RACT SECTION OF PREAMBLE ( 6/ 2/ 05) 8 HR O3 NAAQS IMPLEMENTATION RULE PHASE 2 COMPARISON TO 020605 VERSION A. SUMMARY SECTION:

G. What requirements should apply for RACM and RACT for 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas? 1. Reasonably Available Control Technology ( RACT) For subpart 1 areas that do not request an attainment date extension ( beyond 5 years after designation), RACT is met with the control requirements associated with a demonstration that the NAAQS is attained as expeditiously as practicable. For subpart 1 areas that request an attainment date extension ( beyond 5 years after designation), subpart 2 moderate and above areas, and areas within an Ozone Transport Region ( OTR), RACT is required. The RACT submittal date is two years27 months after designation, except a subpart 1 areas shall submit the RACT SIP with its attainment date extension request. States must require sources to implement RACT no later than the first ozone season or portion thereof which occurs 30 months after the required submittal date. Where RACT is required, State SIPs implementing the 8 hour standard generally must assure that RACT is met, either through a certification that previously required RACT controls represent RACT for 8 hour implementation purposes or through a new RACT determination. States may use existing EPA guidance in making RACT determinations. Sources subject to the NOx SIP Call or CAIR trading program meet NOx RACT requirements under existing RACT guidance. States are free to conduct case by case RACT determinations, or RACT determinations or certifications for groups of sources, at their discretion. 2. Reasonably Available Control Measures ( RACM) For each nonattainment area required to submit an attainment demonstration, the State must submit with the attainment demonstration a SIP revision demonstrating that it has adopted all control measures necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements.

* * * * * *****

B. MAIN SECTION:

G. What requirements should apply for RACM and RACT for 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas? [ Section VI. K. of June 2, 2003 proposed rule ( 68 FR 32837); section 51 § 51.912 in draft and final regulatory text.] 2 The first subsection of this section covers RACT and the second subsection covers RACM. 1. Reasonably Available Control Technology ( RACT) a. Background As described in more detail in the June 2 proposal, subpart 1 of part D includes a requirement that an attainment plan provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable, including such reductions that may be obtained through RACT. Under subpart 2, marginal areas are required to correct pre 1990 RACT requirements and new RACT requirements are specified for moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas. Additionally, States must adopt RACT for all areas in an ozone transport region ( OTR). The RACT requirement applies to both ozone precursors   NOx and VOC. Since 1990, we have issued guidance documents on the RACT requirements in subpart 2. Prior to enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA also issued detailed guidance documents on RACT for ozone nonattainment area SIPs. In the period prior to enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, only the general requirements for RACM and RACT existed. Also, prior to the 1990 Amendments, EPA had issued control technique guideline ( CTG) documents to provide presumptive norms for RACT for VOC controls for States to follow in adopting RACT for ozone nonattainment areas. In 1990, Congress specified more detailed RACT provisions and explicitly required RACT for NOx as well as for VOC. Also in 1990, section 183( c) required EPA to issue technical documents which identify alternative control techniques ( ACT documents) for large stationary sources of NOx and VOC. The EPA completed 12 ACT documents for VOC source categories. Over a five year5 year period, 1991 94, EPA issued nine ACT guideline documents for large stationary sources of NOx. In 2000, updates to the NOx ACT documents were completed for stationary internal combustion engines and cement kilns. Although the ACT documents do not set a presumptive RACT level as do CTGs, they are intended to help States in making RACT determinations. Section 183( c) of the CAA also requires EPA to " revise and update such documents [ i. e., CTGs and ACTs] as the Administrator determines necessary." The EPA intends in the future to develop updated technology guidance, especially with respect to source categories emitting multiple pollutants in large amounts. In addition, EPA will be considering related recommendations from the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee that are expectedwere sent to EPA in January 2005 in response to the recent National Research Council report on Air Quality Management in the United States ( January 2004). In the June 2, 2003 proposal, we proposed several requirements with respect to RACT. For subpart 1 areas, we proposed several options. We proposed in one option to interpret 3 the CAA in a manner similar to that under subpart 2 by requiring areas covered under subpart 1 to face different RACT requirements based on the magnitude of the ozone problem in the area ( i. e., the area's design value). In another option, we proposed that RACT would be met if the area were able to demonstrate attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable with emission control measures in the SIP. We also proposed as an early attainment incentive that RACT would be met in an area which demonstrates attainment within 3 years and submits the demonstration within 1 year. For subpart 2 areas, we proposed to apply RACT as specified in subpart 2. We proposed the RACT submittal dates for subpart 1 areas would be either the same as the submittal date for the attainment plan ( within 3 years) or the same as the deadline for subpart 2 areas ( within 2 years). In addition, we proposed the date for affected sources to implement RACT in subpart 2 areas would be thirty30 months after the required submittal date. We also proposed that States may use current EPA guidance in making RACT determinations; consequently, in some cases, sources previously evaluated under the 1 hour ozone RACT requirement and sources subject to the NOx SIP Call cap and trade program could be determined to meet the 8 hour ozone RACT requirement. b. Summary of Ffinal Rrule. For subpart 1 areas that do not request an attainment date extension ( beyond 5 years after designation), RACT will be met with control requirements sufficient to demonstrate that the NAAQS is attained as expeditiously as practicable. The RACT submittal date for these areas is the same as the submittal date for the attainment plan. This submission date is no later than three3 years after designation. For subpart 1 areas that request an attainment date extension ( beyond 5 years after designation), subpart 2 moderate and above areas, and areas within an Ozone Transport RegionOTR, RACT is required under subpart 2 andwith the RACT submittal dateand is two yearsdue 27 months after designation, except a subpart 1 area shall submit the RACT SIP with its attainment date extension request. States must require sources to implement RACT no later than the first ozone season or portion thereof which occurs 30 months after the required submittal date. Where RACT applies ( except certain subpart 1 areas, as described above, and except certain sources subject to the NOx SIP Call or CAIR, as described below), State SIPs implementing the 8 hour standard must assure that RACT is met, either through a certification that previously required RACT controls represent RACT for 8 hour implementation purposes or through a new RACT determination. States may use existing EPA guidance in making RACT determinations. Where a State has adopted and EPA has approved a control measure as RACT for a specific major 4 stationary source or source category for the 1 hour ozone NAAQS, and absent data indicating that the previous RACT determination is no longer appropriate in lieu of a RACT rule, the State may submit a certification that the source is subject to RACT. Such certification shall be accompanied by appropriate supporting information, such as consideration of updated EPA guidance and other relevant information such as information received from public commenters. For purposes of meeting the NOx RACT requirement in areas located in a State subject to the NOx SIP Call or CAIR for NOx, the State may conduct case by case RACT determinations or consider the RACT SIP requirements met for sources subject to the State's emission cap and trade program where the cap and trade program has been approved by EPA as part of a SIP meeting the NOx SIP Call or CAIR NOx requirements. Additionally, RACT is considered met for cement kilns and stationary internal combustion engines that are subject to a SIP approved obligation to install and operate controls that are expected to achieve at least a 30 percent and 82 percent reduction, respectively, from uncontrolled levels. As new or updated EPA RACT guidance becomes available, States should consider the new information in their RACT determinations. States are free to conduct case by case RACT determinations   or RACT determinations or certifications for groups of sources,   at their discretion. A State may meet the NOx RACT requirement by showing that the weighted average emission rate from sources in the nonattainment area subject to RACT   including sources subject to the NOx SIP Call requirements   meet RACT requirements. It should be noted that for purposes of meeting the RACT obligations under section 182( b)( 2)( C) of the ActCAA for major stationary sources of VOCs and under section 182( f) of the ActCAA for major stationary sources of NOx, the definition of major stationary source in section 302 of the ActCAA, as modified by the major source definition in either section 182( b), ( c), ( d) or ( e) of the ActCAA as applicable to the area's classification, applies. c. Comments and responses Comments: For subpart 2 ozone nonattainment areas, several States expressed agreement with the proposed approach for implementing RACT consistent with section 182 of the CAA. Response: The EPA agrees with these comments. Comments: For subpart 1 ozone nonattainment areas, EPA received several comments for and against the options proposed for addressing RACT. Several State and industry commenters supported EPA's proposed approach that RACT would be met if the area is able to demonstrate attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable with emission control measures in the SIP. The 5 reasons provided by these commenters were generally as follows: States should be able to use their discretion in determining which control strategies are the most effective in addressing a particular area's air quality problem; flexibility is needed as areas differ in sensitivity to NOx and VOC reductions; EPA's regional modeling shows these requirements are unnecessary in many areas; and many of these areas violate the ozone standard primarily or entirely due to transport. The EPA also received comments, primarily from several States and environmental groups, opposing the approach that RACT would be met by control measures that are part of a SIP demonstrating attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable. These commenters made the following points: since section 172( c)( 1) of the ActCAA explicitly mandates RACT " at a minimum" in all nonattainment areas, Congress plainly intended to require RACT as a floor level of control technology in addition to any measures needed to demonstrate timely attainment; even where RACT does not advance attainment, it is needed in order to reduce the severity and number of violations; under this approach, the statutory RACT provisions add nothing to the statutory attainment mandate   which violates basic canons of statutory interpretation; RACT in nonattainment areas will substantially reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors; for equity reasons, sources in similar areas should be subject to the same control; and RACT is a useful tool that should not be abandoned through flexibility mechanisms. Response: The general RACT provision under subpart 1 in the statute, is found in section 172( c)( 1). It is a portion of the RACM provision found in that same section. Our long standing interpretation of the RACM provision is that areas need only submit such RACM as will contribute to timely attainment and meet RFP, and that measures which might be available but would not advance attainment or contribute to RFP need not be considered RACM. This interpretation has been upheld in several recent court cases. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F. 39 155, 162 ( DC Cir. Circuit, 2002) ( concerning the Metropolitan Washington, D. C., attainment demonstration) and Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 01 60537 ( 5th Cir. Circuit, 2002) ( concerning the Beaumont attainment demonstration). Since subpart 1 RACT is a portion of RACM, these cases also support a conclusion that, where we are dealing only with section 172 RACT, it is reasonable to require only such RACT as will meet RFP and advance attainment. In view of these court cases, EPA disagrees with the comments listed above opposing the approach that, in subpart 1 areas, RACT would be met by control measures in a SIP demonstrating attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable and meeting RFP. The EPA generally agrees with comments that States should have flexibility to determine which control strategies are the 6 most effective in reaching attainment as expeditiously as practicable and providing for RFP, and the CAA gives primary authority to States and local governments to select the mix of controls necessary to meet the NAAQS. In addition, EPA believes that section 172( c) is not the appropriate section of the CAA to address the transport of ozone and ozone precursors; EPA has conducted and is conducting rulemaking pursuant to sections 110 and 126 for that purpose. Finally, EPA agrees with commenters who suggest, for equity reasons, that sources in similar areas should be subject to the same control. In the proposal, EPA suggested subpart 1 and 2 areas with the 8 hour ozone design values above 91 ppb should all be required to meet RACT. The EPA also proposed that RACT would be met in an area which demonstrates attainment within 3 years and submits the demonstration within 1 year. In the final rule, EPA has addressed equity concerns by taking portions of these two proposals, such that subpart 1 and 2 areas with attainment deadlines longer than 5 years after designation must meet the same RACT requirements. We believe ( longer than) 5 years is more appropriate than the 3 years proposed for this requirement since this approximates the maximum attainment date for subpart 2 ( moderate) areas subject to RACT and since this approach is consistent with the manner in which ROP/ RFP requirements are treated in the final rule. Therefore, in subpart 1 areas that do not request an extension beyond the initial 5 years after designation, the final rule indicates that RACT would be met by the emission control measures in a SIP that demonstrates attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable and meets RFP. In addition, the final rule requires subpart 1 areas with maximum attainment deadlines longer than 5 years after designation to meet the same RACT requirements as subpart 2 areas. This approach minimizes the RACT inequity with subpart 2 areas and provides flexibility for subpart 1 areas demonstrating attainment within 5 years. Comment: One commenter believes that new marginal nonattainment areas should be subject to RACT under the 8 hour standard just as they would have been subject to RACT immediately prior to the CAAACAA Amendments of 1990. Response: Section 182( a) provides that marginal and higher classified areas for the 1 hour standard with pre 1990 RACT obligations had to submit corrections to their RACT rules within 6 months after classification under the 1990 CAAACAA Amendments. To the extent that any 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas did have this obligation, they already met it. See footnote 60 in the June 2, 2003 proposal. The CAA does not require RACT for marginal areas other than the obligation to " correct" pre 1990 RACT requirements. 7 Comments: The EPA received several comments for and against the proposal that States may use a prior RACT determination with respect to the 1 hour ozone standard for purposes of meeting the RACT requirements for the 8 hour ozone standard. Further, EPA received comments on the proposal that a new RACT determination is required in cases where the initial RACT analysis under the 1 hour standard for a specific source or source category concluded that no additional controls were necessary. Several State and industry commenters supported EPA's proposed approach that a prior RACT analysis under the 1 hour ozone standard should meet RACT requirements under the 8 hour standard where major sources or source categories were previously reviewed and controls applied to meet RACT. These commenters stated that RACT is not specific to any particular ozone standard, such that once a source has met RACT, it has met RACT, whether or not the ozone standard is revised to become more ( or less) stringent; just as with the 15 percent VOC requirement, the statute provides no basis for duplicative imposition of RACT; and there is no basis in the statute to read in a new requirement for RACT. In addition, some industry commenters stated that electric generating units which meet Ttitle IV NOx control requirements would also meet the NOx RACT requirement. The EPA also received comments from several States opposing EPA's proposed approach. These commenters believe the NOx and VOC guidance is too old, needs updating and, in the case of NOx controls, the improvement over the last three years has been dramatic with controls previously considered to be Best Available Control Technology ( BACT) ( and therefore generally considered at the time to be more stringent than RACT) are now considered to be merely RACT. In addition, one State suggested the presumptive RACT level should be revised to at least 85 percent control or that NOx RACT should be defined as up to $ 10,000/ ton of pollutant removed. Two States disagreed with EPA's proposal that a new RACT determination should be required in cases where the initial RACT analysis under the l hour NAAQS found that no additional controls were necessary for a specific source or source category. They indicated such re analysis would be an unwise use of resources because it would not yield significant benefits. Further, they do not agree that a RACT determination is warranted for major VOC or NOx sources not in existence during the previous RACT determination, because new sources in 1 hour nonattainment areas have been permitted pursuant to the requirements for NSR and, where applicable, have already been subject to more stringent control requirements. Response: In 1992, EPA set presumptive NOx RACT for boilers as combustion modification, consistent with Ttitle IV acid rain requirements. For all other NOx stationary source categories, 8 EPA guidance in 1994 indicated States should consider in their RACT determinations technologies that achieve 30 50 percent reduction within a cost range of $ 160 1300 per ton of NOx removed. In the NOx SIP Call Rule, we reviewed all major NOx source categories and stated in the final rule that the NOx SIP Call controls, at less than $ 2,000/ ton, represent reductions beyond those required by RACT. We cannot agree with the suggestion of one State that EPA's RACT guidance should be revised to reflect 85 percent control and $ 10,000/ ton of pollutant removed because the comment lacked supporting documentation that these values represent feasible control levels for the many source categories affected by the RACT program. Many areas subject to the major source RACT requirement under the 8 hour ozone standard have previously addressed the RACT requirement with respect to the 1 hour ozone standard. For example, major sources located in States of the Ozone Transport Commission ( OTC) were subject to the NOx RACT requirement in the mid 1990s. We believe that, in many cases, a new RACT determination under the 8 hour standard would result in the same or similar control technology as the initial RACT determination under the 1 hour standard because the fundamental control techniques, as described in the CTGs and ACTs, are still applicable. In cases where controls were applied due to the 1 hour ozone RACT requirement, we expect the incremental emissions reductions from application of a second round of controls would be small and would not be cost effectivecost effective. In such cases, EPA believes the cost per ton of NOx removed associated with installing a second round of RACT controls ( and perhaps the removal of initial RACT controls) is likely to be beyond the RACT levels in our current guidance ($ 160$ 1300/ ton). In contrast, a RACT analysis for uncontrolled sources would be much more likely to find that RACT level controls are economically and technically feasible. The CTGs and ACTs for VOC were completed over a period from the late 1970s to mid 1990s and have not been updated. The CTGs are still used to presumptively define VOC RACT. The EPA issued NOx ACT documents between 1992 and 1995. In September 2000, updates to the NOx ACT documents were completed for stationary internal combustion engines and cement kilns. The NOx and VOC ACTs describe available control techniques and their cost effectiveness, but do not define presumptive RACT levels as the CTGs do. Updating the ACTs would not, by itself, change EPA's NOx or VOC RACT guidance, but it could provide information that would lead to a new conclusion as to which control measures constitute RACT for a specific source or source category. Since RACT can change over time as new technology becomes available or the cost of existing technology decreases, EPA does not agree 9 with comments that once a source has met RACT, it has met RACT whether or not the ozone standard is revised. We agree that progress has been made in improving the cost effectiveness of some NOx and VOC controls. States and other interested parties should consider available information that may supplement the CTG and ACT documents. In cases where additional information is presented, for example, as part of notice andcomment rulemaking on a RACT SIP submittal, States ( and EPA) would necessarily consider the additional data in reviewing what control obligation is consistent with RACT. For example, as part of the 1998 NOx SIP Call and 2004 CAIR rulemakings, EPA developed and used control and cost data for large boilers and turbines based on newer information than contained in the ACTs. Similarly, we encourage States to use the latest information available in making RACT determinations, whether it is in CTGs, ACTs, or elsewhere. The EPA agrees that it is more efficient for EPA to broadly assess what is RACT for a specific source category than for States to conduct source by source RACT determinations, especially considering that States need to initiate RACT programs in the near future ( as discussed in a separate comment/ response). The EPA's current RACT guidance may be used for purposes of the 8 hour standard. At the same time, we agree with comments that many of the CTGs/ ACTs have not been revised since issued and thus may not provide the most accurate picture of current control options. Therefore, we believe States must consider new information that has become available and certify that a 1 hour ozone RACT determination, even where controls were required, still represents an appropriate RACT level of control for the 8 hour ozone program. In the alternative, the State should revise the SIP to reflect a modified RACT requirement for specific sources or source categories. We intend to develop updated technology guidance, especially with respect to source categories emitting multiple pollutants in large amounts. States should consider the updated guidance in any RACT determinations or certifications that have not been issued as of the time such an update becomes available. In summary, we believe the current NOx and VOC RACT guidance, including CTGs and ACTs, may continue to be used by States in making RACT determinations with respect to the 8 hour ozone standard. As the guidance is updated, States should consider the new information in their RACT determinations or certifications. Regardless, States should ensure that their SIPs accurately reflect RACT based on the current availability of technically and economically feasible controls. Therefore, in portions of 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas where major sources or source categories were previously reviewed and controls subsequently applied to meet the RACT requirement 10 under the 1 hour standard, the final ruleEPA allows States to review and, if appropriate, accept the initial RACT analysis as meeting the RACT requirements for the 8 hour standard. Absent data indicating that the previous RACT determination is no longer appropriate, the State need not submit a new RACT SIP for these sources. In such cases, the State should submit a certification as part of its SIP revision, with appropriate supporting information, such as consideration of updated EPA guidance, that it previously met the RACT requirement for these sources and that the previous determination still represents an appropriate RACT level of control. Where the initial RACT analysis under the 1 hour standard for a specific source or source category concluded that no additional controls were necessary, the final rule requiresEPA believes a new RACT determination is needed. The new RACT determination is needed to consider whether more costeffective control measures have become available for sources that were not previously regulated. A re analysis may determine that controls are now economically and technically feasible and should be required to meet RACT. Furthermore, in this situation, we expect the incremental emissions reductions to be significant, compared to the uncontrolled emissions levels, thereby reducing the cost per ton of emissions controlled and therefore more reasonably available. In all cases where additional information is presented as part of notice and comment rulemaking, including a RACT SIP submittal for sources previously controlled, States ( and EPA) must consider the additional information as part of that rulemaking. We agree with several State and industry comments that a RACT determination would be necessaryrequirements apply for major sources in any portion of the 8 hour nonattainment area that was not subject to a RACT program for the 1 hour standard. Some commenters objected to EPA's proposal that any major VOC or NOx source that did not exist during a previous RACT determination must be subject to a RACT determination as part of the SIP for the 8 hour ozone standard. These commenters stated that the BACT or LAER provisions would assure at least RACT level controls on such sources. We agree this should be true in many cases, but not all. The BACT/ LAER analyses do not automatically ensure compliance with RACT since the applicability thresholds may differ and the analyses may be conducted many years apart. States may, however, use information gathered from prior BACT or LAER analyses to help complete a RACT analysis. Comments: Several State and industry commenters supported EPA's proposed approach. These commenters stated that the level of emissions reductions required by the NOx SIP cCall is far greater than the level of reductions achieved by controls that have been determined to be NOx RACT. Other commenters pointed out that many companies have employed averaging programs for NOx 11 SIP Call compliance and want this option preserved under the 8 hour ozone standard since requiring sources to individually meet NOx RACT requirements would greatly increase the costs of compliance at sources already subject to the NOx cap and trade program without achieving greater emissions reductions. One State encourages EPA to provide this exemption to other areas subject to approved cap and trade programs in addition to those areas affected by the NOx SIP cCall. The EPA also received comments, primarily from several States and environmental groups, opposing the approach. These commenters stated that there are no exceptions to the RACT mandates in either subpart 1 or subpart 2 for sources subject to SIP call cap and trade programs, and EPA is without authority to invent such an exception. Because the NOx SIP Call's cap  and  trade program does not require emission control technologies to be installed at a particular source, some commenters conclude that RACT requirements are necessary and appropriate to ensure that all sources implement at least a minimum level of control. One State indicated there have been numerous cases where sources subject to the NOx SIP Call have not had to install controls comparable to RACT. Commenters also suggested that RACT is intended to be a benchmark for control technology at individual stationary sources, not a level of regional reductions. In addition, some commenters noted that the NOx SIP Call requirements are specific to the ozone season, where RACT requirements are year round. Consequently, these commenters recommended that EPA should also consider non ozone related nitrogen issues, including fine particles, visibility, nitrification and acidification of watersheds and eutrophication of coastal waters all of which would be reduced with year round controls. Response: The EPA believes the RACT mandate in subpart 1 and subpart 2 applies in specific geographic areas but does not necessarily require every major source to install controls. For example, as discussed in a separate comment/ response, where we are dealing only with subpart 1 RACT, we only require such RACT as will advance attainment or meet RFP. Thus, EPA does not agree with commenters who conclude that RACT requirements are necessary and appropriate to ensure that all sources implement at least a minimum level of control or that RACT is intended to be a benchmark for control technology at all individual stationary sources. Some commenters pointed out that the NOx SIP Call requirements are specific to the ozone season, yet RACT requirements are year round. While there are some exceptions, EPA agrees that RACT usually is an application of controls year round. With respect to the NOx SIP Call, EPA believes that the vast majority of sources in the cap and trade program will 1In the 1998 NOx SIP Call rRule, average costs of compliance were estimated at about $ 1500/ ton and average RACT level costs are less than $ 1300/ ton. Recent estimates of the projected cost of allowances are about $ 2000 4000/ ton ( NOx Budget Trading Program, 2003 Progress and Compliance Report, August 2004, EPA 430 R 04 010). With respect to RACT, we would note that in some cases, the State may determine that additional controls are not technically and economically feasible. Thus, even if the State analyzed RACT for each source subject to the cap and trade program, that would not guarantee additional emissions reductions at each source because the RACT determination for some could conclude no additional controls are required.

12 install combustion controls to decrease NOx emissions because it is almost always the most cost effective strategy. Since combustion controls meet EPA's NOx RACT guidance for level of control and since these controls would be operated year round, EPA believes the RACT requirement would be met year round in the vast majority of cases. Further, because many affected sources also installed post combustion controls to meet the NOx SIP Call requirements, these additional emissions reductions provide further assurance that RACT equivalent emissions reductions will occur, on average, at sources affected by the cap  and  trade program. We agree that there would be non ozone related nitrogen benefits, including fine particles, visibility, nitrification and acidification of watersheds and eutrophication of coastal waters due to year round controls. Some commenters argue that RACT should apply to each source because some sources subject to the NOx SIP Call cap  and  trade program might not install controls and could meet the NOx SIP Call requirements solely by purchasing allowances. Because the NOx SIP Call is a market based program, there could be units that choose to meet those requirements simply by emissions trading. We expect that very few sources subject to RACT and rules implemented by the State under the NOx SIP Call would choose to not install control equipment and, instead, choose to meet the NOx SIP Call requirements solely by purchasing allowances. Most likely the cost for purchasing allowances will be higher than the cost for a achieving a RACT level of control. 1 In addition, many units subject to the NOx SIP cCall cap will install beyond RACT controls, as discussed below. Therefore, we believe that the NOx SIP cCall will achieve at least a RACT level of control, on average, among sources subject to RACT in each nonattainment area. Meeting RACT in this way is consistent with EPA guidance allowing RACT to be met in the aggregate within a nonattainment area, rather than by each individual source. 2The EPA's 1992 NOx RACT guidance sets Ttitle IV equal to RACT and specifies emission rates three times larger than the rates later used for coal fired units in the NOxNOx SIP Call ( 0.45 0.50 lb/ mmBtu versus 0.15).

3 Memorandum of March 16, 1994, from D. Kent Berry re: " Cost Effective Nitrogen Oxides ( NOx) Reasonably Available Control Technology ( RACT)." U. S. Environmental Protection 13 In other cases, a facility might choose to meet NOx RACT through emissions averaging; e. g., over controlling one large unit and not controlling other smaller units because the smaller units may be retired in the near future or labor or capital is not immediately available. We agree with comments that emission averaging programs such as the NOx SIP Call Rule achieve emission reductions at lower costs. The EPA's NOx RACT guidance, published inon November 25, 1992 ( 57 FR 55625), was, in part, for the purpose of " enhancing the ability of States to adopt marketbased trading systems for NOx" and to encourage States to " structure their RACT requirements to inherently incorporate an emissions averaging concept ( i. e., installing more stringent controls on some units in exchange for lesser control on others)." Since the NOx SIP Call requires greater reductions, on average, than RACT, ( see proposal notice at 68 FR 32839 and discussion below) we believe the average emissions at the facility in this example would be less than its emissions under application of a RACT program alone. We would also expect this scenario to be a short  term case since the facility may choose later to install controls on the smaller units and sell any excess allowances, depending on the projected cost of allowances. We agree with comments indicating the overall emission reduction due to the NOx SIP Call would be greater overall than with a RACT program alone, and we believe they would be greater within each nonattainment area. All States submitting SIP revisions to meet the NOx SIP Call ( October 27, 1998, 63 FR 57356) elected to require large boilers and turbines to comply with an emissions cap and trade program consistent with EPA's model cap and trade rule. As a result, all these sources are already subject to stringent control requirements. As described in the June 2, 2003 proposal, these sources collectively achieve more emissions reductions than would be required by application of RACT requirements to each source. In the NOx SIP Call control case, electricity generating units ( EGUs) achieve a 64 percent reduction beyond the base case requirements. 2 The non EGUs subject to the States' cap and trade program achieve a 60 percent reduction from uncontrolled levels. These EGU and non EGU reductions are clearly beyond the 30 50 percent expected from a RACT program. 3 We stated in the final rule that the NOx SIP Call Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

4As described in the April 21, 2004 rule ( 69 FR 21608) Federal Register.

14 controls " represent reductions beyond those required by Title IV or Title I RACT." In addition, because the cap and trade program covers units serving a 25 megawatt generator, it requires emission reductions at many units emitting at less than the general RACT threshold of 100 tons per yeartpy. As explained above, we believe that the vast majority of sources subject to NOx RACT and rules implemented by the State under the NOx SIP call cap would install combustion controls at a minimum, rather than rely solely on purchase of allowances for NOx SIP Call compliance. Thus, based on our existing NOx RACT guidance, we expect the NOx SIP Call to achieve more emissions reductions within each nonattainment area than would be achieved through a RACT program. For the above reasons, EPA believes the sources that comply with the NOx SIP Call cap and trade program meet NOx RACT requirements. For the same reasons, EPA believes that sources that comply with the CAIR cap and trade program meet NOx RACT requirements because CAIR requires further emission reductions, beyond those required by the NOx SIP Call. Accordingly, the State need not perform a NOx RACT analysis for sources subject to the State's emission cap and trade program where the cap andtrade program has been approved by EPA as meeting the NOx SIP Call or CAIR NOx requirements and the State need not submit a new NOx RACT SIP for those sources. As new or updated EPA RACT guidance becomes available, however, States should consider the new information in their RACT determinations. As proposed, in cases where States have adopted controls for cement kilns consistent with the NOx SIP Call ( i. e., 30 percent reduction), the State may choose to accept the NOx SIP Call requirements as meeting the NOx RACT requirements for the 8 hour standard and need not submit a new NOx RACT SIP for those sources. In its RACT SIP submission, the State should identify the cement plants that are subject to NOx SIP Call controls and that, therefore, already meet RACT. The EPA received comments from States supporting the proposal. For the same reasons, EPA believes a State may choose to accept the Phase II NOx SIP Call control level for stationary internal combustion engines4 as meeting the NOx RACT requirements. As new or updated EPA RACT guidance becomes available for cement kilns and/ or engines, States should consider the new information in their RACT determinations. In addition, through the NOx SIP Call or other programs, ( including a SIP approved cap and trade program outside the NOx 15 SIP Call area), States may have adopted control measures for specific NOx sources that equal or exceed RACT requirements. For these sources, States may choose to submit, as part of its NOx RACT SIP revision, documentation that the previously adopted control measure meets the RACT requirement. The EPA's NOx RACT guidance ( NOx General Preamble at 57 FR 55625) encourages States to develop RACT programs that are based on " areawide average emission rates." Thus, States can submit a demonstration as part of their RACT submittal showing that the weighted average emission rate from sources in the nonattainment area subject to RACT   including sources reducing emissions to meet the NOx SIP Call requirements   meet RACT requirements. It should also be noted that this rule in no way limits States' discretion to require beyond RACT NOx reductions from any source ( including NOx SIP Call sources) in a plan to demonstrate attainment of the health based ozone standards. In certain areas, States may choose to require NOx controls based on more advanced control technologies to provide for attainment of the ozone standards. Comments: Several States expressed support for the proposed RACT submittal date of 2 years after designation for subpart 1 and 2 areas. Other commenters suggested the RACT submittal date for subpart 1 areas should be 3 years after designation in order to coincide with the attainment demonstration submittal deadline and to allow a more efficient use of resources. In addition, comments from industry suggested a 48 60 month period is needed for installation of controls, rather than the 30 month period proposed. Response: As described in an earlier comment/ response, in subpart 1 areas that do not request an extension of their attainment date, RACT is met with the control requirements associated with a demonstration that the NAAQS is attained as expeditiously as practicable. The EPA agrees with commenters that it would be more efficient, in these areas, if the date for submittal of the RACT rules were to coincide with submittal of the attainment demonstration since RACT is closely tied to the attainment demonstration. Therefore, in the final rule, the RACT submittal date for these areas is the same as the submittal date for the attainment plan, which is three3 years after designation ( June 2007). Although EPA is not setting a specific RACT rule implementation deadline for these areas, as provided in the Phase 1 rule, controls must be implemented by the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. Thus, for example, States would need to require implementation no later than May 1, 2008 in order to help areas attain the ozone standard by a June 15, 2009 5This assumes the ozone season in this example begins May 1. June 15, 2009 is tThe maximum statutory timeframe for subpart 1 areas that do not seek an extension is June 15, 2009. Since the CAA requires attainment as expeditiously as practicable, some subpart 1 nonattainment areas may have an attainment date earlier than June 15, 2009.

6In the 1990 aCAA Amendments to the CAA, Congress specifically added RACT requirements for major sources in section 182. Section 182 required the RACT rules to be implemented " as expeditiously as practicable" but no later than 30 months after the submittal deadline.

16 attainment date. 5 In some cases, the time from State rule adoption to installation of controls by sources may be relatively short; in other cases, sources may need more time. Therefore, EPA encourages States to adopt any necessary rules expeditiously ( prior to the June 2007 deadline, where possible) so that sources have more than sufficient time to install the controls prior to the start of the attainment year ozone season. For subpart 2 moderate and above areas, and areas within an Ozone Transport Region, and subpart 1 areas that request an attainment date extension beyond 5 years after designation for the 8 hour standardOTR, the final rule is consistent withsimilar theo provisions in section 182 of the CAA which require States to submit RACT rules for these areas within 24 months ( June 15, 2006) ofafter the designation. Several commenters supported this approach. Since some States may rely on submittal of SIP revisions meeting CAIR to also satisfy RACT for some sources, the final rule extends the proposed RACT submittal date of 24 months to 27 months after designation ( September 15, 2006), to be consistent with the date for submittal of the CAIR provisions ( September 10, 2006). For areas subject to the 24 7 month RACT submittal date ( June 15, 2006), EPA believes the proposed 30  month ( December 15, 2008) period for installation of controls is reasonable, given that this is the statutorily prescribed period6 ( for the areas covered under subpart 2) and based on our prior experience with States adopting and implementing RACT requirements. Subsequent to the NOx RACT SIP revisions for the 1 hour standard subject to the 30  month CAA period, EPA approved NOx RACT SIP submittals in some areas which had been exempt from the requirements, including the Dallas and Houston areas, which required implementation within 2 years from the State adoption date. The EPA recently determined that a 24  month period is adequate for stationary internal combustion engines to install low emission combustion controls ( April 21, 2004; 69 FR 21633). 7Note, since the CAA requires attainment as expeditiously as practicable, some moderate nonattainment areas may have an attainment date earlier than June 15, 2010.

17 Furthermore, EPA believes 30 months is adequate since available data support that one of the most challenging retrofit installations   application of selective catalytic reduction ( SCR) as described in the January 2004 CAIR proposal   can be completed, on average, in 21 months ( 69 FR 4617). The 60  month period ( June 15, 2011) for installation of controls suggested by some commenters was not adequately supported, i. e., there was a lack of detailed justification that more time is necessary. In addition, as described in an earlier comment/ response, EPA anticipates that many sources which applied controls due to RACT requirements with the 1 hour ozone standard will not need to install new controls for the 8 hour standard. Thus, because fewer sources will be subject to a new RACT requirement, there will be less demand for control equipment and. States and many sources face a reduced burden compared to the same CAA requirement in the 1990s. Since the ozone season ( 40 CFR part 58, Aappendix D) does not begin for many areas until May 1, however, the final rule allows sources until the beginning of the area's 2009 ozone season ( generally May 1, 2009) rather than DecemberMarch 15, 20089 to install controls. Installation of controls before the 2009 ozone season is sufficient to provide the benefits for timely attainment of the ozone standard in areas with a 2010 or later attainment date. 7 And the short delay ( generally between DecemberMarch 15, 20089 and May 1, 2009) will cause no harm since it is prior to the ozone season, which is when ozone levels are most likely to be at harmful levels. Sources meeting NOx RACT through compliance with CAIR would implement controls by January 1, 2009, as required under CAIR. For subpart 1 areas that request an attainment date extension ( beyond 5 years after designation), the final rule sets the RACT submittal and implementation dates the same as required for subpart 2 moderate and above areas, except subpart 1 areas shall submit the RACT SIP with its attainment date extension request. The EPA believes this approach is reasonable and provides equity for subpart 1 and 2 areas with attainment dates beyond five5 years after designation. 2. Reasonably Available Control Measures ( RACM) a. Background As noted in the June 2, 2003 proposed rule, Ssubpart 1 of part D includes general requirements for all designated nonattainment areas, including a requirement that a nonattainment plan provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously 8" State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Proposed Rule." 57 FR 13498 at 13560 ( April 16, 1992). " Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures ( RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas." John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. November 30, 1999. Web site: www. epa. gov/ ttn/ oarpg/ t1pgm. html. Memorandum of December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, re: " Additional Submission on RACM from States with Severe One Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs."

18 as practicable, including such reductions that may be obtained through RACT. We have also issued guidance for implementing the RACM provisions of the CAA that interprets those provisions to require a demonstration that the State has adopted all reasonable measures to meet RFP and attainment as expeditiously as practicable and thus that no additional measures that are reasonably available will advance the attainment date or contribute to RFP for the area. 8 The RACM requirement, which is set forth in section 172( c)( 1) of the CAA, applies to all nonattainment areas that are required to submit an attainment demonstration, whether covered under only subpart 1 or also subpart 2. The June 2, 2003, proposal implied that the current policies and procedures related to RACM would continue to apply for the 8 hour ozone standard. The draft regulatory text provided that for each nonattainment area required to submit an attainment demonstration under section 51 § 51.908, the State would have to submit with the attainment demonstration a SIP revision demonstrating that it has adopted all control measures necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements. b. Summary of final rule Section 51.912( d) of the final rule reflects our proposal and draft regulatory text. For each nonattainment area required to submit an attainment demonstration under section 51 § 51.908, the State must submit with the attainment demonstration a SIP revision demonstrating that it has adopted all control measures necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements. c. Comments and Rresponses Comment: One commenter asked that we clarify whether old SIP measures become RACM. Response: Under EPA's policy concerning RACM, there are no measures that are automatically deemed RACM. The determination 9" State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Proposed Rule." 57 FR 13498 at 13560 ( April 16, 1992).

19 of whether a SIP contains all RACM requires an area specific analysis that there are no additional economically and technologically feasible control measures ( alone or in conjunction with others) that will advance the attainment date. 9 Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA revise its policy permitting SIPs to exclude otherwise feasible and potentially reasonably available control measuresRACM that achieve emissions reductions in increments less than the amount necessary to advance the attainment date by a full year. The commenter believed this was an onerous standard that has stymied development of new control measures, particularly transportation control measures. The commenter believed EPA's RACM standard is especially harmful to the ability to provide SIP credit for Smart Growth land use, due to the long time frametimeframe over which land is developed and redeveloped. The commenter believes that ever increasing suburbanization of our nation inflates the growth rate in vehicle miles traveled ( VMT), thereby neutralizing improvements in vehicle emissions. The commenter claimed that a significant air quality improvement strategy for the 21st Century is compact mixed use pedestrian friendly development near frequent transit and believed that changing land use plans in this direction will benefit air quality by reducing the rate of growth in VMT and emissions. The commenter recommended that EPA be aware of this and revise its RACM standard to encourage local governments to alter their land use plans by providing a mechanism to give credit for air quality beneficial land use changes. Response: We do not believe our RACM policy has " stymied" development of new control technologies. New emission reduction technologies have surfaced and continue to surface to meet market demands resulting in part from Clean Air ActCAA requirements, which include the requirements to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to make RFP toward attainment. In addition, viable control measures that produce emissions reductions can be approved into SIPs whether or not such measures meet the definition of RACM. Our RACM policy merely interprets the ActCAA as not mandating measures that do not contribute to expeditious attainment and timely RFP. The policy does not limit the potential for States to develop any control measures they wish, including land use measures. In fact, we have prepared a separate guidance document on how areas can develop and receive 10Improving Air Quality Through Land Use Activities; Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA420 R 01 001. January 2001.

20 SIP credit for land use control measures. 10 We conclude, however, that to require areas to adopt and implement as RACM every control technology or measure that obtains a small amount of emissions reductions even if such measure would not advance the attainment date or contribute to RFP is not justified. Such a policy would be extremely burdensome to planning agencies, would detract from the effort to develop more reasonable and effective controls to meet the NAAQS, and would not be necessary to meet the statutory goal of expediting attainment. For these reasons, and because such requirement is not mandated by the statute, we are not adopting such a policy. Comment: One commenter believed that the RACM requirements for subpart 1 areas should be designed so as to not require extensive and unneeded control due to the fact that in most or all cases these controls will not be needed for the area to attain. Response: We believe the current RACM guidance, which applies to both subpart 1 and 2 areas, works to avoid extensive and unneeded controls, while ensuring that areas meet the healthbased NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. Comment: One commenter believed our RACM guidance provides only minimum requirements to ensure attainment as expeditiously as practicable and believes that every nonattainment area must be required to consider adoption of measures that have been implemented in other areas, including the South Coast of California, so as to achieve progress and attainment as expeditiously as practicable. An area should be allowed to reject such measures only upon a showing that they are not practicable due to specified unique circumstances. The commenter urged that given the importance of this issue to fair, expeditious and lawful implementation of the 8 hour standard, EPA's final 8 hour standard implementation rule must explicitly require compliance with this guidance. Response: To meet the RACM provision of the ActCAA, the State must determine as part of its attainment demonstration whether there are additional measures that are feasible that would expedite attainment. In addition, EPA's RACM policy indicates that areas should consider all candidate measures that are potentially available, including any that have been suggested 11In " State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Proposed Rule," we noted in the discussion of the RACM requirement that " In addition, any measure that a commenter indicates during the public commenter period is reasonably available for a given area should be closely reviewed by the planning agency to determine if it is in fact reasonably available for implementation in the area in light of local circumstances." The discussion of RACM in that document contains other relevant history concerning the RACM requirement. for the particular nonattainment area. 11 Although areas should consider all available measures, including those being implemented in other areas such as California, areas need adopt measures only if they are both economically and technologically feasible and will advance the attainment date. This interpretation of the section 172 requirements has recently been upheld by several courts. See, e. g., Sierra Club v. EPA, et al., 294 F. 3d 155 ( D. C. Cir. Circuit, 2002). Comment: Several commenters agreed with our proposal to require that the RACM analysis and measures be submitted within 3 years after the effective date of designation for the 8 hour NAAQS. Response: We acknowledge the support of the comments on the submission timing of the RACM requirements.

C. REGULATORY TEXT:

51.912 What requirements apply for reasonably available control technology ( RACT) and reasonably available control measures ( RACM) under the 8 hour NAAQS? ( a) What is the RACT requirement for areas subject to subpart 2 in accordance with section 51.903? ( 1) For each area subject to subpart 2 in accordance with section 51.903 of this part and classified moderate or higher, the State shall submit a SIP revision that meets the NOx and VOC RACT requirements in sections 182( b)( 2) and 182( f) of the Act. ( 2) The State shall submit the RACT SIP for each area no later than 2 years7 months after designation for the 8 hour ozone NAAQS. ( 3) The State shall provide for implementation of RACT as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the first ozone season or portion thereof which occurs 30 months after the RACT SIP is due. ( b) How do the RACT provisions apply to areas required to submit a RACT SIP? ( 1) VOCVolatile organic compounds and NOxNOx are to be considered separately for purposes of determining whether a source is a major stationary source as defined in section 302 of the Act. ( 2) States may use current EPA guidance to assist in making RACT determinations and certifications that previously required RACT controls represent RACT for 8 hour implementation purposes. As new or updated EPA RACT guidance becomes available, States shall consider the new information in their RACT determinations or certifications. ( c) What is the RACT requirement for areas subject only to subpart 1 pursuant to section 51.902( b)? Areas subject only to subpart 1 pursuant to section 51.902( b) are subject to the RACT requirement specified in section 172( c)( 1) of the Act. ( 1) For an area that requests an attainment date 5 years or less after designation for the 8 hour NAAQS, the State shall meet the RACT requirement by submitting an attainment demonstration SIP demonstrating that the area has adopted all control measures necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable. ( 2) For an area that requests an attainment date more than 5 years after designation for the 8 hour NAAQS, the State shall submit a SIP consistent with the requirements of section 51.912( a) and ( b) except the State shall submit the RACT SIP for each area with its attainment date extension request. ( d) What is the Reasonably Available Control Measures ( RACM) requirement for areas designated nonattainment for the 8 hour NAAQS? For each nonattainment area required to submit an attainment demonstration under section 51.908, the State shall submit with the attainment demonstration a SIP revision demonstrating that it has adopted all RACM necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements.


24734 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2003 / Notices No. 533 issued May 8, 1991, 56 FR 23108, May 20, 1991), the deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. Reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice. The Commission directs, pursuant to Section 4.34( b) of the Regulations ( see Order No. 533 issued May 8, 1991, 56 FR 23108, May 20, 1991) that all comments, recommendations, terms and conditions and prescriptions concerning the application be filed with the Commission within 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments must be filed with the Commission within 105 days from the date of this notice. All documents ( original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001( a)( 1)( iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( http:// www. ferc. gov) under the `` eFiling'' link. k. This application has been accepted, and is ready for environmental analysis at this time. l. The project consists of the following existing facilities: ( 1) A right earthen dam, 2,570 feet long and a left earthen dam 2,130 feet long, separated by a 138 foot long gated spillway section with a crest elevation of 1157.0 feet NGVD; ( 2) a 1,900 acre reservoir with a normal water surface elevation of 1183.48 feet NGVD; ( 3) a powerhouse containing 3 vertical Kaplan turbines each connected to generator units for a total installed capacity of 15,000 kW; and ( 4) appurtenant facilities. The average annual energy generation is 60,727,590 kWh. The dam and existing project facilities are owned by the applicant. m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http:// www. ferc. gov using the `` FERRIS'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ ferc. gov or tollfree at 1   866   208   3676, or for TTY, ( 202) 502   8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. Register online at http:// www. ferc. gov/ esubscribenow. htm to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. Anyone may obtain an extension of time for these deadlines from the Commission only upon a showing of good cause or extraordinary circumstances in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2008. All filings must: ( 1) Bear in all capital letters the title `` COMMENTS'', `` REPLY COMMENTS'', `` RECOMMENDATIONS,'' `` TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or `` PRESCRIPTIONS;'' ( 2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; ( 3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and ( 4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34( b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34( b), and 385.2010. n. Procedures schedule: The Commission staff proposes to issue one Environmental Assessment ( EA) rather than issuing a draft and final EA. Staff intends to allow at least 30 days for entities to comment on the EA, and will take into consideration all comments received on the EA before final action is taken on the license application. If any person or organization objects to the staff proposed alternative procedure, they should file comments as stipulated in item k above, briefly explaining the basis for their objection. The application will be processed according to the following schedule, but revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate:

Issue Notice of availability of EA October 2003. Ready for Commission decision on the application January 2004.

Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [ FR Doc. 03   11505 Filed 5   7   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717   01   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OW   2003   0027, FRL   7496   3]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; State Water Quality Program Management Resource Analysis 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 EPA is planning to submit the following continuing Information Collection Request ( ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB): State Water Quality Program Management Resource Analysis, ICR Number: 1945.02, OMB Control Number: 2040   0216, Current Expiration Date: September 30, 2003. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 7, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Ephremides, Resources Management and Evaluation Staff, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water, Mail Code: 4201M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 202) 564   0643; fax number: ( 202) 501   2399; email address: ephremides. jane@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OW   2003   0027, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 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 VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 13 May 07, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08MYN1. SGM 08MYN1 24735 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2003 / Notices Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is ( 202) 566   2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 60 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by email to: owdocket epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, Mail Code: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are State governments. Title: State Water Quality Program Management Resource Analysis ( OMB Control Number 2040   0216; EPA ICR Number 1945.02 expiring 09/ 30/ 2003. Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), in partnership with States, is conducting the State Water Quality Management Resource Analysis ( Gap Analysis) to help enumerate current and future funding needs and to help identify innovative strategies for reducing resource gaps. To gather preliminary information in a short time frame, the Gap Analysis was originally divided into two phases. Phase I consisted of the development of an initial, national estimate of the resource gap faced by water quality management programs to provide a general idea of the magnitude of the resource gap faced by States. Phase II of the Gap Analysis involved developing a detailed, activity based workload model to provide a common framework and consistent methodology for States and EPA to estimate the cost to the States to meet the objectives of the Clean Water Act ( CWA) over the next five years. In order to complete the model, EPA's Office of Wastewater Management ( OWM) gathered data from 21 States on current and future resources needed for water quality management activities. Phase III of the Gap Analysis will build upon the information collected in Phase II, which used an estimate of current State expenditures on water quality activities. Under Phase III, States will complete a portion of the Phase II modules to update the needs numbers to reflect regulatory changes or changes to their programs. In addition, States will be asked to complete an activity based model for current expenditures that mirrors the model for needs. This baseline spending data will allow the States and EPA to more accurately estimate the gap between expenditures and needed resources. Phase III of the Gap Analysis is a onetime collection effort by OWM, and responses to this information collection request ( ICR) are voluntary. The collection is necessary to develop an estimate of the gap in resources facing water quality management programs, both for individual States and the nation. 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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. EPA is asking States to provide estimates of current spending and resource needs for water quality management program activities. EPA will provide the States with integrated modules ( the Gap Analysis model) designed to capture current expenditures, current needs, and future needs to perform all activities associated with the development, planning, coordination, management, and implementation of State water quality management programs. Each module contains lists of activities in each of the program areas. The modules will be integrated so that estimates for various program areas can be combined into a total estimate across all program areas. To reduce the burden of the collection, the Gap Analysis model is designed to maximize State flexibility. It contains default values developed for the national estimate of the resource needs faced by State water quality management programs. Respondents can accept the default values or enter an appropriate value for their State. If the default value is altered, the change will cascade throughout the rest of the module. The EPA would like to solicit comments to: ( i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; ( ii) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ( iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ( iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e. g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Burden Statement: The total number of respondents for this ICR is estimated to be twenty State agencies. The total number of responses for each respondent is one, which averages to 0.33 responses per respondent annually. EPA estimates the burden to be $ 1,893 and 61 hours per respondent for each respondent that chooses to submit information. For the three year ICR period, the average annual respondent burden and cost to States and EPA is estimated at 1,353 hours and $ 46,068. The annual burden and cost to State governments is estimated at 1,207 hours and $ 37,648. No capital costs, recordkeeping burden, or operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs are associated with this ICR. State labor costs are estimated by applying an hourly labor rate to the burden hour estimates. For purposes of calculating State labor costs, EPA assumed a single average hourly wage rate of $ 31.20 per hour for all State activities, which is consistent with other recent OWM ICR submittals. This rate is based on the average hourly wage for State employees, as determined by the VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 13 May 07, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08MYN1. SGM 08MYN1 24736 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2003 / Notices U. S. Department of Labor, and includes benefits. As in previous ICRs, 50 percent overhead costs were added to the average State rate. 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; 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.

Dated: May 1, 2003. James A. Hanlon, Director, Office of Wastewater Management. [ FR Doc. 03   11475 Filed 5   7   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OAR   2003   0042   FRL   7495   8]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Information Requirements for Importation of Nonconforming Vehicles; Information Requirements for Importation of Nonconforming Nonroad Compression Ignition ( CI) and Small Spark Ignition ( SI) Engines AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit the following proposed and/ or continuing Information Collection Request ( ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB): Information Requirements for Importation of Nonconforming Vehicles, OMB Control Number 2060   0095, expiration date 08/ 31/ 03; Information Requirements for Nonconforming Nonroad Compression Ignition ( CI) and Small Spark Ignition ( SI) Engines, OMB Control Number 2060   0294, expiration date 08/ 31/ 03. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 7, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Chestine Payton, Certification and Compliance Division, Outreach and Planning Group, 6405J, telephone ( 202) 564   9240, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, telefax ( 202) 565   2057, and email payton. chestine@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OAR   2003   0042, which is available for public viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 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 ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566   1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. You may use EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by email to air and r docket@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, OAR, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to www. epa. gov./ edocket. Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action include individuals and businesses ( including Independent Commercial Importers) importing on and off road motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, or nonroad engines, including nonroad engines incorporated into nonroad equipment or nonroad vehicles. Title: Information Requirements for Importation of Nonconforming Vehicles, OMB # 2060   0095, expiring 08/ 31/ 03; Information Requirements for Nonconforming Nonroad Compression Ignition ( CI) and Small Spark Ignition ( SI) Engines, OMB # 2060   0294, expiring 08/ 31/ 03. Abstract: Individuals and businesses importing on and off road motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, or nonroad engines, including nonroad engines incorporated into nonroad equipment or nonroad vehicles report and keep records of vehicle importations, request prior approval for vehicle importations, or request final admission for vehicles conditionally imported into the U. S. The collection of this information is mandatory in order to ensure compliance of nonconforming vehicles with Federal emissions requirements. Joint EPA and Customs regulations at 40 CFR 85.1501 et seq., 89.601 et seq., 90.601 et seq., and 19 CFR 12.73 and 12.74 promulgated under the authority of Clean Air Act sections 203 and 208 give authority for the collection of information. This authority was extended to nonroad engines under section 213( d). The information is used by program personnel to ensure that all Federal emission requirements concerning imported nonconforming motor vehicles and nonroad engines are met. Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B   Confidentiality of Business Information ( see CFR part 2), and the public is not permitted access to information containing personal or organizational identifiers. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 13 May 07, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08MYN1. SGM 08MYN1


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 218-219]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30846]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-34-000]

Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC, Fowler
Ridge III Wind Farm LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm, LLC, Meadow Lake Wind
Farm II LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm III LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm IV
LLC v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on December 23, 2014, pursuant to section 206 of
the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and Rule 206 of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge II
Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge III Wind Farm LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm,
LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm II LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm III LLC, and
Meadow Lake Wind Farm IV LLC (Complainants), filed a formal complaint
against Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Respondent), alleging
that the provisions contained in the 138 kV Transmission Upgrade
Agreement between the Complainants and the Respondent is unjust,
unreasonable and unduly discriminatory or preferential, as more fully
explained in the complaint.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on

the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
    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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    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 5 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 electronic 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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 12, 2015.

    Dated: December 29, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30846 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20073-20074]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31476; Amdt. No. 4051]

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective April 5, 2023. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of April 5, 2023.

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

For Examination

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

Availability

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg. 26, Room 217,
Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

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

The Rule

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

number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 3, 2023.
Thomas J Nichols,
Aviation Safety, Flight Standards Service, Manager, Standards Section,
Flight Procedures & Airspace Group, Flight Technologies & Procedures
Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

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

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

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

Effective 20 April 2023

Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers, AR, KXNA, ILS OR LOC RWY 16, Amdt
4A, CANCELED
Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers, AR, KXNA, ILS OR LOC RWY 16L, Orig
Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers, AR, KXNA, ILS OR LOC RWY 34, Amdt
4A, CANCELED
Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers, AR, KXNA, ILS OR LOC RWY 34R, Orig
Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers, AR, KXNA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt
4A, CANCELED
Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers, AR, KXNA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16L, Orig
Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers, AR, KXNA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt
2A, CANCELED
Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers, AR, KXNA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34R, Orig
Fayetteville/Springdale/Rogers, AR, KXNA, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 5
St Petersburg-Clearwater, FL, KPIE, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, ILS RWY 18
(SA CAT I), ILS RWY 18 (SA CAT II), Amdt 1
Rome, GA, KRMG, ILS OR LOC RWY 1, Amdt 2
Rome, GA, KRMG, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 2
Rome, GA, KRMG, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 2
Rome, GA, KRMG, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 2
Rome, GA, KRMG, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 2
Rome, GA, KRMG, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5
Clinton, IA, KCWI, ILS OR LOC RWY 3, Amdt 6
Paris, ID, 1U7, BEAR LAKE ONE, GRAPHIC DP
Paris, ID, 1U7, FIROS ONE, GRAPHIC DP
Rexburg, ID, KRXE, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 2
Chicago, IL, KMDW, ILS OR LOC RWY 31C, Amdt 3A
Chicago, IL, KMDW, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 22L, Amdt 2A
Chicago, IL, KMDW, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 31C, Amdt 4A
Dodge City, KS, KDDC, VOR RWY 32, Amdt 5D
Hammond, LA, KHDC, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig
Hammond, LA, KHDC, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1C
Fertile, MN, D14, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig
Fertile, MN, D14, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig
Fertile, MN, D14, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Brookhaven, MS, 1R7, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1
Natchez, MS, KHEZ, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A
Manteo, NC, KMQI, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-D
Manteo, NC, KMQI, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-B
Manteo, NC, KMQI, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-C
Grants, NM, KGNT, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Christmas Valley, OR, 62S, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Christmas Valley, OR, 62S, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Commerce, TX, 2F7, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Jackson, WY, KJAC, ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 19, Amdt 2
Jackson, WY, KJAC, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 19, Amdt 3

[FR Doc. 2023-07049 Filed 4-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P