions achievable through BART.
    Response: There are no Class I areas within Bernalillo County,
therefore BC is not required to nor did they adopt reasonable progress
goals for any Class I area. BC is required to address the apportionment
of visibility impact from the emissions generated by sources within
Bernalillo County at Class I areas outside of the county borders. As
discussed above, we find that BC adequately evaluated the Class I areas
that may be impacted by sources of air pollution within Bernalillo
County and BC adequately determined and demonstrated that, at this
time, it is improbable that sources located within the county cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located outside
of the county.
    In addition, no sources in Bernalillo County satisfy the definition
for BART-eligible sources at 40 CFR 51.301. Therefore, no visibility
improvement is anticipated due to the application of BART within
Bernalillo County. We note, that BC is participating in the
SO2 emission milestone and backstop trading program. This
program applies to all SO2 point sources over 100 tons per
year and requires that emissions in the participating States and BC
remain below the established milestone or result in the triggering of
the 309 backstop trading program. The milestone caps these sources at
actual emissions, and the program also provides for a cap on new source
growth. The milestone schedule and the trading program submitted by BC
and the participating states provide for steady and continuing
emissions reductions through 2018.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Consistent with EPA policy,
EPA nonetheless offered consultation to tribes regarding the rulemaking
action
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 28, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxides, Visibility, Regional haze, Best available control technology,
Interstate transport of pollution, Visibility.

    Dated: November 13, 2012.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart GG--New Mexico

0
2. Section 52.1620 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (c), under the second table entitled ``EPA Approved
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, NM Regulations'' by revising the entry
for part 21 (20.11.21 NMAC), Open Burning and adding an entry in
sequential order for ``Part 46 (20.11.46 NMAC)''.
0
b. In paragraph (e), under the second table entitled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in The New
Mexico SIP'' by adding new entries to the end of the table for
``Interstate transport for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS''
and ``Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.309''.
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  52.1620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                               EPA Approved Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, NM Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          State
                                                                        approval/
            State citation                      Title/subject           effective       EPA approval date                     Explanation
                                                                           date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20--Environment Protection Chapter 11--Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Part 21 (20.11.21 NMAC)...............  Open Burning.................    7/11/2011  11/29/12 and FR page
                                                                                number where document
                                                                                begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Part 46 (20.11.46 NMAC)...............  Sulfur Dioxide Emission          5/16/2011  11/29/12 and FR page
                                         Inventory Requirements;                     number where document
                                         Western Backstop Sulfur                     begins].
                                         Dioxide Trading Program.

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

     (e) * * *

            EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
                                       Applicable       submittal/
      Name of SIP provision          geographic or      effective    EPA approval date         Explanation
                                   nonattainment area      date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Interstate transport for the      Bernalillo County..    7/30/2007  11/29/12 and FR      Revisions to prohibit
 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.                                         page number where    interference with
                                                                     document begins].    measures required to
                                                                                protect visibility in
                                                                                any other State.
                                                                                Revisions to prohibit
                                                                                contribution to
                                                                                nonattainment in any
                                                                                other State approved
                                                                                11/8/2010 (75 FR
                                                                                68447).
Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR    Bernalillo County..    7/28/2011  11/29/12 and FR
 51.309.                                                             page number where
                                                                     document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-28822 Filed 11-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 26359-26360]
[DOCID:fr04my06-47]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0049; FRL-8166-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1976.03, OMB Control
Number 2060-0509

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 5, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2005-0049, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Malave, Compliance Assessment
and Media Programs Division (Mail Code 2223A), Office of Compliance,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24020), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-OECA-2005-0049, which is available for public viewing online
at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement

and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA

receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov
.

    Title: NESHAP for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
(Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1976.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0509.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2006. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for reinforced plastic composites (RPC) production
operations and processes, published at 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW,
were proposed on August 2, 2001 (66 FR 40323), and promulgated on April
21, 2003 (68 FR 19375). These standards regulate fugitive emissions
from reinforced plastic composites (RPC) production operations and
processes resulting from hazardous air pollutants (HAP) evaporating
from the resins, gel coats, and cleaning solvents used in it. The owner
or operator of a RPC manufacturing facility must control hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) by either limiting the HAP content of materials used
and using non-atomized spray application in the manufacturing processes
or by using an enclosure and add-on control device. This information is
being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart Whttp://WWW.

    Owners and operators of affected sources are subject to the
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A, the General Provisions, unless specified otherwise in the
regulation. This rule requires sources to submit initial notifications,
conduct performance tests if source is using an add-on control device,
and submit periodic compliance reports. In addition, sources are
required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation if using an add-on
control device; any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative; parametric monitoring data; system maintenance and
calibration; and work practices to demonstrate initial and ongoing
compliance with the regulation. Records of such measurements and
actions are to be retained two years on-site of the required total five
years. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority.
In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are
sent directly to the EPA regional office.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 16
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of reinforced
plastic composites (RPC) production operations and processes.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 504.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion, semiannually, and initially.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 17,740.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,454,143. which includes 0
annualized capital startup costs, $22,000 annualized O&M costs and
$1,432,143 annualized labor costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The increase in labor burden to industry
from the most recently approved ICR from 13,785 hours to 17,740 is due
to adjustments. The increase in burden from the most recently approved
ICR is primarily due to an increase from 435 to 488 in the number of
existing sources, the assumption that all existing sources are in full
compliance with the rule requirements, and because our estimates show
that an average of 16 new respondents each year will become subject to
this standard over the three-year period of this ICR.
    The total annualized capital and operations and maintenance (O&M)
costs increase from $15,807 to $21,680 is based on an increase in the
number of sources. There are no startup capital costs since monitors
are an integral part of the control equipment necessary to determine
that it is operating properly. In addition, we have assumed that any
new respondent has the software to develop the necessary spreadsheets
for their recordkeeping system. The estimated annual O&M costs averaged
over the three years of this ICR are associated with other costs, not
associated with monitoring equipment. We estimate that file storage and
photocopying costs per response are estimated at $12.50 per hour of
clerical labor, and first class postage is estimated at $7.63 per
response for mailing to regulatory agencies. Therefore, we estimate the
annual O&M cost to be $21,680 based on 1,077 responses and an average
of one hour of clerical work per response.

    Dated: April 27, 2006.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E6-6750 Filed 5-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44025]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19953]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on a Land Use Change
From Aeronautical to Non-Aeronautical Use for 18.6 Acres of Airport
Land for Solar Farm Use at North Central Airport, Smithfield, RI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request
from the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC), to change the current
land use from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use of two parcels
of land comprising a total of 18.6 acres of land. The northeasterly
parcel is approximately 10.2 acres and the northwesterly parcel is
approximately 8.4 acres. The Airport Layout Plan was updated with a Pen
and Ink change to designate the parcel for non-aeronautical use. The
annual savings in electrical costs created by the solar farm will
offset the fair market value of the land lease over the lease period.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 20, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the instructions on providing comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W 12-140, 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.
    Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents
by contacting the FAA at the address listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jorge E. Panteli, Compliance and
Land Use Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration New England Region
Airports Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts
01803. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 6, 2017.
Richard Doucette,
Acting Manager, ANE-600.
[FR Doc. 2017-19953 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 67470]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24338]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-326-000]

Arroyo Solar LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Arroyo Solar LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 22, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    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://www.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 the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 2, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24338 Filed 11-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14651-14652]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05223]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0610; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-28]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Goldsboro, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E Airspace in the Goldsboro, NC area,
to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System
(GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Mount Olive Municipal
Airport. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary for the continued safety
and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the
Goldsboro, NC, airspace area. This action also updates the geographic
coordinates of Mount Olive Municipal Airport and the Seymour Johnson
TACAN, and recognizes the airport name change of Goldsboro-Wayne
Municipal Airport to Wayne Executive Jetport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 2, 2013. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On September 28, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace in the
Goldsboro, NC area (77 FR 59572). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Subsequent to
publication, the FAA found an error in the name of the Wayne Executive
Jetport and makes the correction in the rule. Except for editorial
changes, and the change noted above, this rule is the same as published
in the NPRM.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface in the Goldsboro, NC, area, providing the controlled
airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument
approach procedures for Mount Olive Municipal Airport. The geographic
coordinates of Mount Olive Municipal Airport and the Seymour Johnson
TACAN are also adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical
database. This action also recognizes the airport name change of
Goldsboro-Wayne Municipal Airport to Wayne Executive Jetport.
    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, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended
as follows:

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

* * * * *

ASO NC E5 Goldsboro, NC [Amended]

Goldsboro, Seymour Johnson, AFB, NC
    (Lat. 35[deg]20'22'' N., long. 77[deg]57'38'' W.)
Seymour Johnson TACAN
    (Lat. 35[deg]20'07'' N., long. 77[deg]58'17'' W.)
Goldsboro, Wayne Executive Jetport
    (Lat. 35[deg]27'38'' N., long. 77[deg]57'54'' W.)
Mount Olive, Mount Olive Municipal Airport
    (Lat. 35[deg]13'17'' N., long. 78[deg]02'19'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-6 mile radius of Seymour Johnson, AFB, and within 2.5
miles each side of the Seymour Johnson TACAN 265[deg] radial
extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 12 miles west of the TACAN,
and within a 5-mile radius of Wayne Executive Jetport, and within a
6.5-mile radius of Mount Olive Municipal Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 15, 2013.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-05223 Filed 3-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P